- This topic has 963 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
WJ,
Many minds, both the powerful and the meek, have pondered why Thomas said what he said.
It has been a cunundrum for millieniums because it doesn't appear to make sense.
The Scriptures says that Revelation of the Gospel is not given to all at one time but to a few at diverse times.
Is this not a revelation: Thomas was seeing God (The father) in his Lord – Just as Jesus had told him “If you see me then you have seen the Father also' – “My Lord Jesus and my Father God”.
Now, I can well understand that you do not wish to believe this and it is your right to do as you wish – after all you do have FREE WILL. But with that Free Will you have responsibility – and if you continue to play dumb with the exposition of God's Word then you will also have to bear the punishment that comes with the 'IRRESPONSIBILITY' that you are showing here.
If, by what you are denying causes another to also deny God's word then it will be all the more harder for you on the judgement day!
Let me say this then, “Better you say nothing than to try and mislead any of these young ones here”
This is the word of the Spirit.
Quote (JustAskin @ Feb. 15 2010,15:48) It has been a cunundrum for millieniums because it doesn't appear to make sense.
JAIt doesn't make sense to you and every other ant-trinitarian.
It is a conundrum to you but not to the Trinitarian!
WJ
Quote (JustAskin @ Feb. 15 2010,15:48) Is this not a revelation: Thomas was seeing God (The father) in his Lord – Just as Jesus had told him “If you see me then you have seen the Father also' – “My Lord Jesus and my Father God”.
No, it doesn't say “Thomas said UNTO THEM“, it clearly says “Thomas said “UNTO HIM“, his words were directed to Jesus!John under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit could have made what you say clear, but he did not write it that way did he?
You can turn your ears and eyes from the clear and simple reading of the text if you like.
That also is your free choice!
WJ
Quote (JustAskin @ Feb. 15 2010,15:48) Let me say this then, “Better you say nothing than to try and mislead any of these young ones here” This is the word of the Spirit.
The young ones would read it exactly the way we are without all the special pleading and inferrence!WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 16 2010,07:57) Quote (JustAskin @ Feb. 15 2010,15:48) Is this not a revelation: Thomas was seeing God (The father) in his Lord – Just as Jesus had told him “If you see me then you have seen the Father also' – “My Lord Jesus and my Father God”.
No, it doesn't say “Thomas said UNTO THEM“, it clearly says “Thomas said “UNTO HIM“, his words were directed to Jesus!John under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit could have made what you say clear, but he did not write it that way did he?
You can turn your ears and eyes from the clear and simple reading of the text if you like.
That also is your free choice!
WJ
When you divorce Sacred Written Tradition from Sacred Oral Tradition you get this type of subjective argumentation. The product: DOUBTListen to St. Basil the Great
“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).
Hi CA,
Mystery Babylon claims to hold the truth?
No she shed simplicity and grasped gnosticism and greek philosophyQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 16 2010,07:57) Quote (JustAskin @ Feb. 15 2010,15:48) Is this not a revelation: Thomas was seeing God (The father) in his Lord – Just as Jesus had told him “If you see me then you have seen the Father also' – “My Lord Jesus and my Father God”.
No, it doesn't say “Thomas said UNTO THEM“, it clearly says “Thomas said “UNTO HIM“, his words were directed to Jesus!John under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit could have made what you say clear, but he did not write it that way did he?
You can turn your ears and eyes from the clear and simple reading of the text if you like.
That also is your free choice!
WJ
Keith,Exactly brother! Thomas addressed His words to “HIM” (Jesus).
thinker
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 16 2010,08:12) Hi CA,
Mystery Babylon claims to hold the truth?
No she shed simplicity and grasped gnosticism and greek philosophy
Nick is all babble and no substance!thinker
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 15 2010,16:05) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 16 2010,07:57) Quote (JustAskin @ Feb. 15 2010,15:48) Is this not a revelation: Thomas was seeing God (The father) in his Lord – Just as Jesus had told him “If you see me then you have seen the Father also' – “My Lord Jesus and my Father God”.
No, it doesn't say “Thomas said UNTO THEM“, it clearly says “Thomas said “UNTO HIM“, his words were directed to Jesus!John under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit could have made what you say clear, but he did not write it that way did he?
You can turn your ears and eyes from the clear and simple reading of the text if you like.
That also is your free choice!
WJ
When you divorce Sacred Written Tradition from Sacred Oral Tradition you get this type of subjective argumentation. The product: DOUBTListen to St. Basil the Great
“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).
CANice to have you back!
However, what you are saying is that in the history of the RCC there has never been any disagreements in oral traditions or that there are none now!
Can you prove that every Priest and every Pope agreed in all things that were not of the Cannon passed down as oral traditions?
If you cannot demonstrate that there were or are never divisions in the ranks then your point about protestant churchs is simply a circular argument!
Blessings WJ
Quote (JustAskin @ Feb. 16 2010,07:48) WJ, Many minds, both the powerful and the meek, have pondered why Thomas said what he said.
It has been a cunundrum for millieniums because it doesn't appear to make sense.
The Scriptures says that Revelation of the Gospel is not given to all at one time but to a few at diverse times.
Is this not a revelation: Thomas was seeing God (The father) in his Lord – Just as Jesus had told him “If you see me then you have seen the Father also' – “My Lord Jesus and my Father God”.
Now, I can well understand that you do not wish to believe this and it is your right to do as you wish – after all you do have FREE WILL. But with that Free Will you have responsibility – and if you continue to play dumb with the exposition of God's Word then you will also have to bear the punishment that comes with the 'IRRESPONSIBILITY' that you are showing here.
If, by what you are denying causes another to also deny God's word then it will be all the more harder for you on the judgement day!
Let me say this then, “Better you say nothing than to try and mislead any of these young ones here”
This is the word of the Spirit.
Nothing but Rationalistic babble!
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 16 2010,08:13) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 16 2010,07:57) Quote (JustAskin @ Feb. 15 2010,15:48) Is this not a revelation: Thomas was seeing God (The father) in his Lord – Just as Jesus had told him “If you see me then you have seen the Father also' – “My Lord Jesus and my Father God”.
No, it doesn't say “Thomas said UNTO THEM“, it clearly says “Thomas said “UNTO HIM“, his words were directed to Jesus!John under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit could have made what you say clear, but he did not write it that way did he?
You can turn your ears and eyes from the clear and simple reading of the text if you like.
That also is your free choice!
WJ
Keith,Exactly brother! Thomas addressed His words to “HIM” (Jesus).
thinker
Hi TT,
Indeed Jesus also addressed Peter when he rebuked the satan in him and addressed the man in the tombs who harboured a legion of demons.God was in the vessel of Jesus.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 16 2010,08:36) Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 16 2010,08:13) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 16 2010,07:57) Quote (JustAskin @ Feb. 15 2010,15:48) Is this not a revelation: Thomas was seeing God (The father) in his Lord – Just as Jesus had told him “If you see me then you have seen the Father also' – “My Lord Jesus and my Father God”.
No, it doesn't say “Thomas said UNTO THEM“, it clearly says “Thomas said “UNTO HIM“, his words were directed to Jesus!John under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit could have made what you say clear, but he did not write it that way did he?
You can turn your ears and eyes from the clear and simple reading of the text if you like.
That also is your free choice!
WJ
Keith,Exactly brother! Thomas addressed His words to “HIM” (Jesus).
thinker
Hi TT,
Indeed Jesus also addressed Peter when he rebuked the satan in him and addressed the man in the tombs who harboured a legion of demons.God was in the vessel of Jesus.
Nick,
Jesus did not say “my satan” or “the satan of me.” Thomas addressed Jesus saying, “My Lord and my God” or “the Lord of me and the God of me.”
Are Thomas' words so simple that they are too complex for you?
thinker
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 16 2010,08:17) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 15 2010,16:05) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 16 2010,07:57) Quote (JustAskin @ Feb. 15 2010,15:48) Is this not a revelation: Thomas was seeing God (The father) in his Lord – Just as Jesus had told him “If you see me then you have seen the Father also' – “My Lord Jesus and my Father God”.
No, it doesn't say “Thomas said UNTO THEM“, it clearly says “Thomas said “UNTO HIM“, his words were directed to Jesus!John under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit could have made what you say clear, but he did not write it that way did he?
You can turn your ears and eyes from the clear and simple reading of the text if you like.
That also is your free choice!
WJ
When you divorce Sacred Written Tradition from Sacred Oral Tradition you get this type of subjective argumentation. The product: DOUBTListen to St. Basil the Great
“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).
CANice to have you back!
However, what you are saying is that in the history of the RCC their has never been any disagreements in oral traditions or that there are none now!
Can you prove that every Priest and every Pope agreed in all things that were not of the Cannon passed down as oral traditions?
If you cannot demonstrate that there were or are never divisions in the ranks then your point about protestant churchs is simply a circular argument!
Blessings WJ
WJ,Great to talk to you again!
First you have to understand what we claim to believe. So let me help. We believe that the Church once the church has bound infallible dogma upon the faithful, it cannot and will never change. (Eating meat on Friday and such is a pastoral discipline and not infallible dogma. This would be in the same category as married priests…which we have in the East)
Listen to the following by Ken Rammage:
“John Henry Cardinal Newman, the great nineteenth-century Catholic convert, wrote in the introduction to his classic work, An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine, “. . . the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.” As I began a serious study of my Catholic faith in 1991, the catholicity of the early Church overwhelmed me. Not just a quote from Clement here, and a line from Augustine there, amid contradicting statements from other early Fathers.
What I found was an amazing unanimity on the central doctrines of the faith. Not that the early Fathers agreed on every point-there were development of doctrine and theological controversies throughout Christian history. But what was the Church like during the first four centuries of Christianity?
Ordained bishops headed the local churches, with the bishop of Rome (Peter's successor) having primacy over the other bishops; the Church celebrated the Mass and considered it a representation of Christ's once-for-all sacrifice on the cross; the Church honored Mary, said prayers for the dead, and believed in final purification after death which we now call purgatory. [The following citations are from St. Augustine (paragraph numbers from Jurgens'Faith of the Early Fathers ): primacy of the Bishop of Rome: 1418, 1507, 1862; Mass as a sacrifice: 1424, 1844, 1977; honoring Mary: 1518, 1643, 1644, 1794, 1974(d); prayers for the dead: 1513, 1516, 1780, 1930, 1934; Purgatory: 1467, 1544, 1776, 1920.] I did not find the early Fathers teaching salvation by faith alone, the Bible as the sole rule of faith, or the ” Pre-tribulational Rapture.”
Finally, my fourth proposition is:
The beliefs, government, and worship of early Christianity were clearly Catholic and not Protestant.
Don't worry: you don't have to take my word for these historical claims. You can verify them for yourself. If you have several hundred dollars to spare, or a good library nearby, you can use the 38-volume The Early Church Fathers (Hendrickson). For only $45, you can get Jurgens' three-volume Faith of the Early Fathers (Liturgical Press). If all you can afford is $10, get Early Christian Writings (Penguin Classics). Be careful! As Cardinal Newman also said in his essay, “To be deep into history is to cease to be Protestant.”
If you believe you can disprove any of the above propositions, I will review your information prayerfully. If I'm convinced your arguments are correct, I will become a Protestant. If you cannot disprove at least one of these points, obedience to Christ will demand I remain Catholic. You might reflect on what obedience requires of you.
If you think these questions about the nature of the Church are unimportant, I ask you to reconsider. Either Christ did or did not establish a visible Church, with bishops, priests, and deacons. If he did not, the claims of the Catholic Church are not just wrong-but arrogant and blasphemous. But if Christ did establish such a Church, then “. . . the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). Membership is not optional-Christ commands that you join his visible body.”
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 15 2010,16:49) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 16 2010,08:17) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 15 2010,16:05) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 16 2010,07:57) Quote (JustAskin @ Feb. 15 2010,15:48) Is this not a revelation: Thomas was seeing God (The father) in his Lord – Just as Jesus had told him “If you see me then you have seen the Father also' – “My Lord Jesus and my Father God”.
No, it doesn't say “Thomas said UNTO THEM“, it clearly says “Thomas said “UNTO HIM“, his words were directed to Jesus!John under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit could have made what you say clear, but he did not write it that way did he?
You can turn your ears and eyes from the clear and simple reading of the text if you like.
That also is your free choice!
WJ
When you divorce Sacred Written Tradition from Sacred Oral Tradition you get this type of subjective argumentation. The product: DOUBTListen to St. Basil the Great
“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).
CANice to have you back!
However, what you are saying is that in the history of the RCC their has never been any disagreements in oral traditions or that there are none now!
Can you prove that every Priest and every Pope agreed in all things that were not of the Cannon passed down as oral traditions?
If you cannot demonstrate that there were or are never divisions in the ranks then your point about protestant churchs is simply a circular argument!
Blessings WJ
WJ,Great to talk to you again!
First you have to understand what we claim to believe. So let me help. We believe that the Church once the church has bound infallible dogma upon the faithful, it cannot and will never change. (Eating meat on Friday and such is a pastoral discipline and not infallible dogma. This would be in the same category as married priests…which we have in the East)
Listen to the following by Ken Rammage:
“John Henry Cardinal Newman, the great nineteenth-century Catholic convert, wrote in the introduction to his classic work, An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine, “. . . the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.” As I began a serious study of my Catholic faith in 1991, the catholicity of the early Church overwhelmed me. Not just a quote from Clement here, and a line from Augustine there, amid contradicting statements from other early Fathers.
What I found was an amazing unanimity on the central doctrines of the faith. Not that the early Fathers agreed on every point-there were development of doctrine and theological controversies throughout Christian history. But what was the Church like during the first four centuries of Christianity?
Ordained bishops headed the local churches, with the bishop of Rome (Peter's successor) having primacy over the other bishops; the Church celebrated the Mass and considered it a representation of Christ's once-for-all sacrifice on the cross; the Church honored Mary, said prayers for the dead, and believed in final purification after death which we now call purgatory. [The following citations are from St. Augustine (paragraph numbers from Jurgens'Faith of the Early Fathers ): primacy of the Bishop of Rome: 1418, 1507, 1862; Mass as a sacrifice: 1424, 1844, 1977; honoring Mary: 1518, 1643, 1644, 1794, 1974(d); prayers for the dead: 1513, 1516, 1780, 1930, 1934; Purgatory: 1467, 1544, 1776, 1920.] I did not find the early Fathers teaching salvation by faith alone, the Bible as the sole rule of faith, or the ” Pre-tribulational Rapture.”
Finally, my fourth proposition is:
The beliefs, government, and worship of early Christianity were clearly Catholic and not Protestant.
Don't worry: you don't have to take my word for these historical claims. You can verify them for yourself. If you have several hundred dollars to spare, or a good library nearby, you can use the 38-volume The Early Church Fathers (Hendrickson). For only $45, you can get Jurgens' three-volume Faith of the Early Fathers (Liturgical Press). If all you can afford is $10, get Early Christian Writings (Penguin Classics). Be careful! As Cardinal Newman also said in his essay, “To be deep into history is to cease to be Protestant.”
If you believe you can disprove any of the above propositions, I will review your information prayerfully. If I'm convinced your arguments are correct, I will become a Protestant. If you cannot disprove at least one of these points, obedience to Christ will demand I remain Catholic. You might reflect on what obedience requires of you.
If you think these questions about the nature of the Church are unimportant, I ask you to reconsider. Either Christ did or did not establish a visible Church, with bishops, priests, and deacons. If he did not, the claims of the Catholic Church are not just wrong-but arrogant and blasphemous. But if Christ did establish such a Church, then “. . . the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). Membership is not optional-Christ commands that you join his visible body.”
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 15 2010,16:49) What I found was an amazing unanimity on the central doctrines of the faith.
Hi CAThis is exactly my point! The majority of the Protestant churchs agree on the basic tenants of the faith.
Like I said, if you cannot demonstrate “absolute infallability” and total agreement among the CC Priest and Popes then the claim that you make against the Protestants is circular!
History as you know is not unambiguous! Traditions can also be misinterpreted and corrupted by false teachers and prophets. Can you show me that the CC has never been divided over traditions!
Blessings WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 16 2010,09:09) CatholicApologist,Feb. wrote:[quote=WorshippingJesus,Feb. 16 2010,08:17]
CatholicApologist,Feb. wrote:[quote=WorshippingJesus,Feb. 16 2010,07:57]
JustAskin,Feb. wrote:Hi CA
This is exactly my point! The majority of the Protestant churchs agree on the basic tenants of the faith.
Like I said, if you cannot demonstrate “absolute infallability” and total agreement among the CC Priest and Popes then the claim that you make against the Protestants is circular!
History as you know is not unambiguous! Traditions can also be misinterpreted and corrupted by false teachers and prophets. Can you show me that the CC has never been divided over traditions!
Blessings WJ
Whoa! Not at all.How in the world can you compare the minimalist “agreement” of Protestants who agree on a few generalized doctrines to the finely detailed dogmatic agreement of the Catholic church?
Your agreement is not at all like the agreement reached at the councils. Not at all. (If anyone confesses A or B, let him be anathema, etc.)
How could it possible be circular when there has NEVER been disagreement on the basis of infallible dogma? Take Luther, not even his followers agree with him or “say the same thing” as he said. What a crock!
You guys look to individual men like Luther, Wesley, Calvin, Parham, Mather, etc. We look to Jesus and no one individual besides Him. We look to His body the Church.
So what you are seeing just isn't there.
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 15 2010,16:49) the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). Membership is not optional-Christ commands that you join his visible body.”
CAI am not sure where that verse is at, can you show me where Jesus said we must be part of a “visible” organization that is called the Roman Catholic Church?
Paul speaks of the Body of Christ being made up of those who have been baptised into his body by drinking of the “One Spirit” which is the Spirit of God.
Unless you can say that no one can have the Spirit apart from the Catholic Church then your point is a moot point is it not?
Blessings WJ
WJ,
I know you are already condemed.You seek only to annoy, frustrate and try to mislead others.
I have said this from the beginning.
It is no surprise to me. I jnw that you doubt yourself but cannot admit it so convince yourself to continue in on your course towards destruction.
Well, so be it. It is, as you say, your Free Will.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 16 2010,09:44) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 15 2010,16:49) the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). Membership is not optional-Christ commands that you join his visible body.”
CAI am not sure where that verse is at, can you show me where Jesus said we must be part of a “visible” organization that is called the Roman Catholic Church?
Paul speaks of the Body of Christ being made up of those who have been baptised into his body by drinking of the “One Spirit” which is the Spirit of God.
Unless you can say that no one can have the Spirit apart from the Catholic Church then your point is a moot point is it not?
Blessings WJ
Where's that verse? How very Protestant of you.While the visibility of the Church is self-evident and replete throughout the Bible, I'm not going to rangle with you over the meaning of passages such as Luke 10:16 and such because you are coming to the text with presuppositions of what you think the church is. (isogesis?)
Actually the term “body of Christ” denotes corporal/physical reality. It isn't referred to as the “soul of Christ” is it? Hmm…
Experience even teaches you that the body of Christ is a visible thing. It was organized by Jesus and His apostles. It has bishops and deacons and everything that you read about in the Bible…and yet…you can't seem to see the visible nature of the Church.
Astounding.
Protestants have a hard time fulfilling Matt. 18 “take it to the church.” Why? Because the guy in the dispute who doesn't like the outcome either:
A. finds another “church” that will agree with him
or
B. goes and starts his own
A Catholic that excommunicates himself doesn't have that luxury.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
