[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
So you’re saying that once Jesus ascended to heaven all of His teaching was complete?[/quote]
Yes. It was the job of the Apostles to spread His Word.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Rofl. Aren’t there some floors to roll around on, or some snakes to handle, rather than obsess over Catholics?
Edit: Whew, this Jay fella reminds me of one of those red-faced, sweaty, vein popping, wild-eyed, late night ‘preachers’ on an off-the-beaten-path cable channel unraveling revelation, computer chips as the sign of the beast, and the very identity of ‘the beast’ itself, for his audience. Order now, and you too can find out how events in Africa and China portend the end times! And how bible code reveals the Vatican’s role in it all! [/quote]
Lol, not quite.
I’m not preaching, either. Quite the opposite. Christ’s teachings are very simple, and don’t need much preaching at all.
If you’d go back and read what I’ve posted, you’d see I much prefer to give to the needy rather than the church. And I’m not selling anything.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
it’s a proper title gave to him by the faithful informally at the time because he’s our spiritual father[/quote]
Again. My point exactly. How could Christ’s faithful followers completely ignore His direct order to “call no man father”?[/quote]
Why did Jesus ignore his own ‘direct order’ when he called Abraham “father”?[/quote]
I’ve been looking for this, but I can’t seem to find it. Got a specific passage?[/quote]
Luke 16:24,30[/quote]
He was telling a parable, and the rich man was calling Abraham father.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
No, the Catholics stamped out the true Christian Church, not its own faithful. If you were ok with the church mixing in any old customs and myths from other religions as they saw fit, you were cool.
You did read the part where all of the Epistles were written to churches that were loyal to Paul?
The Revelation was written by a real Apostle.[/quote]
Documentation please.[/quote]
Oh, sure! I have my certificate of authenticity right here!
Joking.
Most of the early church leadership, some of whom knew St. John the Apostle, asserted that it was he who wrote it.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:So you’re saying that once Jesus ascended to heaven all of His teaching was complete?[/quote]Yes. It was the job of the Apostles to spread His Word.[/quote]How would you like to be a hip n groovy dood and explain to me then what the Lord means in the 16th of chapter of John where I have reverently and accurately redacted his remarks as the following: [quote]<<< But now I am going to Him who sent Me <<<>>> it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you <<<>>> I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.[/quote] Is it just me or is Jesus here saying that He is leaving. As in hasta la vista baybee, au revoir, adios, aloha, catch ya later, goodbye. AFTER which the Spirit is to come and teach them ALL TRUTH. That just does so appear to imply that they ain’t got it all yet and they are better off with Him leaving so He can send the Spirit who will glorify Jesus by ALLLLL this tremendous new teaching He will bring. You don’t see that? I’m really not angry at anybody, but I have a lot goin on today.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:I’ve been looking for this, but I can’t seem to find it. Got a specific passage?[/quote]Luke 16:24,30[/quote]Ya gotta stop runnin off like this Chris. I already brought that passage.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
He didn’t claim Abraham as His own father.[/quote]
Call no man father. [/quote]
Ah, I see. So, you’re not even supposed to call someone else’s father their father or use father to denote an ancestor?
I never suggested that. I said that it was one of the ways that the Catholic church ignored the teachings of Christ.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Christ’s teachings are very simple, and don’t need much preaching at all.[/quote]
Really? Then what about first strike nuclear war?
What about condoms?
What about baptism?
What about the fact that you just said that we don’t need much preaching at all? DIdn’t Jesus say to go make disciples of all nations to the Apostles?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
it’s a proper title gave to him by the faithful informally at the time because he’s our spiritual father[/quote]
Again. My point exactly. How could Christ’s faithful followers completely ignore His direct order to “call no man father”?[/quote]
Why did Jesus ignore his own ‘direct order’ when he called Abraham “father”?[/quote]
I’ve been looking for this, but I can’t seem to find it. Got a specific passage?[/quote]
Luke 16:24,30[/quote]
He was telling a parable, and the rich man was calling Abraham father.[/quote]
If we read call no man father literally like you do…Jesus just called Abraham father. The scripture doesn’t say call no man father except in parables…
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
No, the Catholics stamped out the true Christian Church, not its own faithful. If you were ok with the church mixing in any old customs and myths from other religions as they saw fit, you were cool.
You did read the part where all of the Epistles were written to churches that were loyal to Paul?
The Revelation was written by a real Apostle.[/quote]
Documentation please.[/quote]
Oh, sure! I have my certificate of authenticity right here!
Joking.
Most of the early church leadership, some of whom knew St. John the Apostle, asserted that it was he who wrote it.[/quote]
Please, name the documentation you are referring to and I was talking about the first statement, the last statement is asserted by the Catholic Church established by Jesus Christ himself.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
He didn’t claim Abraham as His own father.[/quote]
Call no man father. [/quote]
Ah, I see. So, you’re not even supposed to call someone else’s father their father or use father to denote an ancestor?
I never suggested that. I said that it was one of the ways that the Catholic church ignored the teachings of Christ.[/quote]
Sounds like you’re making arbitrary exceptions now. Said call no man father.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Christ’s teachings are very simple, and don’t need much preaching at all.[/quote]
Really? Then what about first strike nuclear war?
What about condoms?
What about baptism?
What about the fact that you just said that we don’t need much preaching at all? DIdn’t Jesus say to go make disciples of all nations to the Apostles?[/quote]
Any war is evil. Matter of fact, anything not done out of love is evil.
What’s wrong with condoms?
You need to be baptized.
Yes, he said to go spread the good news to the people of the world, that people should follow Him. But He did not say that to Paul, and He did not say to contradict Him.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
No, the Catholics stamped out the true Christian Church, not its own faithful. If you were ok with the church mixing in any old customs and myths from other religions as they saw fit, you were cool.
[/quote]
Documentation please.[/quote]
You do know that it’s ok to cut out all but the statement you are questioning, right? Makes your questions clearer.
The documentation is the church itself. If that didn’t happen, the church wouldn’t be the way it is today. Plus, Paul admitted to intentionally cutting the ground out from under the feet of other churches. Again, look at the epistles. Why didn’t Paul write any kind, reassuring letter to any congregations other than his own? Then look at 2+3 John. Is it possible that Diotrephes is Paul? Certainly fits the bill.
BTW, I wrongly lumped the letters from John in with the epistles. John’s writings reflect great joy in the truth (even in their persecution), and he espouses strict adherence to the teachings of Christ. He gives many warnings about deception and deviation from the Word of Christ, and specifically warns about idols at the end of 1 John
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
If we read call no man father literally like you do…Jesus just called Abraham father. The scripture doesn’t say call no man father except in parables…[/quote]
Here’s the reminder and proof that you’re twisting my meanings around.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
it’s a proper title gave to him by the faithful informally at the time because he’s our spiritual father[/quote]
Again. My point exactly. How could Christ’s faithful followers completely ignore His direct order to “call no man father”?[/quote]
I was objecting to your assertion that the followers of Christ would name their ‘spiritual father’ the ‘pope’.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Any war is evil. Matter of fact, anything not done out of love is evil.[/quote]
Where does Jesus say war is evil? How do you know this?
[quote]
What’s wrong with condoms?[/quote]
Are you saying there is nothing wrong with condoms?
How is one baptized? Can babies be baptized? Does it save you or is it a symbol?
Oh, so he only said it to the eleven and that’s only who it pertained to?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
No, the Catholics stamped out the true Christian Church, not its own faithful. If you were ok with the church mixing in any old customs and myths from other religions as they saw fit, you were cool.
[/quote]
Documentation please.[/quote]
You do know that it’s ok to cut out all but the statement you are questioning, right? Makes your questions clearer.
The documentation is the church itself. If that didn’t happen, the church wouldn’t be the way it is today. Plus, Paul admitted to intentionally cutting the ground out from under the feet of other churches. Again, look at the epistles. Why didn’t Paul write any kind, reassuring letter to any congregations other than his own? Then look at 2+3 John. Is it possible that Diotrephes is Paul? Certainly fits the bill.
BTW, I wrongly lumped the letters from John in with the epistles. John’s writings reflect great joy in the truth (even in their persecution), and he espouses strict adherence to the teachings of Christ. He gives many warnings about deception and deviation from the Word of Christ, and specifically warns about idols at the end of 1 John[/quote]
Okay, that’s not documentation. That’s you writing on a forum. If your high school teacher asked you for documentation for your premises and claims, you wouldn’t just repeat yourself.
The Catholic Church is the historical Church established by Jesus on Cephas according to the Scriptures. ← This is just me saying stuff, I’m not a known expert.
Matthew 16:18 is documentation of this fact.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
If we read call no man father literally like you do…Jesus just called Abraham father. The scripture doesn’t say call no man father except in parables…[/quote]
Here’s the reminder and proof that you’re twisting my meanings around.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
it’s a proper title gave to him by the faithful informally at the time because he’s our spiritual father[/quote]
Again. My point exactly. How could Christ’s faithful followers completely ignore His direct order to “call no man father”?[/quote]
I was objecting to your assertion that the followers of Christ would name their ‘spiritual father’ the ‘pope’.[/quote]
Jesus says, “Call no man father.” Jesus calls Abraham “father.” So, he according to your eisegesis is saying literally you cannot refer to anyone as father. There are no exceptions.
Except, that Jesus was not saying call no man father. According to my John Salza, “Jesus was discouraging His followers from elevating the scribes and Pharisees to the titles of “fathers” and “rabbis” because they were hypocrites. Jesus warns us not to elevate anyone to the level of our heavenly Father.”
Catholics don’t do this, so your claims that Catholics do is not only a misinterpretation of scripture but a straw man argument used as an ad hoc to ridicule Catholics instead of making an argument against what Catholics believe.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Any war is evil. Matter of fact, anything not done out of love is evil.[/quote]
Where does Jesus say war is evil? How do you know this?[/quote]
Name one war fought out of love
[quote][quote]
What’s wrong with condoms?[/quote]
Are you saying there is nothing wrong with condoms?[/quote]
Condoms are inanimate. Blaming them for sin is like blaming a stick for beating someone to death.
How is one baptized? Can babies be baptized? Does it save you or is it a symbol?[/quote]
You are submerged in water in a symbolic act of admitting you are a sinner and need your sins washed away to prepare you for being baptized in the Holy Spirit by Christ. Baptizing a baby would do no good because a baby is incapable of sin.
Now you tell me where it says to make a sign of the cross on people’s foreheads afterward.
Oh, so he only said it to the eleven and that’s only who it pertained to?
[/quote]
No, we are all responsible for making sure the Gospel is known. But we are not supposed to make up our own doctrines as Paul did and as the church has done.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:So you’re saying that once Jesus ascended to heaven all of His teaching was complete?[/quote]Yes. It was the job of the Apostles to spread His Word.[/quote]How would you like to be a hip n groovy dood and explain to me then what the Lord means in the 16th of chapter of John where I have reverently and accurately redacted his remarks as the following: [quote]<<< But now I am going to Him who sent Me <<<>>> it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you <<<>>> I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.[/quote] Is it just me or is Jesus here saying that He is leaving. As in hasta la vista baybee, au revoir, adios, aloha, catch ya later, goodbye. AFTER which the Spirit is to come and teach them ALL TRUTH. That just does so appear to imply that they ain’t got it all yet and they are better off with Him leaving so He can send the Spirit who will glorify Jesus by ALLLLL this tremendous new teaching He will bring. You don’t see that? I’m really not angry at anybody, but I have a lot goin on today.
[/quote]
Precisely. Leave it to JayPierce to IGNORE the comments that he has no answer for, though he may reply with some completely tangential, unfounded assertions since I’m calling him out.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Do you really think that? Or are you just trying your best to not agree with me? I ask because you’re putting yourself in a dangerous position by twisting His words to suit your argument.
He said you have only One. He didn’t say you have many fathers but don’t let anyone put himself above Him. He said you have only one.
As in, there should be no one between you and Him.[/quote]
I completely agree with Tirib’s position, and here’s the point - if you spent time in church and didn’t call your exegetically-skillless self an illuminated authority, you would realize that Tirib’s understanding of that passage HAS BEEN COMMON THROUGHOUT CHURCH HISTORY. That’s not a new one.
And frankly, since you’ve been accusing people of being disingenuous, I have no problem saying that its ADORABLE and CONVENIENT how much YOUR interpretation of this passage supports your refusal to submit and listen to those wiser, more intelligent, and more erudite than you. Why should I not believe that you only interpret Jesus’ words so poorly because it suits your own predisposition, your desire to avoid having to listen to anyone but “the Father?”
Moreover, Jesus says, “call no one “father.”” He does not say simply, “call no one YOUR father.” Based on your literalistic reading, it’s wrong to call ANYONE father AT ALL except for God. Therefore, when Jesus calls Abraham the Jews’ “father” and even calls Satan their “father,” he is breaking his own rule. Awareness of this dissonance is what gave rise to the interpretation of Jesus’ words that Tirib was espousing earlier.