[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
On the biblical evidence alone it is however not possible for me to do so.
[/quote]
Of course. That’s why the debate has to start at authority.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
On the biblical evidence alone it is however not possible for me to do so.
[/quote]
Of course. That’s why the debate has to start at authority. [/quote]
The bible is technically not evidence if the people who assembled it did not have the authority to do so. Like I said, all the ‘lost books’ would also need to be counted as well for those who assembled the canon did not have the authority to do so…It’s a slippery slope.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:On the biblical evidence alone it is however not possible for me to do so.[/quote]Of course. That’s why the debate has to start at authority. [/quote]So in other words I have to assume Catholic authority first before I can see that authority itself in the bible?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So I picked up the gist of it from BC’s post. If what he’s said is even remotely accurate…
Tirib, I’m not taking you off ignore to see your reply, but it’s honestly time for you to seek a bit of help. And that’s not me being a smart-ass. If these events are true, as related here, then it’s time for you put the internet down and seek counseling. What has just been shared isn’t normal, healthy, and it’s rather worrisome. You’ve expressed troubles with addictions in the past, but it sounds to me you’ve replaced it with another.
More recently you’ve expressed some hardships with work, keeping your home, etc. You’ve come out if it…changed. You’re not the same person at all. You’re now obsessed with calling out Catholics, tracking them down, their friends down, and ‘taking the fight to them.’ Again, this is alarming behavior. I’m relieved to have stuck to my “no personal info” policy back when I was still taking your PM’s, despite your requests for e-mails and phone calls.
Put away your pride, your crusade, close out the browser, and start sorting out your thoughts and social skills. Get professional help. I honestly wish you the best of luck with it, and the courage to realize something has gone wrong.[/quote]
I don’t often agree with sloth, but… yeah. This.[/quote]
Well I am kinda surprised to see you in this thread. If you can suspend your disbelief perhaps for a little while and read the discussions, the good ones, I would be interested in your take as an outsider on whats going on in the discussions from time to time. Then you can see how bat-shit crazy we really are… 
No, seriously I would welcome your respectful insight if you wish to participate in any level. With KingKai on board there bound to be some good stuff, the boy knows his Bible…[/quote]
Bat-shit crazy? No pat, at best you’re only eccentric.
That bar has already been set for crazy, and we both know neither of us would be able to reach those heights. I’ll sit back and read for now, but this thread has already been very enlightening and has definitely shifted my perception of moderate Christians (read: not living in the clouds with the fairies) to a more positive place.
[quote]Makavali wrote:<<< moderate Christians >>>[/quote]An utterly unbiblical modern invention. Paul set the bar for “moderation” in, among other places the 3rd chapter of his letter to “To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi” (ESV). Speaking of his former life (and imaginary righteousness) without Christ:
[quote]<<< 7-But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8-Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9-and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith 10-that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. >>>[/quote] There is no such thing as a “moderate” Christian. Especially the way you mean that. The apostle James called friendship with the world spiritual adultery against God Himself. Chapter 4 verse 4 (NASB)[quote] 4-You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God >>>[/quote] Of course all this is for people who actually take the bible seriously enough to live their lives accordingly. In other words. Christians. The only kind there are.
I’m tellin ya folks. Concise exposition of even just verses 13-15 of the second chapter of Romans is persistently eluding me =[ You almost have to write an exegetical/expository commentary on at least the first 3 chapters to do that passage justice. I have only ever seriously considered one view of verses 13-15. Responsibly investigating a plausible alternative is time consuming. I strive with all my mind and might for my conclusions to be conclusive. As I say. The potential fate of billions of people hangs on this passage.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
Regardless, the fact remains that it is the episcopacy’s claim to unique authority that ultimately stands in the way of unity.[/quote]
This is non-sense. This is like asking Jesus to deny that the Eucharist is his flesh and blood so that we don’t have to leave him for hard teachings when he come across John 6.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
I (along with a significant number of other Protestants) would have no problem joining the Catholic church IF the church did not demand that we accept doctrines that are inconsistent with what we consider to be a historically and contextually sensitive reading of Scripture. The Roman Catholic church, however, demands that, before we can receive communion, we accept the legitimacy of views which we may deem inconsistent with a historically and contextually sensitive reading of Scripture. [/quote]
So then don’t join. You’ve heard the arguments, I’m sure, and rejected them. We’ve now got, what, Catholic Q&A 3 (since Romans 2 never actually showed up) with this thread? If you really haven’t heard them (our arguments for what we believe/do), there’s Catholic apologetics and resources to be found all over the web. I imagine you’ve made use of them, only to reject at least some of the claims/teachings.
Look, we don’t want unity. Not your kind, anyways. If you want unity with the Church, there’s RCIA. Couldn’t recommend it more. When I went through it was fantastic! Otherwise, I wouldn’t worry so much about the Catholic church unifying itself with protestant churches. That will never happen. There’s no kumbaya coming down the pipeline. Well, not in THAT kind of way. Be good friends and neighbors, absolutely! But the kind of unity you’ve described? No thanks.[/quote]
First of all, I don’t think all Catholics are as jaded about or disinterested in the possibility of unity as you are, Sloth.
Secondly, the pursuit of truth entails a willingness to ALWAYS subject one’s current beliefs to scrutiny. If you bring forth an argument or a piece of historical information that clearly disproves my beliefs at a given point at time, I will GLADLY rethink those beliefs. It’s that simple. That means giving Roman Catholics an ear as well, especially because we both seek to follow Jesus and derive from the very same roots.
[/quote]
The difference is that the Catholic faith is the fullness of truth. <— This claim could be wrong, but then that tears down the whole thing. The Catholic faith is made up of a 1000 linch pins, pull one and the whole thing goes down. And, a 1000 difficulties don’t equal one doubt.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:On the biblical evidence alone it is however not possible for me to do so.[/quote]Of course. That’s why the debate has to start at authority. [/quote]So in other words I have to assume Catholic authority first before I can see that authority itself in the bible?
[/quote]
No. It’s just the Bible holds no authority without the Church.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:On the biblical evidence alone it is however not possible for me to do so.[/quote]Of course. That’s why the debate has to start at authority. [/quote]So in other words I have to assume Catholic authority first before I can see that authority itself in the bible?[/quote]No. It’s just the Bible holds no authority without the Church. [/quote]And you know this because…
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So I picked up the gist of it from BC’s post. If what he’s said is even remotely accurate…
Tirib, I’m not taking you off ignore to see your reply, but it’s honestly time for you to seek a bit of help. And that’s not me being a smart-ass. If these events are true, as related here, then it’s time for you put the internet down and seek counseling. What has just been shared isn’t normal, healthy, and it’s rather worrisome. You’ve expressed troubles with addictions in the past, but it sounds to me you’ve replaced it with another.
More recently you’ve expressed some hardships with work, keeping your home, etc. You’ve come out if it…changed. You’re not the same person at all. You’re now obsessed with calling out Catholics, tracking them down, their friends down, and ‘taking the fight to them.’ Again, this is alarming behavior. I’m relieved to have stuck to my “no personal info” policy back when I was still taking your PM’s, despite your requests for e-mails and phone calls.
Put away your pride, your crusade, close out the browser, and start sorting out your thoughts and social skills. Get professional help. I honestly wish you the best of luck with it, and the courage to realize something has gone wrong.[/quote]
I don’t often agree with sloth, but… yeah. This.[/quote]
Well I am kinda surprised to see you in this thread. If you can suspend your disbelief perhaps for a little while and read the discussions, the good ones, I would be interested in your take as an outsider on whats going on in the discussions from time to time. Then you can see how bat-shit crazy we really are… No, seriously I would welcome your respectful insight if you wish to participate in any level. With KingKai on board there bound to be some good stuff, the boy knows his Bible…[/quote]
Bat-shit crazy? No pat, at best you’re only eccentric.
That bar has already been set for crazy, and we both know neither of us would be able to reach those heights. I’ll sit back and read for now, but this thread has already been very enlightening and has definitely shifted my perception of moderate Christians (read: not living in the clouds with the fairies) to a more positive place.[/quote]
Well I appreciate you know the difference. That’s my fear, that I am lumped in with fundamentalist nut jobs, misusing and abusing religion. That usually identifiable when they make absolutely everything about religion. I hope a constructive conversation will continue, though it had a bit of a rough start.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:On the biblical evidence alone it is however not possible for me to do so.[/quote]Of course. That’s why the debate has to start at authority. [/quote]So in other words I have to assume Catholic authority first before I can see that authority itself in the bible?[/quote]No. It’s just the Bible holds no authority without the Church. [/quote]And you know this because…
[/quote]
Because then it is just a random collection of historical books validated only by its historical accuracy according to the standard norms of the field of history.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:On the biblical evidence alone it is however not possible for me to do so.[/quote]Of course. That’s why the debate has to start at authority. [/quote]So in other words I have to assume Catholic authority first before I can see that authority itself in the bible?[/quote]No. It’s just the Bible holds no authority without the Church. [/quote]And you know this because…[/quote]Because then it is just a random collection of historical books validated only by its historical accuracy according to the standard norms of the field of history. [/quote]I disagree. Now what?[quote]pat wrote:<<< fundamentalist nut jobs, <<<>>> That usually identifiable when they make absolutely everything about Jesus (had to fix that for ya) >>>[/quote] Let’s just say for a minute, for the sake of discussion only Pat, that there exists a triune God who created all things by fiat command, includnig us in His image and having rebelled we are now left with only eternal death as our future. EXCEPT that this God, the second person of which is the eternally begotten Son, was born a man and Himself paid the penalty for our rebellion so that we could be saved, serve Him in joy while on Earth and live forever in sinless perfection in His presence. In fact let’s further suppose that “the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.” Let’s go waaaay out on a limb and suppose that that’s true. Just for a minute. Could I prevail upon you my old friend to enlighten us as to which areas and aspects of life that that has nothing to do with? Would you be please be so kind?
EDITED to be less sarcastic.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I disagree. Now what?[/quote]
It’s not a matter of opinion. The Holy Canon never claims itself to be divine or authoritative.* Someone outside of it would need to do so. Like the authors or their successors/heirs. Either the Bible is authoritative or not (speaking beyond it being a historical account of Hebrews/Judaism and early accounts and beginnings of a historical branch of Judaism known as Christendom, in which a man claiming to be Christ fulfills prophecies and the laws of the Hebrew Bible and ultimately brings salvation to all who follow the dictates of the new King and Kingdom on earth and in Heaven (referred to as the Church) given to them by the Harolds who bring the Good News). As I pointed out, that claim has to come from an authority outside the Canon itself since it does not itself claim to be so.
*Even if it did it would not itself be enough to make it Divine or authoritative. As many books have claimed to be Divine and authoritative. The paradoxical thing is the one actual Divine and authoritative book doesn’t even claim to be so, while a good chunk considered to be so by pagans, claim it in its own pages.
If you are using the word “canon” as more or less synonymous with “bible”? I don’t now how on earth you can say this. The bible doesn’t claim to be “divine or authoritative”? I jist know you ain’t sayin THAT Chris.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
If you are using the word “canon” as more or less synonymous with “bible”? I don’t now how on earth you can say this. The bible doesn’t claim to be “divine or authoritative”? I jist know you ain’t sayin THAT Chris.[/quote]
Please show where it does.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:If you are using the word “canon” as more or less synonymous with “bible”? I don’t now how on earth you can say this. The bible doesn’t claim to be “divine or authoritative”? I jist know you ain’t sayin THAT Chris.[/quote]Please show where it does.[/quote]Are you seriously asking me where the bible claims to be divinely authoritative? Seriously?
EDIT: You can retract this dialog Chris and I will not rub it in.
EDIT II:Testing, one two three. Tap tap tap. Is this thing on? Hello Chris. Come in Christopher. I am not being sarcastic. I can hear you thinking. I know you’re out there listening. I also know that YOU know that I am very much more than ready with a response to this. Don’t ya =] If you want to simply say that you didn’t think before you spoke then fine. Really. Everybody does sometimes. On we go to something else. I’m still workin on Romans 2, should hopefully have something fairly soon though.
EDIT II:Testing, one two three. Tap tap tap. Is this thing on? Hello Chris. Come in Christopher. I am not being sarcastic. I can hear you thinking. I know you’re out there listening. I also know that YOU know that I am very much more than ready with a response to this. Don’t ya =] If you want to simply say that you didn’t think before you spoke then fine. Really. Everybody does sometimes. On we go to something else. I’m still workin on Romans 2, should hopefully have something fairly soon though. (Had to get you to see this by creating a new post and bumping it up the page)
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
EDIT II:Testing, one two three. Tap tap tap. Is this thing on? Hello Chris. Come in Christopher. I am not being sarcastic. I can hear you thinking. I know you’re out there listening. I also know that YOU know that I am very much more than ready with a response to this. Don’t ya =] If you want to simply say that you didn’t think before you spoke then fine. Really. Everybody does sometimes. On we go to something else. I’m still workin on Romans 2, should hopefully have something fairly soon though. (Had to get you to see this by creating a new post and bumping it up the page)[/quote]
Still waiting for you to show me where it does. You can go looking through the seven books ya’ll threw out if you want. I won’t point out the contradiction.
The phrase “thus saith the Lord” occurs 427 times in 19 books, not counting the deutero-canonical books, in the DRB Chris.
The opening greeting to the book of Romans reads [quote]“1-Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2-which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3-concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4-and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5-through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, 6-including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ,”[/quote] John opens his first epistle with: [quote]“1-That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life? 2-the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us 3-that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4-And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.”[/quote]These sound suspiciously like claims of divine authority for what’s coming don’t they? How bout Peter when he says in his 2nd epistle, 3rd chapter, 15th and 16th verses: [quote]“15-And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16-as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.”[/quote]Peter here calls Paul’s writing’s “scripture” (graphe’). A word used a few dozen times to refer to the old testament scriptures in the new. Old testament scriptures which as I say, overtly and hundreds of times proclaim themselves to be the very recorded voice, direct dictation from the Lord God of Israel Himself.
The Apocalypse, that is the “Revelation”. Is like… a revelation… wouldn’t you say? Especially since John says in the very first verse: [quote]“The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants”[/quote] A non divinely authoritative revelation perhaps? Please do not hesitate my dear brother if this is in any way unclear. There’s more ya know. Once again the Westminster divines got is soooo right. Of the holy scripture: http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html#chap1#chap1 Ch 1 sects. 4-5 [quote]IV. The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.
V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[/quote]