- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Lord’s Prayer opening may be ‘problematic’, says archbishop
Posted on 7/10/23 at 8:59 pm to Champagne
Posted on 7/10/23 at 8:59 pm to Champagne
quote:Nice deflection. Truth isn't determined by majority rule.quote:Oh be quiet. Your Protestant sect has less then ten thousand members in all of the USA.
Imagine you are a dutiful Catholic living in the Holy Roman Empire in the year 1410. How do you recognize the office and fulfillment of Apostolic Succession? Which pope do you honor of the three who claimed the office at the same time?
So how about that question I posed? How does a dutiful Catholic recognize the office and fulfillment of Apostolic Succession when three different men claim to be the Pope at the same time?
1
Posted on 7/10/23 at 9:19 pm to Prodigal Son
Did “god” make man before plants, or after plants? Quote the scripture.
Posted on 7/10/23 at 9:26 pm to Squirrelmeister
I specifically looked for this on Answers in Genesis since I know you love that site so much.
AIG
A closer look at the text reveals there is no contradiction. In Genesis 2:5–6 the writer set up the narrative and informed the reader of what was to come. These verses provide a description of the world on Day Six before God created Adam. The grasses, fruit trees, and seed-yielding herbs were created on Day Three (with the exception of those within the garden), but the thorny plants and cultivated grains came about after Adam was created.
AIG
A closer look at the text reveals there is no contradiction. In Genesis 2:5–6 the writer set up the narrative and informed the reader of what was to come. These verses provide a description of the world on Day Six before God created Adam. The grasses, fruit trees, and seed-yielding herbs were created on Day Three (with the exception of those within the garden), but the thorny plants and cultivated grains came about after Adam was created.
Posted on 7/10/23 at 9:28 pm to Smeg
This dude here definitely diddles
Posted on 7/10/23 at 10:07 pm to FooManChoo
So the key issue I believe here is weather Peter was married when he followed Jesus and when Paul stated that they have a right to have a wife (the greek literally translates as Sister Women or Sister Wife)
This is where we will strongly disagree. The question is what is Paul referring to when he says sister woman. In the greek adelphaen gunaika. It would appear that Paul is indeed speaking about wives or spouses, at-least the English appears that way. The problem with this interpretation or maybe this translation of the greek in this context is that Paul is speaking about him self, even though two chapters earlier he spoke about his own celibacy, or him remaining unmarried. So could wife or as you called it believing wife be something else?
So this whole debate it appears comes down to how do we translate two greek words. Is it believing wife as you suggest or is it women, believing women or something similar. I'm no greek expert so what do I know. However there are father's of the Church or ancient christian writers who argue that the greek here has to do with woman not a spouse.
Take for example St. Clement of Alexandria, who lived less than 100 years after the death of the last apostle.
Or St. Jerome who was the first to translate the greek into Latin.
Or St Augustine one of the most brilliant minds of the Christian Church. He was Catholic BTW!
I'll take the word of these three men. Could they be wrong sure but I would put more weight to their interpretation of the scriptures than many others.
This post is already getting long. So to respond to a few other points. The Church does recognized the priesthood of the believers. Jesus still envisioned a church where there is an office of priesthood.
Secondly just because a Pope or Council didn't set up the discipline of priestly celibacy until the 2nd millennium doesn't mean it has no grounding in scripture or was practiced in the Church. The first few hundred years of the Church there was no set scripture. Concepts like the Trinity, the full divinity and humanity of Jesus was not set immediately out the gates and took some time to be definitively defined. A more minor issue of celibacy not being mandated till 1075 doesn't mean it's wrong, or lacks scripture evidence.
What I assert is that Jesus who was celibate, calls certain people (men and women) to a celibate life style. Based on my reading of the scriptures and the little I know about the history of the apostles and the Church, I believe all of the apostles practiced celibacy. So it's not that big of a stretch to believe that the Church has the authority to require celibacy for their ministerial priests.
edit: I misread the whole point about 1 Tim 4
We do not forbid marriage. Every celibate person voluntarily chooses celibacy.
I'll also make this point, there is a key distinction between a discipline, doctrine and dogma that I don't think you understand.
A discipline is simply a practice of the Church that isn't divinely commanded or revealed in scripture. The practice of no meat on Fridays is a good example of this.
A doctrine is a teaching of the Church, who was given authority by Christ.
Finally a dogma is a truth that is divinely revealed. Jesus being God would be an example of this.
I believe the question isn't so much whether Jesus demanded celibacy for his apostles, which I believe he did. But instead does the church have the authority to require celibacy (with exceptions) for priests and bishops. I know your answer but mine is yes it does.
quote:
As you rightly point out, the Scriptures do not say that the disciples/apostles were celibate. To the contrary, Paul alludes to the other apostles taking wives, especially Peter.
This is where we will strongly disagree. The question is what is Paul referring to when he says sister woman. In the greek adelphaen gunaika. It would appear that Paul is indeed speaking about wives or spouses, at-least the English appears that way. The problem with this interpretation or maybe this translation of the greek in this context is that Paul is speaking about him self, even though two chapters earlier he spoke about his own celibacy, or him remaining unmarried. So could wife or as you called it believing wife be something else?
quote:
To the contrary, Paul alludes to the other apostles taking wives, especially Peter. In 1 Cor. 9, Paul talks about his "rights" that he has, which he has denied for himself, and in verse 5, mentions that taking a "sister" (translated as "believing wife") is his right, and says that other apostles have done the same thing, as well as the "brothers of the Lord" and Cephas (Peter).
So this whole debate it appears comes down to how do we translate two greek words. Is it believing wife as you suggest or is it women, believing women or something similar. I'm no greek expert so what do I know. However there are father's of the Church or ancient christian writers who argue that the greek here has to do with woman not a spouse.
Take for example St. Clement of Alexandria, who lived less than 100 years after the death of the last apostle.
quote:
The apostles concentrated on undistracted preaching and took their wives around as Christian sisters rather than as spouses, to be their fellow ministers to the women of the household, so that the gospel would reach them without causing scandal.
Or St. Jerome who was the first to translate the greek into Latin.
quote:
It is clear that [they] must not be seen as wives but, as we have said, as women who assisted [the apostles] with their goods
Or St Augustine one of the most brilliant minds of the Christian Church. He was Catholic BTW!
quote:
Certain persons, not understanding this passage, have interpreted it as “wife.” The obscurity of the Greek word deceived them, since, in Greek, the same word is used for wife and woman. Yet the apostle has placed the words in such a way that people should not be deceived, since he says not merely “a woman” but “a sister woman,” and not “to take in marriage” but “to take about.”
I'll take the word of these three men. Could they be wrong sure but I would put more weight to their interpretation of the scriptures than many others.
This post is already getting long. So to respond to a few other points. The Church does recognized the priesthood of the believers. Jesus still envisioned a church where there is an office of priesthood.
Secondly just because a Pope or Council didn't set up the discipline of priestly celibacy until the 2nd millennium doesn't mean it has no grounding in scripture or was practiced in the Church. The first few hundred years of the Church there was no set scripture. Concepts like the Trinity, the full divinity and humanity of Jesus was not set immediately out the gates and took some time to be definitively defined. A more minor issue of celibacy not being mandated till 1075 doesn't mean it's wrong, or lacks scripture evidence.
What I assert is that Jesus who was celibate, calls certain people (men and women) to a celibate life style. Based on my reading of the scriptures and the little I know about the history of the apostles and the Church, I believe all of the apostles practiced celibacy. So it's not that big of a stretch to believe that the Church has the authority to require celibacy for their ministerial priests.
edit: I misread the whole point about 1 Tim 4
We do not forbid marriage. Every celibate person voluntarily chooses celibacy.
I'll also make this point, there is a key distinction between a discipline, doctrine and dogma that I don't think you understand.
A discipline is simply a practice of the Church that isn't divinely commanded or revealed in scripture. The practice of no meat on Fridays is a good example of this.
A doctrine is a teaching of the Church, who was given authority by Christ.
Finally a dogma is a truth that is divinely revealed. Jesus being God would be an example of this.
I believe the question isn't so much whether Jesus demanded celibacy for his apostles, which I believe he did. But instead does the church have the authority to require celibacy (with exceptions) for priests and bishops. I know your answer but mine is yes it does.
This post was edited on 7/10/23 at 10:18 pm
Posted on 7/10/23 at 10:07 pm to FooManChoo
quote:Spider-Man is set in NYC. NYC is real. Ergo Spider-Man must be real.
Much of the historical accounting from the Bible is demonstrably true. While secular archeologists and historians don't put much stock in the supernatural accounts, the peoples, names, and events provided by the Bible are very much regarded to be accurate. I believe the phrase most commonly used is "generally reliable". The Bible isn't just "literature", but has historical narrative genre included.
Posted on 7/10/23 at 10:28 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
This is a cop-out. There is a factual ban on marriage for priests (who are already not married), so of course only those who seek the priesthood will "voluntarily renounce marriage"; they have to to be priests. It's not like there is a choice for single men who want to be priests. It's either renounce marriage or stay away from the office. That's not what the Bible teaches regarding qualifications for Elders/Overseers.
it's not a cop-out, it's a good interpretation of the scripture.
Catholic's are not falling into the Hersey of 1 Tim 4:3. The heresy St Paul is condemning is the gnostics who see marriage as an evil, and forbid it for their followers.
A man or woman who enters the celibate life style is doing so voluntarily, not by force. He or she has the freedom to marry. The gnostics forbid marriage because they believed it was evil. I hope you can see the difference of the Church requiring celibacy for clergy and religious and seeing marriage as evil, which the Church clearly doesn't say.
Posted on 7/10/23 at 10:30 pm to Smeg
Hell is going to be problematic. For eternity. Do not pass purgatory. Do not collect absolution.
Posted on 7/11/23 at 6:48 am to FooManChoo
quote:
I specifically looked for this on Answers in Genesis
birds of a feather quote:
A closer look at the text reveals there is no contradiction. In Genesis 2:5–6 the writer set up the narrative and informed the reader of what was to come. These verses provide a description of the world on Day Six before God created Adam.
A closer look at this pathetic excuse reveals it is deceitful, as it has no basis in the actual scripture. I think you know that too, and are being dishonest with us and with yourself.
Posted on 7/11/23 at 8:13 am to FooManChoo
LINK
Here's what we know about Apostolic Succession - from Catholic Answers. Plenty of well-researched articles here. Not for you because I know you never have and never will submit yourself to reading anything on Catholic Answers. That's because you are an Arch-Enemy of Roman Catholics and the Roman Catholic Faith.
The answer to your specific question is simple - the laity don't "follow" a particular Pope, they follow the Catechism. They would attend Mass and be good Catholics, just like at any time when there were an undisputed Pope.
How confused are the laity of YOUR Protestant sects as it splintered into hundreds of different groups, sub-groups and micro-sub groups and CONTINUES to splinter today?
How confused must the Presbyterians be when we have one micro-sub-set of the sect, such as yours, that has less then ten-thousand members in the entire USA? For example, here in Louisiana, if I wanted to attend your particular sect, I would have to travel out of state - there are no congregations of your sect in Louisiana.
How confusing must hundreds of different denominations be? Much more confusing then say, a few contending Popes, I'd say - three choices as opposed to 300 choices AND the three Popes were all agreed on Catechism and doctrines of the Faith. That can't be said at all about the many Protestant sects.
You have brought up this particular topic about contending Popes before. You obviously think that it is a huge "Gotcha" point of argument. I think that when we compare three contending Popes at one specific brief moment in history 900 years ago to the hundreds of Protestant sects that we have today (and more are splitting off as we speak) - well, I think that any serious person can see that your point is no "Gotcha" at all for the Catholics, but, DOES seem to be a "Gotcha" for your religious sect.
This post was edited on 7/11/23 at 8:13 am
Posted on 7/11/23 at 8:16 am to catholictigerfan
quote:
Catholic's are not falling into the Hersey of 1 Tim 4:3. The heresy St Paul is condemning is the gnostics who see marriage as an evil, and forbid it for their followers.
Foo will never in his life admit that you've just blown his "Proof Text" that he clings to out of the water. Of course, Paul's talking about the Gnostics in that letter that he dictated.
Posted on 7/11/23 at 8:52 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Did “god” make man before plants, or after plants? Quote the scripture.
We’ve been through this. Foo has done a more than sufficient job in refuting your weak, modern day atheist talking points- and you still reject it. In addition, as I’m sure you’re well aware, there are countless resources- from early theologians of antiquity, to modern day Christian scientists, that illuminate the absurdity of everything from atheism/polytheism to Darwinian evolution. As usual, the theist does all the work, and the atheist just spouts off “I don’t believe you.”
I have a few scriptures that I find to be more relevant to your condition:
Proverbs 3:5–7 (NASB95): 5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart
And do not lean on your own understanding.
6 In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He will make your paths straight.
7 Do not be wise in your own eyes;
Fear the Lord and turn away from evil.
Proverbs 12:15 (NASB95): The way of a fool is right in his own eyes,
But a wise man is he who listens to counsel.
Proverbs 14:12 (NASB95): There is a way which seems right to a man,
But its end is the way of death.
Proverbs 26:11–12 (NASB95): 11 Like a dog that returns to its vomit
Is a fool who repeats his folly.
12 Do you see a man wise in his own eyes?
There is more hope for a fool than for him.
Isaiah 5:21 (NASB95): 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
And clever in their own sight!
Isaiah 55:8–9 (NASB95): 8 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord.
9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways
And My thoughts than your thoughts.
Romans 1:21–22 (NASB95): For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools
Romans 8:6–7 (NASB95): For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
These verses describe you perfectly. Wise in your own eyes, and hostile to God.
Do you show up at kids birthday parties and tell them all that Santa Claus isn’t real? No. Because you know that Santa Claus is not real. Even though we can’t prove that Santa is not real, we all eventually come to know that it was made up fantasy. Yet, here we are, nearly 2000 years after Christ’s resurrection, and believers all across the globe, from all walks of life, all levels of intelligence and wealth- are willing to die for their belief in Christ. Because we know that He is risen. Because…
John 10:27 (NASB95): “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
Posted on 7/11/23 at 9:02 am to Prodigal Son
quote:
I have a few scriptures that I find to be more relevant to your condition:
IMHO, Atheists can't be converted by Scripture verses or by reading, on their own, the Bible. For an Atheist to be converted, IMHO, first there must be a sincere inner desire to know the Truth. After that predicate is in place, a few years of study is necessary. By "study", I'm talking about practically a college-level program of daily reading and study.
I won't even touch on the exact subject matter of the study, but, it would include philosophy, history and the like, in order to provide a historical context.
Bottom line, it's VERY difficult to convert an Atheist, IMHO. It's about as tough as, say, someone like Foo studying Roman Catholicism and converting to the RC Faith. Not trying to personalize and target him, but, using him as a "type" or example for the purposes of discussion and to underscore my point that - it can't be done here on a message board because first that Predicate must be in place, THEN those years of good study must happen.
So, in my hypothetical example, using a "type" or example of a person like Foo (but not Foo), we would have the Predicate deep desire to find the Truth, but, what would prevent Conversion would be the 2nd Step - the years of study - the years of study may happen, but, not on a level that would be the catalyst for Conversion.
This post was edited on 7/11/23 at 9:33 am
Posted on 7/11/23 at 9:05 am to Champagne
quote:
Foo will never in his life admit that you've just blown his "Proof Text" that he clings to out of the water. Of course, Paul's talking about the Gnostics in that letter that he dictated.
From Biblehub.com/commentaries
quote:
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(3) Forbidding to marry.—This strange and unnatural “counsel of perfection,” St. Paul, thinking and writing in the Spirit, looked forward to as a perilous delusion which would, as time went on, grow into the impious dogma of certain of the great Gnostic schools. This teaching was probably, even in those early days, creeping into the churches. The Jewish sects of Essenes and Therapeutæ had already taught that “abstinence from marriage” was meritorious. Men belonging to these sects doubtless were to be found in every populous centre where Jews congregated, and it was always in these centres of Judaism that Christianity at first found a home. St. Paul, however, saw no reason to dwell on this point at any length; the gross absurdity of such a “counsel “as a rule of life was too apparent; it was a plain contradiction of the order of Divine Providence. But the next question which presented itself in the teaching of these false ascetics, as we shall see, required more careful handling.
It is worth noting, though, that the RCC, and it’s many doctrines, were not in Paul’s purview in 55 AD. So, although Paul was writing (seemingly) about the Gnostics, that doesn’t exclude the RCC from the the same heresy IF they are putting lipstick on the same pig that the gnostics were.
This post was edited on 7/11/23 at 5:17 pm
Posted on 7/11/23 at 9:15 am to Champagne
quote:
Atheists can't be converted by Scripture
I absolutely agree. The purpose is not for their conversion- that honor belongs to the Holy Spirit alone. The purpose is to
1 Peter 3:15 (NASB95): make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;
I could stand to improve on the gentleness, no doubt. I’m working on it.
Theists and atheists are like two football teams on the field of life. We are on defense, they are on offense (fitting, don’t you think?) All we have to do is stop them from scoring. We have the Greatest Coach, and our playbook is superior to their handful of trick plays. When they fumble, we should run it back to their goal line and set it on their 1yd line.
Posted on 7/11/23 at 11:02 am to Prodigal Son
quote:
We’ve been through this.
I don’t think we have. Can you answer the question? I can’t wait to see which creation story you pick!
ETA: I challenge you to just use the text of genesis, or even of the whole Bible in you response, without adding ideas from your own imagination that are not in the Bible.
This post was edited on 7/11/23 at 11:06 am
Posted on 7/11/23 at 11:52 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
I don’t think we have. Can you answer the question? I can’t wait to see which creation story you pick!
Sure thing, Bud. Got questions.org since you don’t like the”retards” with PhD’s at Answers in Genesis.
quote:
ETA: I challenge you to just use the text of genesis, or even of the whole Bible in you response, without adding ideas from your own imagination that are not in the Bible.
So you want me to perform reading comprehension without using my brain? That’s the dumbest thing you’ve said yet- and that’s saying something.
I really don’t need any help on this one. Reading through both chapters, it’s evident to me that the first four verses of chapter two are just a recap/summary/ending of the creation story in chapter one. The rest of the chapter begins to go into greater detail of the sixth day of creation. You have to really not want to see that, for it not to make sense. Is English your first language?
Posted on 7/11/23 at 12:03 pm to Squirrelmeister
You know, at some point, you’ll have to admit to yourself, that there is no reasonable argument that you will accept – because you refuse to accept reasonable arguments. At some point, you will realize, that you are nothing more than a petulant child screaming “you’re not my daddy!” At your father, because he took away your video games.
Posted on 7/11/23 at 1:28 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
So you want me to perform reading comprehension without using my brain?
I’m just asking you which came first- plants or man. You are building a straw man, rather than reading the plain text of genesis without inserting the ideas of you or others which aren’t in the text of genesis.
Of course you can’t pick plants or man. It’s impossible for you for reasons we all know.
Posted on 7/11/23 at 2:59 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
I’m just asking you which came first- plants or man
Genesis 1:11–13 (NASB95): Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so.
12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
Genesis 1:26–27 (NASB95): Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them….
Genesis 1:31 (NASB95): God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Page 9 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News