originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: colbeI wish that you and others would.
Your intention maybe? I don't do that to you.
There is built into my posts, in the highlighted text, a link to the post that I am commenting on, if anyone wanted to read the entire post.
Too many times people will just copy the entire post into their response so I have no idea what they are commenting on exactly.There is little actual substance to your posts, and what there is of it, it is several topics tightly jammed in together in a single sentence.
Folks do NOT have the time to go back to the original complete reply. Underline in the complete post what you wish to comment on instead of tearing apart people's post leaving things out they say even to the point of commenting on half sentences from the original! I am underlining my replies to all your many, many comments now to go faster. People who dissect replies sentence by sentence just want to go on and on. It distorts what the person said originally. It is not fair, people do not see the complete in front of them.
Now you're down to posting a half a sentence jim, next it will one word.
How unkind, your prideful judgment of my Catholic responses. I first share a personal comment on what is said and back it up with Church teachings to read. There are libraries full, you are the one with the "single sentence", I am my own pope comments to my sharing the Roman Catholic teachings, the teachings of Christ.
Our Lord became very "offended" with those desecrating His Father's house.
That is not the same as taking offence at what one might take as a personal slight, that is just self pride and not righteous indignation.
"Taking offence" and "personal slight" happens when you act in an un-Christlike manner, has nothing to do with pride. Example, Jim, you just cut me down personally with your negative unkind "there is little actual substance to your posts" dig.
I think Catholicism breads pride, the idea that you belong to the "real" church, and everyone else just belong to inferior wannabe churches.Huh?
The same for THE faith.That is a fantasy, that it was ever some sort of monolithic central entity. It was always fragmented because people are individuals.
Why can't you even consider Jim, God can bring the world to one belief as it was in the beginning of Christianity?
That is the whole idea of Christianity, that you can't have one set of rules that is perfect for everyone, and the best way is to have God speak to each person through His spirit, through Christ.
"Pride" is to say, all that came before the Protestant Revolt is NOT of God or did not exist as you do. 16 centuries of history from the beginning against five centuries to follow with the rejection by Luther and the revolters of what came first makes no sense! There's your supreme pride. There is a visible Church (singular) from the beginning with a hierarchy and a Sacramental system of grace of which you accept two of the 7 Sacraments. The first Sacrament, water Baptism is the beginning of God's life in your soul. Original sin is removed and you receive God's presence in your soul for the first time, Our Lord's meaning of "born again." Spiritually born by receiving God's grace in the Sacrament of Baptism. Jesus described water baptism to Nicodemus and further on in John 3, you read He and the Apostles went out and BAPTIZED.
First Timothy was probably not written by Paul, but had been made to look as if it was, to lend authority to it, and represents insecurity within those placing themselves into positions to be a sort of paid clergy class, copying the customs of the older pagan religions.
He did not make you or me His authority on Christ's teachings, read 1 Tim 3:15.
The written Word is INERRANT, God speaking through whoever wrote the Sacred writings in Scripture or as your strong confirming word "probably." 1 Timothy 3:15 states the CHURCH is the pillar and ground of Truth. It does NOT say the written Word, the Bible is the pillar and ground of Truth. "sort of" does that lessen your comment? Were they paid or weren't they? People have to live. And to use the word "clergy"..."copying" means you accept there was a body of people ordained spiritually copying the Sacred writings. You step over your own words using Roman Catholic words so it always goes back to the faith. Oh the worn out "pagan" religions protest. Just because two things are similar does not make them the SAME! The Protestant author of the anti-Catholic book entitled Babylon, Mystery Religion discovered this and took his book out of print!
God is the authority, and how this works is how it is described in the Bible, that Jesus was resurrected and then went to Heaven and received power and authority to found his church. He returned to his disciples and gave to them the spirit necessary to do the actual physical work of carrying out that plan.
The Bible is NOT our authority either, the Church is, Roman Catholicism.
Those original Apostles who directly received power from the risen Christ were especially gifted with spiritual insight to create the writings that are now the New Testament, containing within them authoritative takes on what we need to know to base doctrine on.
Jesus didn't "resurrect and then went to Heaven and received the power and authority to found His Church." Our Lord is God, always was, always will be. Jesus established the Church, read it singular while He was on the earth. The primacy of Peter is constant in the Gospel. Our Lord named Peter leader of His Church and promised Satan would not overcome the Church Our Lord founded led by Peter and his successors (Matt 16:18). The early center of the faith and to this day is in Rome. Wonder why St. Peter's Basilica is named St. Peter's Basilica? See, you always go back to the faith while you deny it. You continue with describing Christ given Apostolic power and since the Apostles would die, their passing on (laying on of hands) of their God given authority to their successors. What do you have? Apostolic Succession. There is NO Apostolic Succession in Protestantism.
I just don't buy it because the evidence does not support it. The New Testament is disconnected from all the written commentaries on the books in it, as if they had no direct correspondence with the writers to have any more understanding than anyone else who could pick it up and read it.
The Church came first, she, RC canonized Scripture. The written Word is only part of God's revelation.
It mentions it as a one time event, an analogy between what Jesus actually did, going to Heaven, with what a High priest did when he entered the Holy of Holies.
....First, St. Paul in his letter to the Hebrews
repeatedly describes Jesus as our “high priest” in heaven.
That's in the Old Testament.
Second, Scripture teaches us that the principal duty of a priest is to offer sacrifice.
Which Jesus had, so what does this have to do with anyone else?
he says about Jesus: “hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.”
It's still talking about that one event.
Because Jesus IS our High Priest in heaven, this necessary offering must be a “sacrifice for sins,”
At the time the letter to the Hebrews was written, the temple in Jerusalem was still standing, so it was talking about what was going on according to the Old Testament.
. . . for according to St. Paul that is what priests offer.
Jesus isn't literally a priest.
We can NOT separate Christ’s sacrifice from His priesthood since Christ is a priest only by virtue of His sacrifice.
The only problem is coming up with any logic to support all these ridiculous sounding claims.
That Scripture says Jesus must offer a sacrifice for sins in heaven poses an immediate problem for Protestant theology which h views Jesus’ atoning work on the cross as completed.
The mystery is how this writer could be so ignorant.
Because Jesus shed His blood once on Calvary and suffers no more, the manner in which He presents this same blood sacrifice to the Father in heaven is a mystery indeed.
I meant commentaries written by people you are bringing up, who you claim had this supposed apostolic succession.
What in Heavens are you saying Jim? Protestant commentary, so what?
I suggest you read the gospels with that question in mind, when did Jesus found the church and how did he do it.
Jesus didn't "resurrect and then went to Heaven and received the power and authority to found His Church.
Jesus said he would found his church, in the future tense, when he called Simon Peter.
Jesus established the Church, read it singular while He was on the earth. The primacy of Peter is constant in the Gospel.
Which one is it, the written word, or the church?
The written Word is INERRANT, God speaking through whoever wrote the Sacred writings in Scripture or as your strong confirming word "probably." 1 Timothy 3:15 states the CHURCH is the pillar and ground of Truth.
That did not show up until the forth century.
There is a visible Church (singular) from the beginning with a hierarchy and a Sacramental system of grace of which you accept two of the 7 Sacraments.
You are just being silly.
xample, Jim, you just cut me down personally with your negative unkind "there is little actual substance to your posts" dig.