|
bettyg51 -> RE: grab a doctrine here, grab there (4/22/2005 4:54:29 PM)
|
Hi Swordman,
quote:
<sw: You didn't address the issue. I spoke of titles and the context of the passage and noted that titles are not used by Christians in scripture. You brought up our earthly fathers and that's not even the context of what Jesus was discussing.>
bg: This is a summary from http://catholicoutlook.com/objcath3.php, which explains it very well. The answer to your questions would be too long for this forum, so check it out.
Jesus said in Matthew 23:9: "And do not call anyone on earth “father,” for you have one Father, and he is in heaven."
That seems clear enough, doesn’t it? Catholics (and Orthodox, and Anglicans, etc.) are doing something that Jesus appears to have specifically forbidden. Therefore, they must be either biblically illiterate or disobedient. At least, that’s how it appears at first glance. But lets look a little closer. Ironically, most people who make this objection never seem to consider the very next verse:
Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ (Matt. 23:10).
I’ve never met a Protestant who objected to a teacher being called “teacher,” yet Jesus appears to have forbidden the use of that title just as clearly as he apparently forbade the use of the title “father.”
Was Paul being disobedient by referring to himself as the spiritual father of the Corinthians or Timothy? When Jesus spoke these words, he used a hyperbolic, exaggerated statement. The idea is that no man is to take the place of God in our lives. The Protestant International Standard Bible Encyclopedia acknowledges that this is the true meaning of the text:
"Christ’s condemnation is clearly of the praise-seeking or obsequious spirit, rather than of a particular custom."
This verse has nothing whatsoever to do with the proper use of the word “father,” it has to do with the proper attitude of Christians toward their brothers, and toward God. Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate for Catholics, and others, to give the title “father” to their ministers. In doing so they are not being disobedient to Jesus, rather they are following the apostolic example established by Paul and John.
quote:
<sw: You changed a bit on what was being discussed. The issue is not whether you immerse some people sometimes, but whether rhantizo or cheo is ever enough, since God commanded baptizo.
And the passage from Ezekiel is about the Jews, not about NT Christianity.
AND, it is not baptizo, but another word instead. >
bg: The answer to your questions would be too long for this forum, so check out:
http://www.catholic .com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp [take out the space.]
Immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, "[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner." They did not practice immersion before dinner, but, according to Mark, the Pharisees "do not eat unless they wash [nipto] their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves [baptizo]" (Mark 7:3–4a, emphasis added). So baptizo can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion.
quote:
<sw: You're still not facing the issue, but shifting a bit each and every time. I noted that you cited the OT and it has been abolished. There were animal sacrifices there. You didn't acknowledge that your appeal to it was not right. Your explanation of RCC hierarchy doesn't make a bit of difference. There are no cardinals in the whole Bible. There are no archbishops in the Bible.>
<sw: Then, an archbishop is simply an addition to the word of God, a change. But the faith was once for all delivered to the saints in the first century (Jude 3).>
bg: OT has been abolished? Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." The NT is a fulfillment of the OT.
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Shakespeare said. Cardinals and archbishops are bishops, plain and simple. It doesn't matter what you call someone, it is the function that matters. The function is scriptural, whether the word is in scripture or not. Paul had helpers and he appointed bishops. The word "Trinity" isn't in the Bible either.
quote:
<sw:Cardinals are not prime ministers.>
bg: Cardinal bishops are titular bishops of the suburbicarian sees (or suffragan sees) surrounding Rome. The name cardinal is derived from the Latin cardo (hinge) and was probably first used as a colloquial term to describe certain advisers considered essential to the governing of the Church, “hinge” men, which is what prime ministers do. Running a Church with 1.1 billion members is a big job. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Only very small congregations operate with only one person pastoring the flock. However a church is organized, its function is to make us holy. Form follows function, so even the early church had to adapt to properly pastor the flock properly.
<sw: All Christians aren't prophets and all Christians aren't kings. And you switched from the idea of priesthood and all being priests to different ways Christian serve. Still no separate priesthood in the NT.>
<sw: Still nothing about what I said.>
<sw: You are simply stating what you have and then citing some verse and the two don't match. You're talking about a separate priesthood and there is nothing in the verses about that at all. >
bg: In Luke 22:29-32, Jesus spoke only to the apostles. Titus 1 says to appoint presbyters and bishops. What is the purpose of appointing them if they are the same as laity? 1 Peter 5:5,"Likewise, you younger members, be subject to the presbyters." Why be subject to the presbyters if they have no more authority than laity? John 20:20-23 says "so I send YOU" [the apostles], not just anybody.
Hebrews 13:17,"Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, ..." Matthew 18:17, "If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector." Some people had more responsibility than others to shepherd the flock. Where does Scripture say everyone has exactly equal responsibility and authority and no one has to obey anyone else in the church.? It is not a matter of obey leaders and not God, because God has put priests and bishops in charge to lead us. Jesus gave them the power of the keys.
quote:
<sw: I'm sorry, but you're still doing it. The Bible shows that all Christians are saints and you have failed again to give me a verse that shows only some of them to be saints.>
bg: You're right. There aren't any. That is what I was trying to say when I said I'm not claiming there is a separation. Since Catholics believe ALL the baptized are saints until they commit serious sins, this means saintliness can be lost. Is your definition of saint different than mine? Catholics believe grace penetrates the soul and helps to sanctify and regenerate the soul. If one thinks that is not possible and that salvation is like a legal declaration and sanctification is a separate issue or impossible, then there would be a confusion.
For example, there are many great professional baseball players, but only some of them make it into the hall of fame. If they quit baseball, can you still think of them as a baseball player? Just about every American has tried to play, but the degree of skill varies. So does the degree of saintliness in Christians. The saints you probably are thinking about are the hall of famers, not the average Christians. Some who have died have lived lives that are worth modeling and honoring. Rev 20:4 says that those “who had been beheaded” “came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.” This verse does not use the word saint, but there is implied that some folks have a special honor. The martyrs of the church are honored for their faithfulness. Many of the saints are martyrs, whether through blood or other type of sacrifice.
quote:
<sw: I'm not talking about that use of the word "pray" when someone asks another person next to them. Your action in speaking to God is the very same action in speaking to Mary. If one is prayer, so is the other. It's merely a Catholic quibble to say otherwise. But...you will anyway.>
bg: Even if it looks the same to you, it is not. Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 971 "All generations will call me blessed": "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship." 515 The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs.... This very special devotion ... differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration."
quote:
<sw: You have sidestepped TWO issues this time.
1. The RCC brainwashes you people with the idea that they are teaching what must be true because everybody always taught it - what was always taught by everyone in every place. The same is said of the phrase "unanimous consent". That's simply an exaggeration to mislead people.
2. And, the Bible says that bishops MUST be the husband of one wife, not just may sometimes be. You didn't face that either. >
bg: What I'm trying to say is that the way Scripture is interpreted really matters. The "unanimous consent" of the fathers is important because they commented on Scripture, so that is how we know what Paul and Jesus, etc taught. 1) Gal 1:7 "But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!" What this says to me is that doctrines that are invented by men are not allowed. How do you know exactly what Paul taught the Galatians if you follow a doctrine that did not exist before 1517? How do you know exactly what Jesus told the disciples on the road to Emmaus? Truth is not pulled from air or different in one time or place than another; it is passed by down since 33 AD. It is received, not invented. That's how I know I'm being taught the same things as the Galatians. I don't think that is misleading. I think someone who thinks they have the authority to make up doctrine are the ones misleading people. If the Church can’t claim to tell me what is true, why should I give it my loyalty? If I had to figure it all out for myself, why would I need the Church? 2 Thessalonians 2:15,"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle."
2) Titus 1:7 "For a bishop as God's steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain, but hospitable, a lover of goodness, temperate, just, holy, and self-controlled, holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents." It doesn't say anything about marriage as a qualification, so it must be optional. I think the point is that holiness is a requirement and poligamy or remarriage would not be allowed. Celibacy was a reform measure that prevented nepotism and giving church funds as an inheritance to the man's children. It could be changed if the church decided to because it is not a doctrine.
quote:
<sw: Sorry, but the Bible is in Greek and accurately says what Jesus said in whichever language He spoke it at the time. It says "of the same womb". It isn't the city of cousinly love. Christians are brethren, not cousins, etc. >
bg: Scriptures are inspired. Translations are not. Jesus did not speak Greek and neither did the Israelites. It is the Aramaic word that matters. I gave several verses that show it was physically impossible for Jesus to have brothers, ie, other children of Joseph and Mary.
I assume you are talking about Mk 6:17 “Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him.”
James (the younger) and Joseph (Joses) are sons of Clophas and Mary (John 19:25, Mt 27:56, MK 15:40 & 47, Acts 1:13). James & John are sons of Zebedee (Lk 5:10, Mark 1:19, Mk 4:17, 10:35, Mt 4:21). Simon (Peter) is the son of Jonah (Mt 16:17). Judas is the son of James (Luke 6: 13-16, Acts 1:13). Judas, the betrayer is the son of Simon Iscariot (John 6:71). Ergo, James and Joses and Judas and Simon not the biological children of Joseph and Mary.
There are about ten instances in the New Testament where "brothers" and "sisters" of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).
When trying to understand these verses, note that the term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for "sister" (adelphe) and the plural form "brothers" (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers") and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your "sons"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).
quote:
<sw: I see absolutely no answer to this. RCC claims are always exaggerated. They simply aren't true. Unanimous consent...always taught by everyone...etc. > bg: I guess we will have to agree to not agree on this one, but at least now you know the Scriptural reason we believe Mary was assumed.
<sw: Are you listening? The Bible says one mediator - Jesus. You have at least two, adding Mary. I can count. You are wrong.
And, you didn't listen a bit. There is a difference between intercessors and mediators. There is one mediator, says the Bible. There intercessors (plural). The two are not the same.>
bg: Mediate, according to Merriam-Webster, means "to act as intermediary agent in bringing, effecting, or communicating, occupying a middle position". Intercede means "to intervene between parties with a view to reconciling differences". They seem like synonyms to me. Both are "go-betweens". What is your definition? When we ask people to pray for us, they are "go-betweens".
quote:
<sw: Again, you have no pope, no earthly head of the church in scripture. You have two heads. The Bible has one. I can count.
Jesus spoke Aramaic but the words are in Greek and accurately report what He said. What you wish to do is to ASSUME that your doctrine is right by jumping to what is NOT said, avoiding what IS said. Your doctrine again, is that the church is built upon Petros and the Bible says upon petra. It's that simple.
And your statement above makes no sense, since Jesus called Simon Petros, which you say was feminine. >
bg: See http://www.catholic .com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp Take out the space.
quote:
<sw: No, keys open and shut. And bishops were not given those keys. It was apostles who had those keys. And apostles are different from bishops. AND, I can quote a church father who said was a bishop and acknowledged that he, as a bishop, did not have the authority of the apostles. Your doctrine is wrong. It is the product of years of evolution where men gradually changed things. The apostasy started very quickly, as even RCC historians acknowledge. Some man popped off and said something and others latched onto it until it became widely accepted.>
bg: In Acts 1: 20, the apostles met to replace Judas. The reason Peter gave for replacing him after his death was "For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take." (KJV)Through the laying on of hands, the bishops are replacements for the apostles. The office does not die with the person.
quote:
<sw: I'll see if I can find the facts about the church laws in my notes. >
bg: Look it up at http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM
quote:
<sw: That doesn't make a bit of difference. There is still no purgatory in all of scripture. It just isn't there.>
bg: Do you ever use the word "trinity", which is not in the Bible? Anyway, can we agree to not call it purgatory and call it "becoming unclean" instead? I'd be satisfied with that.
quote:
<sw: They don't deserve hell, but they've sinned? So Jesus didn't die for some sins? His death, and the forgiveness that comes from it, isn't necessary for some sins? >
bg: I said "who did NOT commit serious sin before death." The point about limbo is that John 3:5 says "Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit." So if baptism is necessary and one dies without it, but without sin, where do they go? We don't know because it has not been revealed.
Swordsman, I don't think we will ever agree. I just want you to understand where I'm coming from. Sometimes the written word sounds harsher than if I said it orally. I don't intend to sound like I'm arguing. I just want you to see the other side of the story.
May the peace of Christ be with you,
Betty G.
|
|
|
|