No one disputes that the Church set the dates. Certainly the Church has never disputed this.
As to re-reading the Scriptures, the whole of them are equal. Jesus or His teachings were not inconsistent with the rest of the 72 books of the Bible.
The ten Commandments
- Thread starter sanctus
- Start date
No one disputes that the Church set the dates. Certainly the Church has never disputed this.
As to re-reading the Scriptures, the whole of them are equal. Jesus or His teachings were not inconsistent with the rest of the 72 books of the Bible.
So if you have nothing to fear from my proposal are you going to do it?
Ignore the second hand assertions, the editorials, the interpretations. If you can, do it from the original texts (to avoid translation errors).
Ok, so as to the questions, what about the pagan symbols?
Here is another one: if the path to the god is through the jesus, why do RCers have to go through a "father", and why is a priest called a "father" when it seems that the bible would claim this is a form of blasphemy?
Ignore the second hand assertions, the editorials, the interpretations. If you can, do it from the original texts (to avoid translation errors).
Ok, so as to the questions, what about the pagan symbols?
Here is another one: if the path to the god is through the jesus, why do RCers have to go through a "father", and why is a priest called a "father" when it seems that the bible would claim this is a form of blasphemy?
That is just the Novus Ordo rituals, there are 22 Rites in the Church, not all of whom have this as part of their Mass.
"Why do Catholics call their priests ‘Father’ when the Bible clearly states ‘call no one your father on earth, for you have one father - the one in heaven’" (St. Matt. 23, 9).
The above quote from the Gospel of St. Matthew must be read in the context of the whole of Chapter 23, in which Our Lord Jesus Christ denounces in general the pride and hypocrisy of the Scribes and Pharisees: the contrast between their words and their actions (v. 3); the heavy burdens they placed on the shoulders of the people without giving any assistance (v. 4); their love to be seen and praised (v. 5).
Our Lord’s words were meant to provide a lesson in humility, exhorting His followers to realize that only the Heavenly Father is the genuine Father, while all others simply partake, or reveal a part, of His Paternity. Christ concluded His admonitions, saying: "whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted" (v.12).
A literal understanding of Our Lord’s words would lead to an absurd conclusion, prohibiting ourselves from calling our natural fathers "father," while allowing us to call our mothers "mother." Yet, such an interpretation would go against Sacred Scripture itself, where Our Lady says to the Child Jesus: "Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously" (St. Luke 2, 48).
St. Paul confirms that there are various types of fatherhood, all of which are based on the Fatherhood of God: "For this cause I bow my knees to the father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom all paternity in heaven and on earth is named" (Eph. 3, 15 [Douai]). Abraham is acknowledged as the father of all who have faith, both in the Old and the New Law: "He received circumcision as a sign or seal of the righteousness which he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them" (Rom. 4, 11).
St. Paul goes on to apply the term "father" to himself, while on more than one occasion writes to his own as if they were his children:
"I am not writing this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you might have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers. Indeed, in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4, 14-15);
"Here I am, ready to come to you this third time. And I will not be a burden, because I do not want what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children" (2 Cor. 12, 14);
"To Timothy, his beloved son in faith. Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father, and from Christ Jesus our Lord" (1 Tim. 1, 2 [Douai]);
"To Titus my beloved son, according to the common faith, grace and peace from God the Father, and from Christ Jesus our Savior" (Tit. 1, 4 [Douai]);
"I am appealing to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become during my imprisonment" (Phile. 1, 10).
In similar vain do the Apostles themselves write:
"Your sister church in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark" (1 Pet. 5, 13);
"I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven on account of his name. I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning" (1 John 2, 12).
From these verses it is evident that the title "father" was used not with any sense of pride, but rather to engender tenderness and affection within spiritual relationships. The Catholic Church wishes Her children to act in the same way when addressing those who partake in God’s Fatherhood through preaching Christ’s Gospel and sanctifying the faithful.
The Fathers:
The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp (C. 155 - 157 A.D.) :
(St. Polycarp was called) "teacher of Asia and father of the Christians."
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies (C. 180 A.D.):
"He who has received the teaching from another’s mouth is called the son of his instructor, and he is called his father."
St. John Chrysostom (+ 407 A.D.), In 1 Tim. hom. 6:
"...priests are the fathers of all, it is their duty to attend to all their spiritual children, edifying them first by a holy life, and afterwards by salutary instructions."
St. Gregory the Great (+ 605 A.D.), In Evang. hom. 17:
" Priests are Patres Christianorum (the Fathers of Christians)."
Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566):
In the first place, the prelates of the Church, her pastors and priests are called fathers, as is evident from the Apostle, who, writing to the Corinthians, says: I write not these things to confound you; but I admonish you as my dearest children. For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers...It is written in Ecclesiasticus: Let us praise men of renown, and our fathers in their generation...Those who govern the State, to whom are entrusted power, magistracy, or command, are also called fathers; thus Naaman was called father by his servants...The name father is also applied to those to whose care, fidelity, probity and wisdom others are committed, such as teachers, instructors, masters and guardians; and hence the sons of the Prophets called Elijah and Eliseus their father.
Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992):
No. 1549: Through the ordained ministry, especially that of bishops and priests, the presence of Christ as head of the Church is made visible in the midst of the community of believers. In the beautiful expression of St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop is typos tou Patros: he is like the living image of God the Father.
No, I have no doubts of the truth of the Scriptures or the faith, thus I have no reason to follow your rather silly proposal.I answered you already when I warned against the error of pulling pieces of the Scriptures out of context to the whole in coming to any conclusions.
did those that cannonized the bible feel the same way about "pulling out parts of the scripture"? hmmm....
we really need to separate out the "teachings of jesus" from the organized religion designed to control and dominate (built largely for the purpose of saving a crumbling empire).
we really need to separate out the "teachings of jesus" from the organized religion designed to control and dominate (built largely for the purpose of saving a crumbling empire).
Do we? Thank you for that clarification. Here we have been, for 2,000 years(and can you name any other organization that is still around from 2,000 years ago) controlling and corrupting the teachings of Christ!
Have you held the hands of a dying man lately who thinks he is going to get well and told him that no, he would not last the night?
2000 years is not that long to have lasted, religion-wise. The church has always been a control and dominance structure. Hold the hand and offer comfort, a comfort found needed due to the fear mechanisms layered on by the church! A simple comparison would be to poison a group and then claim to help them by offering a cure (wait, missionaries did that!) I am not saying your religion is the "evil empire", but there is a distinct difference between its supposed benevelence and its historical role and devised purpose.
No, I have not held a man's hand and told him he isn't going to last the night. I haven't held a man's hand and lied to him saying he would make it when he wouldn't just to comfort him either. Nor did I want such a behaviour to come my way when I faced death, and I certianly didn't want something similar when my parents died. Superstition and false comfort does nothing for me.
No, I have not held a man's hand and told him he isn't going to last the night. I haven't held a man's hand and lied to him saying he would make it when he wouldn't just to comfort him either. Nor did I want such a behaviour to come my way when I faced death, and I certianly didn't want something similar when my parents died. Superstition and false comfort does nothing for me.
You are blinded by your fear and assumptions based on self-assumed rhetoric and revisionist history.
you really don't like facing the realities of what christianity is, or its history, do you?
If denial gives you comfort, fine.
If denial gives you comfort, fine.
It appears to me that Caracal is using, his unique brand of, philosopy to mock Christians, and he's not doing a very good job of it. Stay strong Jay and Sanctus. Hello we are use to it from the non-believers, they don't believe therefore they mock and ridicule and get all philosophical about God. Faith is from within and it can't be taken or shaken by those who are philosophers.
Where did I say I was an atheist, jay?
As for what christianity "is", well, I find very few supposed christians know much at all about their religion. It does not take "being christian" to study it, unless you are going to play the old "you gotta have faith" card. :lol:
As for what christianity "is", well, I find very few supposed christians know much at all about their religion. It does not take "being christian" to study it, unless you are going to play the old "you gotta have faith" card. :lol:
well gods and canada exist to the believer, don't they?
gods are created. "god" is a construct, a label, an adornment of rank. A "god" does not exist without something to accept it as a "god". So, between your ears, there may be the god of abraham, and as such it would be true to you. The belief is true to the believer.
Oh yes, you don't like the "there is no canada" comment? Think of it like this. the canada you see is like a clear plastic bag. It takes formed when filled with different coloured jellybeans. The jellybeans represent the nations of the lands, but when you take the beans out of the bag, you don't have much. That "is" canada. A wrapper, but not any form or substance.
Oh sassy, "you gotta have faith". I have not touched on the spirituality of humanity (yet) so faith has nothing to really do with it.
gods are created. "god" is a construct, a label, an adornment of rank. A "god" does not exist without something to accept it as a "god". So, between your ears, there may be the god of abraham, and as such it would be true to you. The belief is true to the believer.
Oh yes, you don't like the "there is no canada" comment? Think of it like this. the canada you see is like a clear plastic bag. It takes formed when filled with different coloured jellybeans. The jellybeans represent the nations of the lands, but when you take the beans out of the bag, you don't have much. That "is" canada. A wrapper, but not any form or substance.
Oh sassy, "you gotta have faith". I have not touched on the spirituality of humanity (yet) so faith has nothing to really do with it.
Yes God is the word we use. He is God and we are the people....I don't see how any of this says your a theist though.
I don't care if you think Canada exists or not....I know it's a political word.
i didn't say i was a "theist" either. Nor can you say I am agnostic.
You see, I don't deny how little we know, but I will stress that based on our limited perception and our limited knowledge there are a great deal of possibilities that exist that we need to account for. I don't apply conventional human constructs to this modeling. So, to give to you a simple hypothetical example: lets say entity X made an appearance and it displayed enough for you to conclude it is your "god". THe important thing is not what it is, but what your perception is. To me, it would not be a "god", nor "your god". It would be merely entity X! (I won't get into my frameworks here but I am willing to discuss if you are interested)
You see, I don't deny how little we know, but I will stress that based on our limited perception and our limited knowledge there are a great deal of possibilities that exist that we need to account for. I don't apply conventional human constructs to this modeling. So, to give to you a simple hypothetical example: lets say entity X made an appearance and it displayed enough for you to conclude it is your "god". THe important thing is not what it is, but what your perception is. To me, it would not be a "god", nor "your god". It would be merely entity X! (I won't get into my frameworks here but I am willing to discuss if you are interested)
Exactly. His arguments are weak, tired and border on revisionist rhetoric. Regardless of his pop-up exegesis and rumours, nothing can shake my belief in God. I've seen far too many examples of His presence to deny His reality.