I think the Pope is panicking right now(smells like it)...
(media.greatawakening.win)
PANICO in Vaticano!
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (103)
sorted by:
You said it, not me. 'Almost everything Jesus said was in parables.'
In John, Chapter 6, Jesus directly and explicitly states that he is the true manna from heaven. This creates a direct 'typology' link from the 'type' (the manna from Exodus) to Jesus, the fulfillment of the manna.
In every single other typology set in the entire Bible, the fulfillment in Jesus is greater than the original hint/foreshadowing (type) in the Bible.
The manna in the desert was a supernatural event (to sustain natural life), and Jesus directly and explicitly says he is the fulfillment of that event. So how does this fulfillment end up being a simple 'metaphor'? Answer: It doesn't, otherwise it would mean that Jesus' fulfillment was less than the original event.
Jesus was speaking of a supernatural event (to sustain our spiritual lives). It is a difficult teaching, which is why the crowd and many disciples walked away (And, as long as we're back to that - Why did the disciples walk away for a bad metaphor?)
With regard to Peter as the first Pope, look to the very beginning of Acts (1:12-20), where they had to replace the office that Judas had vacated. 'His office, let another take.' They knew - and followed - the structure that Jesus had set up for the Church. Apostolic succession.
Has this structure been abused? Yes, and often!
Has the structure of our government been abused? Yes, and often!
I don't give up on what is good because of the abuse of the few.
And, to clear up a misconception that you have -- I don't 'wonder if I am saved', nor do I think I 'earn my way into heaven'. I follow Paul's teaching. I have been saved, I am being saved, and I hope to be saved in the end - to 'finish the race well, lest I lose the imperishable crown'. If you have a problem with that theology, then argue with Paul, not me.
I just don't understand the desire to follow a church, rather than Jesus. What is the draw to follow a bunch of traditions of the Catholic church, rather than what is plainly written in the Bible? And while you're here, where does praying to Mary come from? I'm on my 10th or 11th read through the Bible now, and have yet to find where any scripture refers to praying to Mary. And just so you know (apparently many Catholics don't), Mary had other children. Why do you think the Catholic church only in the past few decades (if that long) had services in English, rather than latin? And why has there been, perhaps only until recently, an apparent avoidance of reading a Bible? Is it because the Catholic church was worried people would see how far the teachings of the Catholic church digress from what the Bible states?
So now comes the scatter gun approach? Just throw out all of the things that you (falsely) believe about the Church? You have not answered a single one of my Bible-based questions/statements. Just 'move on to a new topic' when confronted by Bible citations.
Your (new) questions betray a lack of understanding of first-century Hebrew, as well as church history (both before and after the Reformation).
I've learned (by talking to liberals) that this conversation is useless. You're going to just throw as much on the wall as possible -- without answering anything that is pending. Never an answer from you, just more accusations.
I'm done here. You've read and interpreted the Bible as you see fit. I, on the other hand, have read, interpreted, and can understand both sides of this argument.
It isn't me who has a 'lifetime of belief' to 'overcome'. I only came to faith several years ago. When I did, I spent years searching the entire Bible for what is true (not just the verses that I like).
God bless.
Just ask yourself these questions: "Am I pleasing God by confessing to a priest, instead of to Him?" "Am I pleasing God when I pray and invoke Mary, instead of Jesus?", "Am I pleasing God in believing that the bread and wine are magically turned into flesh and blood of Jesus, when it clearly is not?"
Sorry if I didn't address specific questions you had, but you didn't address what I stated either, so I guess we're even :) I became a Christian more than 30 years ago. I grew up going to an Episcopal church (Catholic-light :) ), but there really isn't a personal salvation experience associated with that church; you go through confirmation classes and then are "confirmed" as a Christian. It is clear that baptism is intended for believers to experience, not infants, yet the Catholic church still does infant baptisms in the false believe it results in salvation, correct? If you have accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, and repented of your sins, and accept this gift of free salvation, without any works required, and if you confess your sins to God, not to some Priest, then you will be welcomed into Heaven some day. I hope to see you there, but please, stop grieving the Holy Spirit by praying to Mary.
A) A primary purpose of infant baptism is that it results in having the infant being 'sealed' (marked) by the Holy Spirit. The infant (obviously) has no ability to discern what is going on, so the faith is 'borrowed' from the godparents (who are then called upon to help raise the child in the faith). Frankly, I can't see any downside with any of that. The practice started in the first century, when infant mortality was a much bigger problem, and while there was a singular, universal church. Therefore, it is completely impossible to claim it is a 'Catholic invention'. The separate sacrament of Confirmation is what happens when a child is old enough to think for themselves (attains the 'age of reason') and therefore makes a profession of faith. Both practices were in place during the first century AD.
B) No Catholic 'grieves the Holy Spirit' by (properly) praying to Mary. A Catholic prays to Mary to ask her to intercede for them with her Son, and not with any expectation that she can perform whatever 'miracle' we might be asking for. She is not God. If you read the Old Testament, you can see how the kings held their mothers in high regard, with the 'Queen Mother' being someone who regularly interceded 'for the common man'. The king, having (sometimes) hundreds of wives, would not be swayed by the appeal of a wife, but did keep a special place (and royal chair) available for their mother. The term is Gebirah. A king would not refuse a request made by their mother on behalf of a subject (see 1 Kings 2:20).
So, lets say I was 'going in for surgery'... I would (obviously) pray directly to God, but I might also ask a family member, or friend, or neighbor to pray for me. (With no expectation that my family member, or friend, or neighbor could affect the outcome... I'm asking them to pray to God on my behalf.) This is called 'intercessory prayer'. Mary is no different. I pray directly to God, but I might also ask for her to intercede on my behalf. And 1 Kings 2:20 indicates that she 'has the king's ear' a bit more than my next-door neighbor.
C) Works are required. But not to 'earn your way into heaven'. Works are an essential part of faith itself. Consider this analogy... A father raises a child, and over the course of several years, the father imparts many 'words of wisdom' about 'how to live the best life possible' (how to be kind, loving, successful, responsible, etc). At some point, the child grows up and moves out. The question of 'whether the child believes the father' is determined by whether the child lives that way when they are on their own. If they do live that way, the child believes the father. If they do not live that way, then the father did not convince them of the best way to live (because they are living a different way). The child, therefore, does not have faith in what the father said.
Salvation is a free gift from God. We cannot earn it. But look at John 3:16. He who believes in the Son shall have eternal life. Alternatively, he who has been persuaded by the Son shall have eternal life. Been persuaded 'of what'? Of many things, including things like the Sermon on the Mount, where the Son describes the best way for us to live. But do we believe him? That can only be answered by how we live.
If you think that 'what we do' is not important, I'd guide you toward John 3:36. Just a few verses after John 3:16, the Bible makes perfectly clear that "he who believes shall have eternal life, and he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God shall remain upon him." Works are an integral part of what it means to believe, what it means to 'have been persuaded'. John 3:36 (and other passages such as James 3:20-26) are very clear.
How in the world can you ignore Jesus' own warning in Matthew 25:41-46? How can you possibly say works are not integral to belief? Only those who believe the Son are saved.
If you don't agree, that's between you and God. I wish you well. Personally, I have been persuaded (by the Son) of the best way to live, and I do my (imperfect) best to live it out. I see no downside to it. It is exactly what I have been told to do by God.