Results 61 - 80 of 101
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Dalcent Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | What's John 14:6 in original language? | John 14:6 | Dalcent | 133074 | ||
Hi DocTrinsograce, Yes, I've been down to the British Museum a few times; I live right in the centre of London. The Codex is just in a waist-high glass box so you get a good look at it. And you're right it hasn't got any spaces, although I didn't understand why. I don't know the Council of Laodicea but I was lucky enough in 1999 to visit the ruins of Laodicea, Colossae and Hieropolis. I flew into Antalya where Paul visited in Acts 14:25, and worked my way across some of the country; Asia Minor (modern day Turkey) is vast and once I was into the inner regions it was mainly snowy and mountainous - awesome. All of my travel in Turkey was done alone on foot with just a backpack and my army beret, or on their ancient old buses, no Greyhound coaches in Turkey! The interior cities such as Laodicea and Hieropolis (Col 4:13)are basically ghost towns. These parts of Turkey are essientially uninhabited now; they used to be on ancient highways. I bathed in the hot springs of Hieropolis which used to be filtered 6 miles down to the town of Laodicea and became 'lukewarm' a metaphor which John uses address to Laodicea in Rv 3:16. Also I was blessed to visit Malta twice (Acts 28) and stay at St. Paul's Bay where he was shipwrecked. You could see the reef where Paul was shipwrecked 27:42. I even went sailing in Malta in December after the Fast (27:9); this was not one of my better ideas. As my brother told me, the only thing that place is famous for is Paul was shipwrecked there. Your Brother in Christ Dalcent |
||||||
62 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132557 | ||
You raise many good points. Note that there are many prominent non-Catholic Christian who are sometimes in our national/local news getting jailed, invstigated etc. and the list includes Baptists. The Catholic stuff has died down a bit here but is never going away either. It seems to be a tragic human weakness. I know that if a man says he is a born-again Christian it means he usually is. Whereas people will say they are Catholic if it is only in their family background. Clearly , there are not a billion practicing, believing Catholics in the world. Nevertheless today's Catholic Churches are full to overflowing and the biggest Christian bookshop I have ever been is Catholic and they seem to be selling shelf loads of Scripture. I don't really now how much Bible reading is been done. I have discovered the theology of Catholicism, Anglo-Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy is the most biblical. My advice is don't ever accept far-fetched explanations from Study Bibles, Christians etc. for difficult verses. Don't accept housegroup 'Greek scholars' dismissing difficult verses: if you go to the original Greek black is white and down is up. Best Wishes |
||||||
63 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132546 | ||
Thanks for this. I must admit I do most of my study from books as I get eye strain reading from the screen. However this is a very comprehensive collection! Dalcent |
||||||
64 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132545 | ||
New Creature, What is your theory as to why Protestantism is so fragmented? And who is the head of the body of Christ (1 Cor 12)? Look how Calvinists and Arminianists tear into each other doctrines. Why do, say half of, these Christians not possess the correct biblical interpretation, viz. they don't get led into Truth. Perhaps the theory you espouse contains some truth but isn't quite the full picture. When you study scripture how much of your comprehension is coloured by your pastor's fallible preaching. Why do evangelicals always offer convolted explanations as to why Catholics are wrong to interpret the Bible literally. Example: Where the Bible says "So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves." They deny both sides of the sentence: claiming obviously Jesus is being metaphorical about his blood being true/real flesh and then assert he doesn't mean you will have no life in you either. And, we are called unscriptural! Best Regards Why is the Bride of Christ getting the small "c"? It should have a capital like Bible, Scripture, Israel etc? Scriptures does teach the Church is the pillar and bullwark of truth, not the Bible. '...the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.' Dalcent |
||||||
65 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132541 | ||
I don't believe the selling of indulgences proves the Catholic Church needed to be abandoned. Corruption occurs in every Church. It was wrong: it isn't denied; the selling of indulgences is extinct. Luther drowned Anabaptists and that is history too. I'm fairly sure that all would benefit by reading Church history. There is a lot to be learned from 313AD - 1517AD. The pre-Nicene period is a goldmine too. One hefty book by practically any decent historian will broaden minds. I visited an evangelical bookshop this year, I found thousands of lightweight books by Christians, many academic books on Greek, concordances etc. but nothing on Church history. I found the label but there was nothing; this really is ignorance. Dalcent |
||||||
66 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132536 | ||
Guys, These are prayers or short cries for mercy to God, of which I am well aware. They are not presented as what a Christian is to do to enter the Christian convenant which is always baptism, see Mark 16:16 "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; Compare Acts 22:7-16, Paul speaking of how he was saved: ...and I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?' "And I answered, 'Who are You, Lord?' And He said to me, 'I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you are persecuting.' "And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me. "And I said, 'What shall I do, Lord?' And the Lord said to me, 'Get up and go on into Damascus, and there you will be told of all that has been appointed for you to do.' "But since I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me and came into Damascus. "A certain Ananias, a man who was devout by the standard of the Law, and well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, came to me, and standing near said to me, 'Brother Saul, receive your sight!' And at that very time I looked up at him. "And he said, 'The God of our fathers has appointed you to know His will and to see the Righteous One and to hear an utterance from His mouth. 'For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard. 'Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.' I am at a loss to understand how anyone would think these short prayers are biblical examples of the born-again prayers found in evangelical pamphlets or anything to do with becoming Christian. |
||||||
67 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132534 | ||
If you want to talk martyrs maybe you should read about the 350 who were martyred for the Catholic faith, near to where I write. http://www.tyburnconvent.org.uk/martyrs/martyrs_main.html |
||||||
68 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132533 | ||
'When the church departed from Scriptural truth, such individuals HAD to part from such teachings' is completely false. What about reforming, mending and healing from within. You would do this in a marriage wouldn't you? Never walk away! The bankruptcy of Martin Luther's position can be seen in his German Bible translation adding "alone" to the word faith in Romans 3:28. The phrase "faith alone" appears nowhere in the Bible except James 2:24. Would you TRUST a man who infamously mistranslated his Bible. A man who wrote a book called 'On the Jews and their Lies (1542), and who drowned Anabaptists because they 'wanted to be baptised full immersion as adults.' The Church opposed corrupted Protestant versions of the Bible only, i.e. like the above. If you want to read about history in 'comic-land' then that's your business. If you decide to get 'deep in history' as Newman wrote you just might 'cease to be Protestant.' At least you will be informed. There are loads of history books by non-Catholics on the true history of Christianity. I would recommended reading the ultimate collection on Church history by Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran later Orthodox) starting with The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (The Christian Tradition : a History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol 1). There are 5 volumes covering 2,000 years of Christian history. The distinguished academic and historian Jack Chick has a catalogue that you could send off for too(only joking). Calling the Catholic Church the Popish church is kindergarden. Luther's legacy is tragic. The national Churches in Europe hold about 2 percent of their populations. The Catholic nations have huge proportions of their people strong in faith and crowding the Churches every Sunday. The Cathedrals of the historic Protestant denominations in Europe are nearly empty: museum pieces. Catholicism has chronic vigour. Lutherism didn't. Regards Dalcent |
||||||
69 | When does Scripture apply to us? | John 17:12 | Dalcent | 132531 | ||
Hi Mommapbs, What about context? Where does the Bible teach certain words, phrases, etc. will "speak to us" regardless of who they are addressing, Judas, Peter, God, satan etc. This is neither orthodox evangelicalism nor Catholic. This reminds me of a Pentecostal who told my wife, who had toothache at the time, she could get a gold filling, if she would "Open your mouth and he will fill it." Nonsense. Allowing scripture to "speak to you" outside the context it was written sounds like too much like the Mormons "burning in the bosom" to me. 'Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God' refers to unbelievers hearing the gospel. This is quoted out of context which was what my whole question is about. What about taking things too literally? Of course all things are not possible with God. Can you fly through the sky by flapping your arms. Can you become a teapot. The Bible is not meant to speak to us like this. We might as well use a donkeys tail with a pin in it. I agree ALL scripture is profitable. Certainly the Word-Faith false teachers find it very "profitable". Dalcent |
||||||
70 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132525 | ||
Hi there, Your statement is quite near to what I believe the Bible means when it asserts: 'that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.' I would prefer to say: ‘That no interpretation is correct that contradicts, [opposes, denies] how the Church reads Scripture, appealing to the patristic consensus of the hundreds of years of writings by the Church Fathers, whose contemporaneous Council’s given us the great confessions of faith, the classical statements of Christology and the biblical canon.’ The biblical canon is a list you possess because of an authoritative decision of the Church. The list of New Testament books cannot be found within inspired Scripture. It is Church tradition. I would claim that you are unwittingly putting some of the Church’s biblical interpretation at the centre of your belief system. That is, whatever you discover in scripture about the Trinity or the dual natures of Christ united in one person, you will never dare oppose the Church’s conclusions formed at Nicea 325 and Chalecdon 451. The Catholic interpretation is cast in stone. We saw the shambles when one group tried reinterpreting the Trinity in their own light, the heresy of Oneness Pentecostalism (the return of Sabellianism). Going back to the Council of Jerusalem, (Acts15:22) it is written 'Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church...' There is nothing about individual interpretation here. Furthermore, as a non-American, I really think this extreme individualistic interpretation popular with American evangelicalism has more to do with the individualistic charter your country is founded on than anything else. We share this to some extent in Europe with the same emphasis on the great 'I' since our so-called Enlightenment. Christianity is not meant to simply be a spiritualised form of the private individual 'I', with an emphasis on ‘my’ bible-reading, ‘my’ holiness, ‘my’ interpretation, etc. It was the Fall that shattered the human unity and brought individualism. Thankfully, the Good Shepherd brings back to the fold the whole of humanity fragmented by the Fall. As one early Christian wrote "Adam himself is therefore now spread out over the whole face of the earth. Originally one , he has fallen, and, breaking up as it were, he has filled the whole earth with the pieces." The Catholic Church joins and binds together its members in a bond of unity. There is nothing authentic about all those individual and opposed interpretations by ‘Bible-Christians’. It is rather 'that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.' (John 17:12). Or as the Holman CSB puts it (v.23): I in them and You are in Me. May they be made completely one…' This nonsense about the Christian as a man alone, his own pope pontificating on his personal interpretations of Scripture, while claiming to possess divine truth comes not from the apostolic faith. Christianity is not meant to be a multitude of individuals, as numerous as sands of the seashore. Regards Dalcent, expect a few typos this was written at speed! |
||||||
71 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132514 | ||
Greetings, Actually I meant arbitrator but you are right to point out my mistake. There is a problem with you contrasting: 'human interpretation rather than Divine' It is that this implies your interpretation guided by the Holy Spirit is divine. Whereas the Church's interpretation, which looks as much to the Holy Spirit for illumination, is human interpretation. This bias towards individualistic Holy Spirit guidance is unjustified. There are 28,000 Protestant denominations and they are often theologically in disunity. Clearly there are problems in Sola scriptura interpretations (compare Zwingli's and Luther's) to suggest an individual Christian is not always in practice led into all truth. The Bible calls the the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth (1 Tim 3:15) Also it states first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation (2 Pet 1:20). To conclude, I believe that the Holy Spirits guidance in leading the Church is best seen in the great councils of the Church starting with Acts 15's Council of Jerusalem and continuing through the definition of the Trinity (Nicea 325) and Christ's humanity and divinity(Chalcedon 451). The Church's first council, viz. the Council of Jerusalem shows the leaders of the church (James historically the first Bishop of Jerusalem, the apostles, etc.) arbitrating on what the Holy Spirit is saying to the Church. Acts 15:28 'For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us...' was the conclusion of the council. This is the Bible way, not individualism which leads to divisions. Regards Dalcent |
||||||
72 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132463 | ||
Thanks Colin, I am not sure what I believe about purgatory. If it even exists! Ultimately I am a man with very Eastern Orthodox theology in a Catholic setting. Of course, the Eastern Church Fathers were part of the Catholic Church before the great schism. I'm certainly not a person who claims to know everything nor would I say I've formed my 'mature theology'. Regards Steve |
||||||
73 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132461 | ||
Dear BradK, I suppose I do believe Catholic theology has more truth in it than other denominations. I certainly held the view, at the time, that when I was evangelical I had more of the truth. I believe most people think that their denomination has the best theology. I think this is normal. What has surprised me with these postings is I expected people would be challenged by the scriptures I presented, but everyone seems blind to any point I would make. I have seen and engaged in arguments in the past between evangelicals and JW's, evangelicals and the Word-faith movement, Pentecostals and Baptists etc and no light is ever generated: only heat. I call it ping pong with bible verses. What we can conclude from this I don't know, but as a Catholic at least I have a Church to appeal to as arbitrar. Anyway, around the turn of the seventh century Pope Gregory sent Augustine of Cantebury with the gospel of Christ to England, to the Anglo-Saxon race (not Baptist missionaries or Pentecostal missionaries) and I hold to the faith once delivered 'at least to my forefathers.' I know it is a different story for you Americans. For the record I have far more in common with conservative Protestants (like George W.) than with progressive liberal Catholics (like Kerry) who might as well be aliens. I don't so much have a chip on my shoulder against Protestants (actually conservative evangelicals); rather I have a lot of common ground to dispute with them! Best Wishes Dalcent |
||||||
74 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132457 | ||
Sorry Tim, I missed it. I do think that postings lack some of the crucial nuances of conversation I didn't mean to post twice, my computer hung up. |
||||||
75 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132453 | ||
Dear Tim, I'm only writing this to make a point but how do you defend against the charge that what you are saying is: If a Church father is in agreement with [my interpretation of] Scripture, then I can agree with him. Otherwise, I'll go with [my interpretation of] Scripture. Scripture must always be filtered through a man's understanding before it has any meaning at all. Regards Dalcent |
||||||
76 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132450 | ||
BROTHERS, 2 Peter 1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, My answer is that as a bible-college trained evangelical the deeper I got into the Bible the more problems I had in holding evangelicalism's system of bible interpretation. I used to make jokes about 'these are the verses in pale grey.' (say 2 Thess 2:15). I got fairly cheesed off with arguments that said, if you go to the 'original greek' this really says the opposite: black is white. The 'can you, can't you lose your salvation' issue subsumed by the sola fide position drove me mad. I hated the strained 'explanations' of difficult verses offered by my colleagues. I might be accused of many things but naivity isn't one of them. To be honest I lost faith that the Bible was coherent and threw it all in! All I can testify is that as a Catholic I now read the Bible with great peace and and found that read properly it is entirely coherent read in its plain sense. I find the interpretation of the early Church Fathers fits Scripture like a glove, viz. something that never happened for me with evangelical theology. I've come to a place where I'm satisfied with my study of the Bible rather than falling to bits. This is just a testimony and I don't mean to insult anyone but it is a truthful testimony. I can go through a hundred verses with an evangelical which I used to find untenable and they will deny the obvious meaning of the text in every case, like I cite 'the church of the living God, is 'the pillar and support of the truth' I'm wrong. If I cite the plain words of James 2:24 'not by faith alone' I'm told of course faith alone is taught here. If I say 'believe and be baptised and you will be saved' I told the be be baptised bit is superfluous. If I cite 2 Thess 2:15 'So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us' I'm told I'm mistaken and the verse is clearly validating Sola scriptura. If I cite that Paul (1 Cor 9:8) said that he must discipline his body lest 'after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified' the reply is Paul confirming that you can't lose your salvation. In my Christian walk I've wrestled with many issues and changed sides and back but here everyone just seems utterly certain their view is correct Ultimately I just can't accept that the conservative evangelical wing of Protestantism is handling scripture properly at all. None of this is meant to sound rude but while evangelical beliefs are meant to be extracted from the Bible yet I find often they have been imposed on the Bible. Is this not even a possibility, a typical human weakness? Your comment 'If a Church father is in agreement with Scripture, then I can agree with him. Otherwise, I'll go with Scripture' in practice doesn't allow for a radical ideology critique. If you think 'your pre-existing interpretation of Scripture' and 'Scripture' and one and the same thing then Church Father's won't get a look-in if your pastor, denomination, tradition, etc. has pontificated of the true meaning of Scripture. Thus, it is common to see critiques of Catholicism such as: Catholic doctrine vs the Bible (like the Bible is more than words on a page until its read by a living man). Why is the booklet never called 'Catholic interpretation versus Evangelical interpretation in the light of Scripture? It's always assumed how you interpret is 'Scripture' though many Catholic doctries are far more literal. To Him be the Glory Dalcent |
||||||
77 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132449 | ||
BROTHERS, 2 Peter 1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, My answer is that as a bible-college trained evangelical the deeper I got into the Bible the more problems I had in holding evangelicalism's system of bible interpretation. I used to make jokes about 'these are the verses in pale grey.' (say 2 Thess 2:15). I got fairly cheesed off with arguments that said, if you go to the 'original greek' this really says the opposite: black is white. The 'can you, can't you lose your salvation' issue subsumed by the sola fide position drove me mad. I hated the strained 'explanations' of difficult verses offered by my colleagues. I might be accused of many things but naivity isn't one of them. To be honest I lost faith that the Bible was coherent and threw it all in! All I can testify is that as a Catholic I now read the Bible with great peace and and found that read properly it is entirely coherent read in its plain sense. I find the interpretation of the early Church Fathers fits Scripture like a glove, viz. something that never happened for me with evangelical theology. I've come to a place where I'm satisfied with my study of the Bible rather than falling to bits. This is just a testimony and I don't mean to insult anyone but it is a truthful testimony. I can go through a hundred verses with an evangelical which I used to find untenable and they will deny the obvious meaning of the text in every case, like I cite 'the church of the living God, is 'the pillar and support of the truth' I'm wrong. If I cite the plain words of James 2:24 'not by faith alone' I'm told of course faith alone is taught here. If I say 'believe and be baptised and you will be saved' I told the be be baptised bit is superfluous. If I cite 2 Thess 2:15 'So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us' I'm told I'm mistaken and the verse is clearly validating Sola scriptura. If I cite that Paul (1 Cor 9:8) said that he must discipline his body lest 'after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified' the reply is Paul confirming that you can't lose your salvation. In my Christian walk I've wrestled with many issues and changed sides and back but here everyone just seems utterly certain their view is correct Ultimately I just can't accept that the conservative evangelical wing of Protestantism is handling scripture properly at all. None of this is meant to sound rude but while evangelical beliefs are meant to be extracted from the Bible yet I find often they have been imposed on the Bible. Is this not even a possibility, a typical human weakness? Your comment 'If a Church father is in agreement with Scripture, then I can agree with him. Otherwise, I'll go with Scripture' in practice doesn't allow for a radical ideology critique. If you think 'your pre-existing interpretation of Scripture' and 'Scripture' and one and the same thing then Church Father's won't get a look-in if your pastor, denomination, tradition, etc. has pontificated of the true meaning of Scripture. Thus, it is common to see critiques of Catholicism such as: Catholic doctrine vs the Bible (like the Bible is more than words on a page until its read by a living man). Why is the booklet never called 'Catholic interpretation versus Evangelical interpretation in the light of Scripture? It's always assumed how you interpret is 'Scripture' though many Catholic doctries are far more literal. To Him be the Glory Dalcent |
||||||
78 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132439 | ||
Hi there Tim, It is probably best to leave the discussion at this point. You can hardly expect a fairly conservative Catholic to take a face value a complex argument about Greek grammar that "disapproves" Catholic doctrine, especially when no Baptist friendly Bible translation follows it either. I know a Greek Orthodox Doctor of Theology (a native Greek speaker and Septuagint reader) so next time I see him I'll be interested in hearing what he makes of this. I'm simply not qualified to continue discussing this. Thanks for the time you spent answering this, Dalcent |
||||||
79 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132414 | ||
In this doctrine you go against the historical witness of the first centuries of Christian interpretation: the Church Fathers. You should seriously consider asking how they were so spot on in their Christological and Trinitarian theology, and yet not even understand how to get saved 'the baptist way.' Your biblical interpretation needs to be weighed up in the light of the history of theology. Regards Dalcent |
||||||
80 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132413 | ||
Sorry, I don't know and would be equally interested in finding out! | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |