Bibliolatry - the hidden idolatry.

[Heidi]

Why do you believe in Jesus' resurrection, which NO ONE saw, but not in Marian apparitions that thousands saw? "Blessed are those who believe and did not SEE..." Sure, we should test everything. But we should ALSO not set the bar so high that it cannot pass that test! We should apply rigid rules of historical veracity to the event. But we should set the same rules we would apply to any other historical event - Julius Caesar's death at the hands of Brutus, and so forth. We should be consistent in how we apply our tests, don't you think?

If you did, I think you would find that Fatima is a worthwhile belief.

Joe

Because the bible talks about Jesus's resurrection not Mary's. :x True Christians believe what the bible does say, not what it doesn't say like the Catholics do. That's called rumor and gossip and made up stories which Peter condemns. So if the catholic church really wants to be like Peter, then they had better believe the words of Peter. Unbelievable. :roll:

 

[cyberjosh]

Joe,

Your reply is fair enough and I might as well wrap it up and take the good points into consideration while still maintaining our inevitable differences on certain issues.

Let me close by responding to this:

I agree. There are reliable witnesses who have had John the Baptist come to them, as well as some other female saints in preparation for something else. Jesus Himself also appears to people. Perhaps you have seen the Divine Mercy painting of Jesus. It is pretty common, taken from an alleged appearance to a Polish nun in the 1930's. At the bottom of the picture, it says "Jesus I trust in you". Have you seen that?

No I actually have not seen that picture. But here is my simple and honest thoughts on this, take them as you may. I can actually believe someone seeing Jesus or an angel but I have a hard time seeing the significance of anyone else appearing to us, for Angels are designated Messengers of God and Jesus is our mediator thus if he so chooses to visibly give us a glimpse of him (though it would certainly only be a form - like Ezekiel saw - lest we be blinded like Saul of Tarsus by Jesus even shining dimly in his glory) he certainly could, but here is my honest opinion: I see no reason why God would sent any deceased person to us. All the important messengers have been openly validated by God, even with the Two Witnesses who indeed could be revived prophets from the OT will be manifest to all, preaching directly to the people for God's pupose - but they won't be "ify" or "questionable" apparations, they will manifest the power of God openly for all to see. God has ordained these certain things while the Bible, in honesty, tells us that we should be first personally taught by the Spirit and secondly edify fellow believers through worship, Bible Study, prayer, etc. I don't necessarily see where heavenly appirations of deceased saints serve any purpose or fit in. And you must admit that even in the pagan world they too have seen visions respective to their religions, and I see that the majority (giving a little leniency just in case some visions really were authentically from God) of visions whether given to Pagans or Christians or displayed openly to both, have mostly been false visions. However as I said I give some leniency in case some were authentic. But the backdrop shows a common method of Satan to sow deciet and confusion in people's beliefs for his own purposes (and as I said before - I believe this is how the ancient polytheistic religions were started - by real supernatural occurances but that were wrought in deception). I can only say that I must be cautious.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[jgredline]

One of the erroneous teachings of the Roman Catholic Church is the doctrine of praying to the saints. Catholicism teaches that it is okay to offer prayers not only to God but also to creatures such as Mary, Joseph, and others who have entered heaven. Is it biblical to pray to anyone other than God? We firmly hold that it is not biblical and that to pray to anyone other than God is idolatrous. Nevertheless, Roman Catholics will try and find whatever they can in Scripture to demonstrate that praying to the saints is permitted. One of the major sections of Scripture used to support this is found in Rev. 5:8-14

"And when He had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, having each one a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy art Thou to take the book, and to break its seals; for Thou wast slain, and didst purchase for God with Thy blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. 10 "And Thou hast made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth." 11 And I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders; and the number of them was myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands, 12 saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing." 13 And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever." 14 And the four living creatures kept saying, "Amen." And the elders fell down and worshiped," (Rev. 5:8-14)

Let's look at this section of scripture from the Roman Catholic perspective and then analyze their position.

Verse 8 says speaks of the "golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints." Verses 9-10 speak of a new song sung in heaven. Verse 11 speaks of those around the throne of God and verse 12 says that they were saying "Worthy is the Lamb..." Verse 13 mentions every created thing in heaven and earth saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever."

We have no problem with those in heaven hearing what is said on earth. Many Christians deny that this is possible, but it seems to be clearly taught here. Does this justify the Roman Catholic teaching of praying to those who are in heaven? Not at all. Let's take a look at the verses.

First, regarding verse 8, can the prayers be authored by those who are already in heaven? It doesn't say. There are different interpretations on exactly who the saints are because their identity can't be precisely demonstrated; after all, Revelation is a highly symbolic book. Therefore, if it cannot be conclusively demonstrated who they are, then it cannot be conclusively demonstrated whose prayers they are, either. Nevertheless, verse 9 says "they sang a new song." Who is the "they"? It would have to be either the the four living creatures and/or the 24 elders since "prayers of the saints" don't sing, "creatures" and "elders" do the singing.

In verse 11-12 the angels, the creatures, and the elders who were all around the throne (which means they are in heaven) were praising God directly. In verse 13 it says every created thing in heaven and earth was praising God, then the elders fell down and worshiped, v. 14.

Second, just because those in heaven can hear the prayers of those on Earth does not mean that is okay to pray to saints. If they can hear the prayers of people it is because grants that to them. Think about it. Can those in heaven hear the prayers uttered without speech? Can they read minds? It is only God who knows all things and only God can grant anyone to hear or know what the prayers are of those who pray in silence. Let's not give the saints superhuman powers similar to omniscience. Nevertheless, all the text is saying is that they can hear the praise and worship of God. It does not say that they are to be prayed to, nor does it imply praying to them is permitted. All it says is that they can hear the prayers and praise. There is nothing suggesting that those on Earth are requesting the prayers or intercession of those in heaven. Nothing like this is in the text or even hinted at.

Third, even if the case can be made that prayers are authored in heaven, and that those prayers are mingled with the prayers of those from Earth, it still does not justify those on Earth praying to those in heaven. At best, all that we can say is that the prayers of those in heaven and the prayers of those on Earth are mingled. To say any more than that is to read into the Scripture what is not there.

Fourth, can the saints in heaven hear every prayer of every creature all the time? The Roman Catholic Church prefers to say that it's possible; otherwise, it would not be possible to legitimately pray to Mary. The standard Protestant objection is that praying to the saints implies a type of omniscience on the hearers' part. The Roman Catholic Church replies that we do not know what the state is of those in heaven and that we should not therefore conclude that they cannot hear all of our prayers. But this is an argument from silence. In other words, we don't know what it is like so we conclude it's possible. It is an argument based on what do don't know, not what we do know. This is a very very weak way of trying to present a position. Ultimately, it is an admission by the Roman Catholic Church that the Scriptures do not teach in any direct way there dogma of praying to the saints. The Roman Catholic Church must infer it from scripture and read into the text in order to support its error.
Who should we pray to?

There is no biblical teaching at all that states we are to pray to those who once were alive on earth and are now in heaven. Revelation, the same book used by them to justify their position says the following:

"And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said to me, "Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy," (Rev. 19:10).

John wants to bow the knee and worship the angel. But the angel tells him not to do that because he is a fellow creature. If the angel says that he is a fellow creature like John, and that John is not to bow to him, then neither should anyone else bow to an angel, or any creature so as to offer worship. Worship includes prayer. Therefore, no one should pray to any created thing.

Biblically, prayer is always offered to God, and is a form of worship. All religions view prayer as an act of worship to their gods since they contain petitions, confession of sin, requests of intercession, etc., things which are received and answered by God, not by created things. Also, prayer is not the same thing as talking to someone face-to-face. Prayer is a humble petition to the Lord in and not to a friend who's in the same room with you or on the other end of the phone -- or in heaven. Prayer is offered to God, never to any created thing. To do so is to offer worship that should only be directed to God, which is idolatry. Prayer should be offered only to God and the Roman Catholic Church needs to repent of its false and idolatrous practice of praying to the saints.

http://www.carm.org/catholic/prayertosaints.htm

 

[cyberjosh]

Javier,

Didn't Jesus himself prevent Peter from venerating Elijah and Moses on Mt. Tabor where he was Transfigured when Peter wanted to set up two tabernacles for them? Would that not clearly portray that Jesus is the one to be focused on, not saints or prophets? I believe that would be an active principle behind what you just said.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

Javier,

Didn't Jesus himself prevent Peter from venerating Elijah and Moses on Mt. Tabor where he was Transfigured when Peter wanted to set up two tabernacles for them? Would that not clearly portray that Jesus is the one to be focused on, not saints or prophets? I believe that would be an active principle behind what you just said.

God Bless,

~Josh

Josh,

Where did Jesus prevent Peter from venerating anyone at Tabor? Perhaps you are reading something into the Sacred Writ that is not there?

And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. And when the disciples heard [it], they fell on their face, and were sore afraid.
And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid.
And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only. Mat 17:3-8

I do not find anywhere above where Jesus tells them to "cut out that veneration"...

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

Josh,

Where did Jesus prevent Peter from venerating anyone at Tabor? Perhaps you are reading something into the Sacred Writ that is not there?

And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. And when the disciples heard [it], they fell on their face, and were sore afraid.
And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid.
And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only. Mat 17:3-8

I do not find anywhere above where Jesus tells them to "cut out that veneration"...

Regards

You must have never studied this passage in depth before (no offense intended). I'll explain my reasoning. I've actually heard a whole sermon on it before - and I'll share some of the points from it.

This is what the parallel account in Luke says:

Luke 9

"33And as these were leaving Him, Peter said to Jesus, "Master, it is good for us to be here; let us make three tabernacles: one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah"--not realizing what he was saying.

34While he was saying this, a cloud formed and began to overshadow them; and they were afraid as they entered the cloud.

35Then a voice came out of the cloud, saying, "This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!"

36And when the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. And they kept silent, and reported to no one in those days any of the things which they had seen. "

Peter in his foolishness (not knowing what he was saying) thought that it was good for them to have been there to see the Prophets appearance (thinking himself privilaged to see them) and God the Father himself interupted his nonesense and said, "This" turning Peter's attention rather to Jesus "is My Son, My Chosen One; [you] listen to Him!" In other words, forget about venerating the Prophets look to my only Son! They then kept silent about the event through out the rest of Jesus' ministry (the Prophets appearance was not of importance to be published among Judea - only Christ's Gospel was worthy of being published). And even later on when Peter writes his epistle when he mentions the transfiguration he makes no mention of the prophets - Jesus' glory took center stage.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Guest]

Josh - as does the parrell account in Mark echo the same.

Peter knew not what he was saying - speaking out of fear.

The focus was and is to be on Jesus - and Jesus ALONE.

Our actions, our speech, the actions and speech of the saints before us are to direct attention to Jesus, not ourselves.

 

[francisdesales]

You must have never studied this passage in depth before (no offense intended). I'll explain my reasoning. I've actually heard a whole sermon on it before - and I'll share some of the points from it.

Josh,

What you fail to realize is that yours is ONE interpretation. It is NOT the definitive meaning of the Scriptures. It is obvious that one can see that this passage says NOTHING about your idea, since I don't see it. Still.

Thus, your original idea, that Jesus is telling Peter not to venerate, is merely an opinion. Based on the writing, it is not there. Let's look more closely, since I have "never" studied this passage before...

Peter in his foolishness (not knowing what he was saying) thought that it was good for them to have been there to see the Prophets appearance (thinking himself privilaged to see them) and God the Father himself interupted his nonesense and said, "This" turning Peter's attention rather to Jesus "is My Son, My Chosen One; [you] listen to Him!" In other words, forget about venerating the Prophets look to my only Son!

That is an interpretation that attempts to KNOW the intent of the Almighty God. Note, that Peter said nothing BEFORE the voice came from the cloud. They were afraid of the clouds forming above them - and this is BEFORE the Father spoke. Thus, your interpretation is contrived and, I would say, is not correct. Peter was not "shut-up" by the Father, he was shut up by his fear of what was happening. These verses say nothing about approving or disapproving veneration.


Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

Joe,

Do you have any thoughts on my last post above concerning our previous discussion?

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

That is an interpretation that attempts to KNOW the intent of the Almighty God.

You act as if one cannot discern intent for the words revealed in Scipture at all, not even with the Holy Spirit's guiding. I'm not claming any personal confirmation from the Spirit on this but the Pastor I heard this from I believe knew what he was talking about because it fits IMO. God could have revealed something to him. I don't know, and neither can you for that matter so judge not too hastily.

Note, that Peter said nothing BEFORE the voice came from the cloud. They were afraid of the clouds forming above them - and this is BEFORE the Father spoke. Thus, your interpretation is contrived and, I would say, is not correct. Peter was not "shut-up" by the Father, he was shut up by his fear of what was happening. These verses say nothing about approving or disapproving veneration.

I said Peter was interupted (in a sense - though not midsentance) by God. The reason they said nothing afterwards was slightly unconnected (and I didn't even mention why - perhaps you assumed I made a connection...) because that was due to Jesus' personal admonition once they came down from the mountain. Jesus did not want them to publish openly what they had seen so he told them "Tell no one" (atleast until his ascension - and as I pointed out: even when Peter did later reveal what he had seen in his epistle he did not mention the prophets.)

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

Joe,

In your opinion why did Peter misspeak (not knowing what he was saying) and what do you think the purpose of building the tabernacles was for (as he intended)? I'm curious.

P.S. I left two posts for you also at the bottom of the last page.

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

Joe,

Do you have any thoughts on my last post above concerning our previous discussion?

~Josh

Yes. Merely that God's thoughts are not our thoughts, and God's ways are not our ways. What may be illogical to you (the sending of "dead" saints) is not to me, especially when Jesus stood side-by-side with two of the greatest "dead" saints of the Old Testament. Can you explain to me the rationale of God NOT sending angels or other messengers to remind people of God's Word, or God's mercy and love? God's salvation plan has not ended yet, so why do you think God's interaction with man has now stopped?

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

Yes. Merely that God's thoughts are not our thoughts, and God's ways are not our ways. What may be illogical to you (the sending of "dead" saints) is not to me, especially when Jesus stood side-by-side with two of the greatest "dead" saints of the Old Testament. Can you explain to me the rationale of God NOT sending angels or other messengers to remind people of God's Word, or God's mercy and love? God's salvation plan has not ended yet, so why do you think God's interaction with man has now stopped?

Regards

Well I'd like to continue talking with you about those two OT Saints (read my last two posts please), because it must be evaluated if it is to be applied in any way (even in your own post). But what did you think of my point in that post of God ordaining the Two Witnesses in end times explicitly in a very obvious way?

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

You act as if one cannot discern intent for the words revealed in Scipture at all, not even with the Holy Spirit's guiding.

Sorry, Josh, but if I had a dollar for everyone who said that THEIR interpretation was guided by the Holy Spirit, I'd be a millionaire. This includes a pastor who "knew what they were talking about"... The reason why I wonder is because this interpretation, as you have presented, is AGAINST what the Church would say. It allows veneration, your interpretation does not. Thus, either the entire Church of the past 2000 years is wrong and you and your pastor are correct, OR the interpretation is incorrect that you have given.

What I have discovered is that interpretation of Scriptures is led by our own personal opinions. We will naturally read the bible in the tradition that we have been raised or believe is correct. Thus, I will read the Scriptures through the Catholic lenses - such as eating the Flesh of Christ is taken literally - while you will read Scriptures through the Protestant lenses - that Jesus didn't really mean to eat His Body literally. And so forth as here.

While I tend to agree that the Spirit helps us with His Word, I do not think this transfers over to the full theological meaning and intent of the Word. I doubly-doubt it when it goes against what the community has been led by the Spirit to believe what it says. It is the height of arrogance to say "I am led by the Spirit, the Church -2000 years of Christians - are wrong". The Spirit is given to the community as a WHOLE on such matters. It is the only logical way, Josh.

Now, on to this Scripture.

I said Peter was interupted (in a sense - though not midsentance) by God.

Technically, that is true, since God is in control of everything. But isn't your interpretation going beyond what is written? The clouds forming over Peter's head does NOT mean that God was upset with what Peter was saying!
Thus, you are misjudging God's intent. I say this has NOTHING to do with veneration. That is a twisted attempt by the pastor to attack Catholicism.

The intent, in my opinion, is that the Father, God, the Voice from Heaven, has verified His only beloved Son and has told the Apostles to LISTEN to Him. What did He say???

Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.! Mat 17:9

Context, Josh. Immediately preceding the Transfiguration, Peter, with God's grace, identified Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. Peter's idea of WHAT that Messiah WAS, however, was incorrect. He couldn't BELIEVE that the Messiah would have to DIE on a CROSS. Peter rebukes our Lord. And Jesus rebukes Peter, telling Satan to leave, stop tempting Him to give up His Father's will. And then, the transfiguration. Peter is not listening to Jesus. He simply cannot believe that the Christ will have to die...

LISTEN TO HIM, the Father says...

As if to say, "This is my plan. My Son is to DIE on a cross". Moses and Elijah are there speaking in deference to our Lord - figures that represents the Law and the Prophets that speak about our Lord's mission. Again, "listen to Him. The entire Bible speaks about Jesus' mission as Messiah, as a suffering servant." There is no glory without the cross.

That is the context. It has nothing to do with NOT venerating the prophets. It is God's way of making it crystal-clear that Jesus' mission was ordained by God, so that when it happened, the three pillars of the Church (Gal 1) could spread the word AFTER the Resurrection - they would preach that "Jesus knew the whole time and gave His life - and this was God's will".

Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead. Mat 17:9

While this is not necessarily THE authoritative interpretation, it makes much more sense than the good pastor's, is in context with the rest of the Scriptures surrounding it, and is NOT in contradiction to what the teaching Church has taught for 2000 years. That is why I think mine is better, not because I am infallibly led by the Spirit.

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

What I have discovered is that interpretation of Scriptures is led by our own personal opinions.

It is no different for Church authorities. And don't tell me that corporate agreement is what establishes the personal opinions though because many Protestants corporately agree (such as the Southern Baptist Convention) on certain doctrines contrary to the belief of the Catholic Church for the last 2000 years (with out going into any specifics now). I was just making the point that it is incorrect to think that God cannot reveal the meaning of Scipture to you if you study. I hope you don't use your Church as a crutch for interpreting the Bible when you should be seeking the Spirit's guidance. I am tempted occasionally to use my commentaries as a crutch, but I find myself alot more refreshed when I just read whole passages of the Bible with no commentary and then only later if I still can't understand something then I will consult a commentary, and then I will go back and read and study again. Its a process and prayer should accompany it.

However this is a general arguement and I wasn't necessarily applying all this behind my opinion of what the passage meant.

Technically, that is true, since God is in control of everything. But isn't your interpretation going beyond what is written? The clouds forming over Peter's head does NOT mean that God was upset with what Peter was saying!

Whoa, slow down please. I never said anything about the cloud. and anythng God said aloud there on the mount would also have been for the benefit of the other disciples who were with Jesus.

Thus, you are misjudging God's intent. I say this has NOTHING to do with veneration.

Please, I already attempted to mediate on this point, but I cannot continue until you oblige me. I wrote above:

"In your opinion why did Peter misspeak (not knowing what he was saying) and what do you think the purpose of building the tabernacles was for (as he intended)? I'm curious. "

in order to try to get your opinion on this. In your entire post here you skipped over the note/point of Peter's error which the Bible clearly mentions (not knowing what he was saying). There must be some significance to it. Let's explore this.

That is a twisted attempt by the pastor to attack Catholicism.

Ah! I must say something here. I tend to reflect on my posts between breaks at work, thinking ahead of time how I might answer potential objections; and as I thought on what I said I wondered if you would misunderstand/misconstue the interpretaion I gave as being in the context of applying to Catholicism. I thought to myself (knowing that such an accusation would not be true), "If he says anything about it I can actually tell him that his objection actually speaks more to the credebility of the interpretation somewhat: for it had no agenda of the sort!" And you have fulfilled the very thing I thought might happen.

The pastor never mentioned Catholism, and I highly doubt he even thought about Catholicism when he taught on the passage (why would he? Not many Protestants think about Catholic doctrines anyway), and he didn't apply it in the way I did either. And the reason I say it might go more to his credebility is because he had no applicable agenda of the sort - he was just preaching on the passage to preform exegesis on it (that's how my old Pastor used to do things). One day he would cover the triumphal entry, the next the story of Mary and Martha, next, etc... just to reveal deeper meaning to apply to our lives.

He did not apply his over all point for the Sermon it in the negative affirmation of "do not venerate prophets" but rather (maybe not even aware of the connotations of the negative affirmaion) he applied it in the positive affirmation of "focus solely on Christ" while he would always say something funny like "old foot-in-the-mouth Peter did it again" (because he spoke without thinking). He would apply this very broadly, like not letting anything get in the way of Chirst (our job, relationships, our school, etc.).

So he did not twist scripture against Catholicism! Please inquire before making accusations.

I took his sermon, which was completely disjointed with the current conversation, and applied it in a different way by affirming the negative in light of the positive. So my source is clean on motives as far as I'm concerned, your objections should be against me alone - at face value.

The intent, in my opinion, is that the Father, God, the Voice from Heaven, has verified His only beloved Son and has told the Apostles to LISTEN to Him. What did He say???

Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.! Mat 17:9

Context, Josh. Immediately preceding the Transfiguration, Peter, with God's grace, identified Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. Peter's idea of WHAT that Messiah WAS, however, was incorrect. He couldn't BELIEVE that the Messiah would have to DIE on a CROSS. Peter rebukes our Lord. And Jesus rebukes Peter, telling Satan to leave, stop tempting Him to give up His Father's will. And then, the transfiguration. Peter is not listening to Jesus. He simply cannot believe that the Christ will have to die...

LISTEN TO HIM, the Father says...

As if to say, "This is my plan. My Son is to DIE on a cross". Moses and Elijah are there speaking in deference to our Lord - figures that represents the Law and the Prophets that speak about our Lord's mission. Again, "listen to Him. The entire Bible speaks about Jesus' mission as Messiah, as a suffering servant." There is no glory without the cross.

Once again, you must factor in something which you skipped over which might be significant, so please answer my question above:

"In your opinion why did Peter misspeak (not knowing what he was saying) and what do you think the purpose of building the tabernacles was for (as he intended)? I'm curious. "

Thanks.

~Josh

 

[stranger]

Cybershark5886 wrote:

Once again, you must factor in something which you skipped over which might be significant, so please answer my question above:

"In your opinion why did Peter misspeak (not knowing what he was saying) and what do you think the purpose of building the tabernacles was for (as he intended)? I'm curious. "

Thanks.

~Josh

hi,

Having read your post(s) from a Protestant perspective, and from what exists in faith outside that perspective - I pose the following question:

Do you allow or make provision for mystery in your hermenuetic?

 

[francisdesales]

And don't tell me that corporate agreement is what establishes the personal opinions though because many Protestants corporately agree (such as the Southern Baptist Convention) on certain doctrines contrary to the belief of the Catholic Church for the last 2000 years (with out going into any specifics now). I was just making the point that it is incorrect to think that God cannot reveal the meaning of Scipture to you if you study.

Of course I am not saying that God cannot reveal the meaning of Scripture to us!!! I have a large library of commentaries and books on the Bible. As I said, I just completed a study of the book of Wisdom. You should read it. Back on topic. God does NOT give revelations that differ from His Church. Jesus had an interesting way of putting this concept...

And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. Mark 3:24

Certainly, you cannot be suggesting that God is trying to divide His OWN Kingdom here on earth??? Again, WHO is the pillar and foundation of the Truth? WHO did Christ promise the Spirit to? Over and over, Paul uses the plural tense when using the word "you" when discussing receiving the Spirit. The CHURCH as an entire Body receives the Spirit. If Christ is the Body, the Holy Spirit is the Soul of that Body. And those individuals who choose to interpret Scriptures outside of this Body are merely rejecting the Holy Spirit's position in the Body.

So, when God reveals Scripture to the individual, it is NOT for the purpose of overthrowing His own Church!!!

Whoa, slow down please. I never said anything about the cloud. and anythng God said aloud there on the mount would also have been for the benefit of the other disciples who were with Jesus.

It is at the point BEFORE anything was said, when the clouds were forming, that the disciples became afraid and became silent, not when Jesus or the Father chastized them for venerating!!!

"In your opinion why did Peter misspeak (not knowing what he was saying) and what do you think the purpose of building the tabernacles was for (as he intended)? I'm curious

He was speaking off the top of his head because he was beside himself! Who wouldn't be amazed and flabbergasted, seeing 2 apparitions and Jesus clothed in white shining in glory. What does this have to do with Jesus telling Peter not to venerate - which strangely enough, is not in any Scripture that I have read... I see Peter's reaction as a normal one for his personality. Remember, the guy was brash and down to earth, not one given to theological reflection and subtle commentary. Give the guy a break!!!

"If he says anything about it I can actually tell him that his objection actually speaks more to the credebility of the interpretation somewhat: for it had no agenda of the sort!" And you have fulfilled the very thing I thought might happen.

Josh, that is ridiculous. The fact of the matter is that the pastor is claiming that this is a support for Jesus' disapproval of a Catholic practice. It has nothing to do with supporting the eigesis, which is what it is, since I STILL do not see ANYONE tell the Apostles to stop venerating the prophets... Clearly, this is taken out of context because of some agenda to fulfill. Where is veneration condemned anywhere in the verses preceding or following the event? Does Jesus mince words? Why does He suddenly become shy and not speak the Truth, IF veneration is the topic on His mind? You are putting intent into the Almighty God's actions that are not warranted. That is from my accusation when we first began, and I still continue to say it, because you have yet to explain to me, without doubt, that your interpretation is the correct one.

I took his sermon, which was completely disjointed with the current conversation, and applied it in a different way by affirming the negative in light of the positive. So my source is clean on motives as far as I'm concerned, your objections should be against me alone - at face value.

And I am supposed to know you took the pastor's sermon out of context to suit your own purpose? Very well, my objection is with you and your interpretation. Now, which one makes more sense, yours or mine? I will let you judge.

Regards

 

[jgredline]

Of course I am not saying that God cannot reveal the meaning of Scripture to us!!! I have a large library of commentaries and books on the Bible. As I said, I just completed a study of the book of Wisdom. You should read it. Back on topic. God does NOT give revelations that differ from His Church. Jesus had an interesting way of putting this concept...

And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. Mark 3:24

Certainly, you cannot be suggesting that God is trying to divide His OWN Kingdom here on earth??? Again, WHO is the pillar and foundation of the Truth? WHO did Christ promise the Spirit to? Over and over, Paul uses the plural tense when using the word "you" when discussing receiving the Spirit. The CHURCH as an entire Body receives the Spirit. If Christ is the Body, the Holy Spirit is the Soul of that Body. And those individuals who choose to interpret Scriptures outside of this Body are merely rejecting the Holy Spirit's position in the Body.

So, when God reveals Scripture to the individual, it is NOT for the purpose of overthrowing His own Church!!!

You are making the presumption that the Catholic church is the church....
This is a false presumption...The church is anyplace where two or more are gathered....in ''HIS'' name....

The fact of the matter is this...The real Christians have been running from the Catholic church since the first century...Here are some interesting quotes...

Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:

"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.)

The "twelve hundred years" were the years preceding the Reformation in which Rome persecuted Baptists with the most cruel persecution thinkable.

Sir Isaac Newton:

"The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome."

Mosheim (Lutheran):

"Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists."

Edinburg Cyclopedia (Presbyterian):

"It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time."

Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death of the Apostle John.



The bible does speak of the Catholic Church...It is found here...Most end time scholars believe this to be so.....

Rev 17:6 I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement.

 

[Heidi]

Yes. Merely that God's thoughts are not our thoughts, and God's ways are not our ways. What may be illogical to you (the sending of "dead" saints) is not to me, especially when Jesus stood side-by-side with two of the greatest "dead" saints of the Old Testament. Can you explain to me the rationale of God NOT sending angels or other messengers to remind people of God's Word, or God's mercy and love? God's salvation plan has not ended yet, so why do you think God's interaction with man has now stopped?

Regards

God did send people to give us his word. All we have to do is believe his word. So why do you think he needs to send us more prophets when many Christians don't believe the apostles & prophets he did send? :o Since the bible is God's word it would take more than a lifetime to understand everything in it. So asking for more prophets is only asking for trouble because anyone can claim he's a prophet. That's not hard at all. As jesus tells us "The only sign this generation will receive is the sign of Jonah." ;-)

 

[jgredline]

God did send people to give us his word. All we have to do is believe his word. So why do you think he needs to send us more prophets when many Christians don't believe the apostles & prophets he did send? :o Since the bible is God's word it would take more than a lifetime to understand everything in it. So asking for more prophets is only asking for trouble because anyone can claim he's a prophet. That's not hard at all. As jesus tells us "The only sign this generation will receive is the sign of Jonah." ;-)

Yes, and If I could simply add...When Revelation was ''written'' that was the end of it...While God still speaks to us individually, he does not send prophets any longer....The next time we see a prophet from God will mean that the end is upon us....

Every time someone claims to be a prophet from God, we get a new cult...End of story...