Paradise on Earth

[onewithhim]

When I learned that the Bible speaks of a restored Garden of Eden and the restoration of mankind to the perfection and endless life that Adam forfeited, I was thrilled. Who doesn't want to keep living on this beautiful earth, with our loved ones, and being able to do all the things we love to do---endlessly?

If God said to you today, "When do you want to die?" would you say "now!!"? I don't think very many people would say that.

We CAN live forever here on Earth. The Bible tells us that we can.

Matthew 5:5
Psalm 37:9-11,29

[RightReason]

[Replying to tam]

The responses are not going to be different just because your points are repeated in various articles.

If it seems like I am repeating myself it is because it seems like you arent actually reading what I post. I provided you all the evidence from Scripture regarding the primacy of Peter. I pointed out what the exact translation means in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. I pointed out how Scripture shows that the other Apostles recognized the authority of Peter. I also pointed out how the first Christians knew and taught Peter as the leader. In fact, the primacy of Peter wasnt even challenged until those who broke off from Christs Church had the need to do so in order to support their own invented theology and authority. But you arent interested in historical evidence or evidence from Scripture so not much I can do.

Other than again note the irony. Where do you think the Bible came from? Who compiled Sacred Scripture? And yes, it was compiled and did not fall from the sky. Who had the authority to choose what books would make up Scripture and which would not? Could just any of the Body of believers have done so? Of course not. Christ established an authoritative Church to do so. You do realize the Church came before Sacred Scripture, right? You quote an awful lot of Scripture in your post. You arent suggesting Christ Himself audibly spoke those words to you, are you? If not, then you got them from Scripture, which means you got them from the Church. If you trust the Church enough to give you Scripture, then you are acknowledging the authority of the Church and in doing doing so acknowledge the impossibility that Sacred Scripture is wrong or errant.

There are much more intelligent and Holy people then myself who have acknowledged and understood the authority of the Catholic Church as Gods plan for man. Read the lives of the Saints. These are men and women, who some, unlike you and me, have actually heard the audible voice of God. They arent blind sheep, blindly obeying the Church even if the Church told untruths. They are simply Holy men and women who trust in Christs words and promises and that He chose to work through His Church and we need to honor and respect that. These were men and women who sacrificed their entire lives for God and His Church, which is what we are all called to do.

You want to leave the Church out of the equation, but Im afraid it doesnt work that way. As Christ told us, He who hears you, hears me. Like it or not all salvation comes by way of the Church. You cant accept that. You feel some need to qualify that statement and say no, all salvation comes by way of Christ, but to say all salvation comes by way of the Church is not contradicting that we are saved by Christ. Quite the contrary, if we are saved by Christ, we are saved by the means He intended. If He requires we be Baptized into His Church, then we need to be Baptized into His Church. We dont get to say thats just inconsequential details.

I dont think we will see eye to eye on this, but again I will point out the illogic of your Christian understanding. Christ knows we are human beings and we need to see the reason and logic in things. Faith and reason go hand in hand. And it is unreasonable to not see the logic in Christ establishing One, Authoritative, and Apostolic Church as our guide on earth. Nothing else makes sense!

And Christ (the Image of God, the Truth, the Word of God) is the One who has shown me who God is, helped me to understand Him, and what HE expects of us.

Says every Christian and yet all believe and teach different things. Its quite convenient and easy to say, Well, I am acting in accordance with our Lord. But if you and Jane both say and believe that, while simultaneously believing different things, who is right? How do you know its not Jane? Are you smarter or holier than Jane?

They are taught that they must remain in their 'church' no matter what, because it is God's visible organization on earth. Even if that organization gets things wrong, they must remain because there is 'nowhere else to go'.

That is exactly what you are taught about the RCC.

And those in the Jesus and me camp believe they must remain free from any earthly institution and follow the Light of Christ even if their inner light gets things wrong (of course they can never really completely know if their inner light is getting things right or wrong, as much can get in the way of Christs communication with us). The Jesus and me camp you are a member of think there is nowhere else to go. If only Christ is the Light, you are left with the possibility of mistaking the Light of Christ with the light of Tammy. Human beings are quite good at rationalizing just about anything. Without believing Christ promised to remain with His Church leaves you with no where to go.

My faith is a gift.

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets: And they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from Him comes to Me John 6:45

Way to skip the next part . . .

Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." "John 20:21
.

Christ said that such things would be done TO His servants. He NEVER said that HIS SERVANTS would DO such things to OTHERS.

And yet Gods servants have done terrible things despite God choosing them, because well, were sinful human beings. What you dont understand is the one does not negate the other.

Can you not SEE what that SAYS about your organization?

No. As G.K. Chesterton points out, The Church is justified, not because her children do not sin, but because they do. Think about that for a few minutes. Such is precisely why we need the Church and why God designed it the way He did!

The RCC - whom you believe gave the rest of us sacred scripture - cannot manage to even follow the words of Christ as recorded in those scriptures.

Members within the Church cannot manage to follow the words of Christ. And all men whatever religion fall short in following the words of Christ and always have.

I know there is no 'catholic' purgatory because Christ did not and does not teach it.

I beg to differ. Purgatory is supported in Scripture and could be a topic for another thread. It is also something that again I could show in the writings of the early Christians. Christ did not mention the word Trinity either, and as many try to do like you are doing now about purgatory they try to claim Christ did not teach the Trinity. Oops! Whats a Christian to do? Is this another example of your light of Christ conflicting with my light of Christ? Yikes!

The LIGHT (that IS Christ) does not reveal different things to different people. But that does not stop people from making claims, nor does that stop people from erring.

Hmmmmm . . . and how shall we test it? Your feelings against mine? Scripture? I show evidence from Scripture you dont accept it. You say Christ tells you no purgatory. I say Christ tells me purgatory. Hmmm . . . .

In any case, I know (from my Lord) to test the inspired expressions against Him (who IS the Truth and the Light), against love (since God is love), and against what is written (beginning with what Christ has said). If something is against the words and deeds of my Lord, against love, and against what He has taught me... then I know that it is not true.

Then you would agree with me purgatory is true. If it is tested against love we see purgatory is one of the greatest gifts of love God can give us. It is a time of purification to prepare us to be with Him. If we test it against what is written we see it is right in line with Sacred Scripture. We can even test it against what His Church has to say about it and what some of the first Christian writers had to say about it. Based on everything you mentioned " it passes the test. Glad we got that cleared up.

If you are just going to remain in and follow the RCC no matter what evil they might do, simply because they claim to be the church that Christ established (even though their words and deeds are in contradiction with His own)... well... that doesn't make much sense to me. Seems like a perfect recipe to getting fooled into believing that a lie is the truth.

The Catholic Church puts things to the test just like your above example with one very big difference. The Church has personally been given the authority in all final decisions. She was promised by Christ Himself to be guided by the Holy Spirit and left in charge.

With your own reasoning, is not letting some inner guide guide what we think is true not a perfect recipe to getting fooled? How can one ever be certain he is relying solely on Christs authority and not his own? Way too problematic and illogical. Christ wanted One unified message. After the resurrection He did not just leave His followers to their own devices. He left them His Church and as evidenced in Scripture they went to the Church and obeyed her as evidenced in Scripture and history!

Do we not have forgiveness in Christ? Does His blood not cover us, so that we have forgiveness in Him? Is He not the high priest interceding on our behalf?

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace Ephesians 1:7

And what about:

and forgive us our sins, as we have forgiven those who have sinned against us. Matthew 6:12

And what about:

For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. Matthew 6:14


Or this:

Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. Ephesians 4:32


Or this:

Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.Colossians 3:13

Did those who put Christ to death first 'tell' their sin before Christ said, "Father forgive them, they know not what they do..."?

Christ knows our human nature. He knows we have 5 senses. He knows the importance of physically telling/confessing our sins " saying the words out loud and having those words heard by a priest acting in persona christe and then and heres the kicker getting to hear back the audible words, I absolve you of your sins. Your sins are forgiven, go in peace The set up of Confession is quite frankly perfect and could save an awful lot of people many hours of therapy and money spent on Prozac. It doesnt really compare to lying in my bed at night and telling God Im sorry for all the things Ive done wrong. That is what we Catholics refer to as examination of conscience and it is good and necessary, but is just the first step. The next step is getting off our butt, driving to a Catholic Church, completely humbling ourselves and forcing ourselves to say to another human being our sins and hearing those sins as they come out of our mouths. That priest then (acting in the place of Christ) can judge if we are contrite, sincere, determined to not sin again. That priest can talk to us, give us advice, and even dole out a punishment. But most of all that priest can say the words that we are dying to hear. And we can KNOW that we are forgiven. Confession is a beautiful gift from our Lord. Could He have done it another way? Of Course. But in His wisdom He knows what we need.

If the RCC (and the protestants) listened to Him, then how could they possibly have justified their inquisitions, their witch burnings, their enslavement of people, etc?

How could people have ever owned slaves? There were those who actually met and spoke with Christ Himself and yet likely still owned slaves. How can women possibly justify abortion? They clearly must not believe in God.

HE is their HEAD, and HE speaks to them. As He said He would.

Yep, as He said He would speak to them by way of His Church. Why do you keep skipping that part? Its in your Bible too.

You thinking that Christ cannot speak to His sheep and lead them into all truth WITHOUT some earthly organization... how is THAT not the very lack of faith and trust in both God and His Son, that you are accusing me of?

I think God can speak to us in whatever manner He chooses and I think it is more than clear that He chose to speak to us via His Church. Nothing can be more clear. First, the Church came before Scripture. So all the Scripture you are quoting to me was handed down to us via Christs Church.

I don't trust men. I don't give men my obedience and my faith. I have faith in my Lord, I trust my Lord - who is alive, truly, and not absent - and I obey HIM.

Aaaaaaand yet you dont " because He said listen to those men I put in charge.

I would think that it would be exceedingly simple to quote a couple of verses from Christ stating that He was appointing Peter over the other apostles. The fact that His ACTUAL words state exactly the OPPOSITE, seems to be lost on you, and on the RCC itself.

Your exact response has been used by JWs regarding the Trinity. They claim it is not specifically mentioned in Scripture. If it was so important, clearly Jesus would have specifically mentioned it. Then the JWs would go on to say there are verses that state the exact opposite of the Trinity.

^ One more perfect example of the necessity of an authoritative Church.

Peace again to you, and to yours

And to you. As for all your comments about our mother Mary, Ill simply ask Mary for her prayers to open your heart.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 681 by RightReason]

Um...Mary doesn't hear prayers. She leaves all that to the Father. It says in the Bible that HE is the hearer of prayer. Maybe you should tell your priest.

"To you we owe our hymn of praise, O God, in Zion; To you must vows be fulfilled, you who hear prayers." (Psalm 64(65): 2, Holy Trinity Edition of the Catholic Bible)

[RightReason]

[Replying to onewithhim]

Um...Mary doesn't hear prayers. She leaves all that to the Father. It says in the Bible that HE is the hearer of prayer. Maybe you should tell your priest.

Hmmmm . . . better look at that Bible again . . .

*****************************************************

Hebrews 11:1-12:1 finishes "Seeing we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses [in other words, the heroes and martyrs of the faith from ages past], let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us." Thus, the heroes and martyrs are a good example for us, and surround us like spectators at a running race " therefore, obviously, they know about us and can see our struggles from heaven.

James 5:16-18: 'The prayer of the good man has powerful effect." In other words, the most powerful intercessors in the Church are those most advanced in holiness. And who is more advanced in holiness than a soul who is already fully sanctified and in heaven?

Revelation 5:8; 8:3-4: "In heaven the elders and angels offer up the prayers of the saints [on earth] as incense before the throne of God." In this passage it is important to note that the New Testament uses the word "saint" of every baptized Christian, not because we are all perfectly holy, but because we have all at least received the gift of the Holy Spirit. So this passage implies that the angels and elders (holy Christian leaders now in heaven) hear the prayers of every Christian on earth, and join their prayer now with ours.

In short, put these passages together, and they certainly imply that the saints in heaven know of our struggles on earth and of our prayers, and join their powerful intercessory prayers with ours.

In the early tradition of the Church, the early liturgies almost all have passages which imply that the saints join their prayers with ours, and that ours are joined with theirs. Some examples of these early liturgical prayers are included in the modern rite of the Eucharist: "Now with angels and archangels, and the whole company of heaven, we sing the unending hymn of your praise ...

The doctrine of the invocation of the angels and saints also fits well with the wider pattern of the Christian Faith. Our growth in faith and holiness is aided by the intercession of other members of the Body of Christ (Eph 6:18; 1 Thess 3:11-13; 1 Tim 2:1-4), and the Church on earth and in heaven are evidently united in some way in Christ (Heb 12:22-24). It is hard to see how asking the angels and saints to pray for us can be misconstrued as "idolatry" (the accusation made by some Evangelicals), while asking one's Christian family members and friends for their prayers is not. Both acts seem to be based on similar principles of charity and intercessory prayer. Idolatry would only occur if one believed that a saint or angel would give you something that our Lord would not (as if praying to an alternate God); but authentic prayers to the angels and saints are no more than requests made to them to pray for us to Him! The final address is still the same, as in the "Hail Mary": "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death."

http://www.thedivinemercy.org/news/How- ... ayers-2859


As Scripture indicates, those in heaven are aware of the prayers of those on earth. This can be seen, for example, in Revelation 5:8, where John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of "golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints." But if the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers. They are aware of our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us.


It is clear from Revelation 5:8 that the saints in heaven do actively intercede for us. We are explicitly told by John that the incense they offer to God are the prayers of the saints. Prayers are not physical things and cannot be physically offered to God. Thus the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God mentally. In other words, they are interceding.


Another charge commonly levelled against asking the saints for their intercession is that this violates the sole mediatorship of Christ, which Paul discusses: "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5).


But asking one person to pray for you in no way violates Christs mediatorship, as can be seen from considering the way in which Christ is a mediator. First, Christ is a unique mediator between man and God because he is the only person who is both God and man. He is the only bridge between the two, the only God-man. But that role as mediator is not compromised in the least by the fact that others intercede for us. Furthermore, Christ is a unique mediator between God and man because he is the Mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 9:15, 12:24), just as Moses was the mediator (Greek mesitas) of the Old Covenant (Gal. 3:19"20).


The intercession of fellow Christians"which is what the saints in heaven are"also clearly does not interfere with Christs unique mediatorship because in the four verses immediately preceding 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul says that Christians should interceed: "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and pleasing to God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:1"4). Clearly, then, intercessory prayers offered by Christians on behalf of others is something "good and pleasing to God," not something infringing on Christs role as mediator.


Sometimes Fundamentalists object to asking our fellow Christians in heaven to pray for us by declaring that God has forbidden contact with the dead in passages such as Deuteronomy 18:10"11. In fact, he has not, because he at times has given it"for example, when he had Moses and Elijah appear with Christ to the disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3). What God has forbidden is necromantic practice of conjuring up spirits. "There shall not be found among you any one who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer. . . . For these nations, which you are about to dispossess, give heed to soothsayers and to diviners; but as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you so to do. The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren"him you shall heed" (Deut. 18:10"15).


Why should we ask any Christian, in heaven or on earth, to pray for us when we can ask Jesus directly? If the mere fact that we can go straight to Jesus proved that we should ask no Christian in heaven to pray for us then it would also prove that we should ask no Christian on earth to pray for us.


Praying for each other is simply part of what Christians do. As we saw, in 1 Timothy 2:1"4, Paul strongly encouraged Christians to intercede for many different things, and that passage is by no means unique in his writings. Elsewhere Paul directly asks others to pray for him (Rom. 15:30"32, Eph. 6:18"20, Col. 4:3, 1 Thess. 5:25, 2 Thess. 3:1), and he assured them that he was praying for them as well (2 Thess. 1:11). Most fundamentally, Jesus himself required us to pray for others, and not only for those who asked us to do so (Matt. 5:44).


Since the practice of asking others to pray for us is so highly recommended in Scripture, it cannot be regarded as superfluous on the grounds that one can go directly to Jesus. The New Testament would not recommend it if there were not benefits coming from it. One such benefit is that the faith and devotion of the saints can support our own weaknesses and supply what is lacking in our own faith and devotion. Jesus regularly supplied for one person based on another persons faith (e.g., Matt. 8:13, 15:28, 17:15"18, Mark 9:17"29, Luke 8:49"55). And it goes without saying that those in heaven, being free of the body and the distractions of this life, have even greater confidence and devotion to God than anyone on earth.


Also, God answers in particular the prayers of the righteous. James declares: "The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. Elijah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit" (Jas. 5:16"18). Yet those Christians in heaven are more righteous, since they have been made perfect to stand in Gods presence (Heb. 12:22-23), than anyone on earth, meaning their prayers would be even more efficacious.

Having others praying for us thus is a good thing, not something to be despised or set aside. Of course, we should pray directly to Christ with every pressing need we have (cf. John 14:13"14). Thats something the Catholic Church strongly encourages. In fact, the prayers of the Mass, the central act of Catholic worship, are directed to God and Jesus, not the saints. But this does not mean that we should not also ask our fellow Christians, including those in heaven, to pray with us.


In addition to our prayers directly to God and Jesus (which are absolutely essential to the Christian life), there are abundant reasons to ask our fellow Christians in heaven to pray for us. The Bible indicates that they are aware of our prayers, that they intercede for us, and that their prayers are effective (else they would not be offered). It is only narrow-mindedness that suggests we should refrain from asking our fellow Christians in heaven to do what we already know them to be anxious and capable of doing.


The Bible directs us to invoke those in heaven and ask them to pray with us. Thus in Psalms 103, we pray, "Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20-21). And in Psalms 148 we pray, "Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!" (Ps. 148:1-2).


Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In the book of Revelation, we read: "[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God" (Rev. 8:3-4).


And those in heaven who offer to God our prayers arent just angels, but humans as well. John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). The simple fact is, as this passage shows: The saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/praying-to-the-saints

[tam]

Peace to you!

[Replying to tam]

The responses are not going to be different just because your points are repeated in various articles.

If it seems like I am repeating myself it is because it seems like you arent actually reading what I post.

I am reading everything you post. I am even responding to everything you post. I am now skipping over things that are just repetitive. But that is all I am skipping over.

I provided you all the evidence from Scripture regarding the primacy of Peter.

No, you provided me with links that add to what is written, but no statement from Christ where He raised one apostle over the other apostles. Because Christ did not raise one apostle over the others. He said the opposite in fact: they had ONE Teacher/Master/Leader: Christ Himself... and that they were all brothers.

The verse, "You are Cephas, and on this Rock I will build my church" does not mean that the church was built on Peter, simply because his name means rock. The apostles are all equal. There are twelve foundation stones in the wall of the Holy City.

Christ first, then the apostles, then everyone else in His Church/Bride/Body. But no one has to go through the apostles (and certainly no one has to go through Peter) to come to Christ. That would be impossible. The twelve apostles have all died (fallen asleep).


But Christ is Himself the Rock. Of course His Church is built upon Him.

I also pointed out how the first Christians knew and taught Peter as the leader.

You CLAIMED this. But when I asked you to provide the scripture to back up your claim, you provided quotes from a few people who lived between 200 and 450 AD.

Such people are not the first Christians. And we can see from the start that men were already being misled (even by their own petty jealousies), and following after men.


Therefore stop boasting in men! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future. All of them belong to you, and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God.



He chided them because they were boasting about which man they followed. Would that not have been the perfect time for Paul to state clearly that Cephas is the one Christ set up as leader? The one who had authority over the Church? Yet Paul said nothing to that effect.


Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.


Still Paul says nothing about the supposed 'primacy' of Peter.

In fact, the primacy of Peter wasnt even challenged until those who broke off from Christs Church had the need to do so in order to support their own invented theology and authority. But you arent interested in historical evidence or evidence from Scripture so not much I can do.

This (the bold) is untrue. The 'primacy' of Peter was either not known or not accepted by those who had been stating they followed someone else. Such as paul or apollos, over Cephas, some even over Christ Himself.


What I mean is this: Individuals among you are saying, I follow Paul, I follow Apollos, I follow Cephas, or I follow Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?

(and still Paul did not state that Peter was the one in charge)

You do realize the Church came before Sacred Scripture, right?

That is simply wrong.

Scripture (prophets, Moses, Psalms) came before the Church. Christ came before Scripture (in spirit) and Christ came before the NT (in the flesh).

In all things, Christ comes first.

You quote an awful lot of Scripture in your post.

So you (and perhaps others reading) have something to SEE. So you can see what your own holy book says on the matter.

As Christ told us, He who hears you, hears me. Like it or not all salvation comes by way of the Church. You cant accept that.

Your conclusion does not follow your premise.

Obviously, if Christ has sent someone to speak what He has given them to say, then, "he who hears you, hears me." But that does not mean that HE does not and cannot speak, Himself. Or else He would have said, 'no one can hear me except by hearing you - or - my sheep will listen to YOUR voice'.

You feel some need to qualify that statement and say no, all salvation comes by way of Christ, but to say all salvation comes by way of the Church is not contradicting that we are saved by Christ. Quite the contrary, if we are saved by Christ, we are saved by the means He intended. If He requires we be Baptized into His Church, then we need to be Baptized into His Church.

We are baptized into the Body (of Christ) because that is what we become a part of when we receive holy spirit.

The body is a unit, though it is comprised of many parts. And although its parts are many, they all form one body. So it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free, and we were all given one Spirit to drink.


That body is the Body of Christ, as I have shared with you.

Now you are the body of Christ, and each of you is a member of it. 1Corinthians 12:27

That is the Body I am referring to.

If only Christ is the Light, you are left with the possibility of mistaking the Light of Christ with the light of Tammy.

All these questions that you are asking of me... how did the apostles know it was Christ speaking to them, leading them, guiding them... how did Stephen know, or Ananias, or Philip, or Paul, or John, or any of the others who heard His voice and listened to Him?


(But even if I were completely on my own -though I am not on my own- how could I possibly do worse on my own than the RCC has done? Truly? How could anyone do worse than the RCC has done? Being part of that daughter has not protected anyone from false teachings, false teachers, from disobeying Christ.)

The RCC - whom you believe gave the rest of us sacred scripture - cannot manage to even follow the words of Christ as recorded in those scriptures.

Members within the Church cannot manage to follow the words of Christ. And all men whatever religion fall short in following the words of Christ and always have.

The LEADERSHIP - including the popes - cannot manage to follow the words of Christ.

In any case, I know (from my Lord) to test the inspired expressions against Him (who IS the Truth and the Light), against love (since God is love), and against what is written (beginning with what Christ has said). If something is against the words and deeds of my Lord, against love, and against what He has taught me... then I know that it is not true.

Then you would agree with me purgatory is true. If it is tested against love we see purgatory is one of the greatest gifts of love God can give us. It is a time of purification to prepare us to be with Him. If we test it against what is written we see it is right in line with Sacred Scripture. We can even test it against what His Church has to say about it and what some of the first Christian writers had to say about it. Based on everything you mentioned " it passes the test. Glad we got that cleared up.

You have not offered the teaching up to be tested yet. You can't just say, oh it passes this and this and this test. You haven't even presented what it is yet. THEN we can test it.

With your own reasoning, is not letting some inner guide guide what we think is true not a perfect recipe to getting fooled? How can one ever be certain he is relying solely on Christs authority and not his own? Way too problematic and illogical. Christ wanted One unified message. After the resurrection He did not just leave His followers to their own devices.

You're right, He did not leave them to their own devices. HE spoke to them and guided them, granted them holy spirit. We have examples from Philip, Paul, Ananias, Peter, Stephen, John hearing Him and following His commands that He personally gave to them... and we have His own words that His sheep would hear His voice. I've shared the evidence of all of this on this thread.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim]

Um...Mary doesn't hear prayers. She leaves all that to the Father. It says in the Bible that HE is the hearer of prayer. Maybe you should tell your priest.

Hmmmm . . . better look at that Bible again . . .

*****************************************************

Hebrews 11:1-12:1 finishes "Seeing we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses [in other words, the heroes and martyrs of the faith from ages past], let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us." Thus, the heroes and martyrs are a good example for us, and surround us like spectators at a running race " therefore, obviously, they know about us and can see our struggles from heaven.

First of all. the heroes and martyrs from ages past aren't in heaven yet. Jesus said that NO ONE had gone to heaven before he came down here. Hello!

"No one has ascended into heaven, but he who descended from heaven: the Son of Man." (John 3:13, NASB)

Did you miss that? Then he said that he would resurrect people, including his chosen co-rulers, "on the last day" ("harvest time"). (John 6:40) When is the last day?


Finally for now, we can ask people to pray for us, but it's not praying in our place, as if we were that person. We are simply asking them to pray to God that we are guided by Him. Pray to GOD. The Scripture is clear. (Matt.6:9)


.

[RightReason]

[Replying to tam]

No, you provided me with links that add to what is written, but no statement from Christ

^This excuse is bogus and you know it. All Scripture needs interpreted, less, If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off would mean the entire human race handless. When interpreting Scripture it is to be read as a whole. We take all we know about God/Christ and all of Scripture both the OT and NT, and look at context, and history, etc. And I used the example of the Trinity to point out that the only way we know about something is not if God makes some specific statement about that specific thing. This is how/why we can know if something like IVF is moral, even though there was no such thing as IVF when the Bible was written. You are making my point of just how necessary is Gods plan for One Apostolic Church!

Also, there is no other explanation then that Jesus made Peter the leader. You failed to address everything I mentioned. You dismiss Christ giving Peter a new name, even though that is huge. The name change itself from Simon to Peter indicates the Apostle being called to a special role of leadership; recall how Abram's name was changed to Abraham, or Jacob's to Israel, or Saul's to Paul, when each of them was called to assume a special role of leadership among God's people.


The word "rock" also has special significance. On one hand, to be called "rock" was a Semitic expression designating the solid foundation upon which a community would be built. For instance, Abraham was considered "rock" because he was the father of the Jewish people (and we refer to him as our father in faith) and the one with whom the covenant was first made.


Jesus says, "I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." In the Old Testament, the "number two" person in the Kingdom literally held the keys. In Isaiah 22: 19-22 we find a reference to Eliakim, the master of the palace of King Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:17ff) and keeper of the keys. As a sign of his position, the one who held the keys represented the king, acted with his authority and had to act in accord with the king's mind. Therefore, St. Peter and each of his successors represent our Lord on this earth as His Vicar and lead the faithful flock of the Church to the Kingdom of Heaven.


Jesus says, "Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This is rabbinic terminology. A rabbi could bind, declaring an act forbidden or excommunicating a person for serious sin; or a rabbi could loose, declaring an act permissible or reconciling an excommunicated sinner to the community.

Here, Christ entrusted a special authority to St. Peter to preserve, interpret and teach His truth. In all, this understanding of Matthew 16 was unchallenged until the Protestant leaders wanted to legitimize their rejection of papal authority and the office of the pope.

St. Peter's role in the New Testament further substantiates the Catholic belief concerning the papacy and what Jesus said in Matthew 16. St. Peter held a preeminent position among the Apostles. He is always listed first (Mt. 10:14; Mk. 3:16-19; Lk. 6:14-1 5; Acts 1:13) and is sometimes the only one mentioned (Lk. 9:32). He speaks for the Apostles (Mt. 18:21; Mk. 8:28; Lk. 12:41; Jn. 6:69).

When our Lord selects a group of three for some special event, such as the Transfiguration, St. Peter is in the first position. Our Lord chose to teach from St. Peter's boat. At Pentecost St. Peter preached to the crowds and told of the mission of the Church (Acts 2;14-40). He performed the first miraculous healing (Acts 3:6-7). St. Peter also received the revelation that the Gentiles were to be baptized (Acts 10:9-48) and sided with St. Paul against the need for circumcision (Acts 15). At the end of his life, St. Peter was crucified, but in his humility asked to be crucified upside down.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PETPOPE.HTM

Leader does not mean better. A leader is a servant. It seems as if you are letting your human jealously prevent you from accepting who God appoints. Christ chose a leader and one Church. This doesnt detract from His love for each of us, rather it demonstrates it.

Such people are not the first Christians

You realize the Fathers of the early Church came to be known and respected for their writings because of their closeness to the era and their witness to the apostolic way. There are some writings from as early as AD 95-150 from fathers who had living contact with the apostles. They often include letters from people like St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp who sat at the feet of the apostle John. The early Church Fathers often had to write combating various heresies. In fact, Tertullian was the first writer to use the term Trinity.

All these questions that you are asking of me... how did the apostles know it was Christ speaking to them

Because He was there in person audibly speaking to them. We dont have that privilege, but we also dont need it because He chose to speak to us through His Church.

(But even if I were completely on my own -though I am not on my own- how could I possibly do worse on my own than the RCC has done?

Spoken exactly how disgruntled followers of Christ spoke regarding the faith at the time of Christ. Why should we listen to these brood of vipers, these hypocrites, these sinful men? And did Christ say, yeah, youre right youd be better off to go out on your own. NOPE. He said, Do as they say not as they do. He was very clear that what they were saying was the truth. Jesus was very clear that what these appointed men were teaching was from God and exactly the channel God wished us to receive it.


Peace be with you. As for our mother Mary, Catholics are not doing anything that Christ did not already beat us to. And we are called to imitate Christ sooooooo . . .

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 685 by onewithhim]

"No one has ascended into heaven, but he who descended from heaven: the Son of Man." (John 3:13, NASB)

John 3:13 does not eliminate the possibility of the Assumption of Mary for four reasons.

1. St. John was quoting the actual words our Lord spoke when he wrote, No one has ascended into heaven, but . . . the Son of man. Jesus was merely saying that no one had ascended into heaven by the time he made that statement. That was long before the Assumption of Mary.

2. Jesus cannot be saying that no one else will ever be taken to heaven. If that is the case, then what is all this Christianity stuff about? You know, heaven and all.

3. If one interprets John 3:13 as speaking about Christ uniquely ascending to heaven, that would be acceptable. We would then have to ask the question: what is it about Jesus ascension that is unique? Well, the fact that he ascended is unique. Mary did not ascend to heaven. She was assumed. There is a big difference. Jesus ascended by his own divine power as he prophesied he would in John 2:19-21: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up . . . he spoke of the temple of his body. Mary was powerless to raise herself to heaven; she had to be assumed. The same could be said of all Christians. Jesus raised himself from the dead. Christians will be entirely passive when it comes to their collective resurrection.

4. St. John is demonstrating the divinity of Christ in John 3:13. Historically, we know St. John was writing against his archenemy, the heretic Cerinthus, who denied the divinity of Christ. St. John quotes these words from Jesus to demonstrate that the Savior descended from heaven and was both in heaven and on Earth as the only begotten Son (cf. 3:16) sharing his Fathers nature (cf. 5:17-18). Thus, he was truly God. St. John also emphasizes that even while "the Son of Man" walked the Earth with his disciples in Galilee, he possessed the beatific vision in his human nature. In that sense, his human nature (Son of Man) had already "ascended" into heaven inasmuch as it possessed the beatific vision, which is at the core of what heaven is. That is Johns theme in the text, not whether someone years after Christ could be assumed into heaven or not.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/onlin ... on-of-mary

[tam]

Peace again to you!

[Replying to tam]

No, you provided me with links that add to what is written, but no statement from Christ

^This excuse is bogus and you know it.

This 'excuse' does not stand on its own. There are also the words of Christ stating that they had ONE leader/master/teacher - He Himself. That they were all brothers (equal, not one over the other). There is also the FRUIT that the RCC has produced: false teachings, teaching people to disobey Christ, disobeying Christ themselves; hatred for one's brother and fellow man, including his children, such as in residential school systems; inquisitions; punishments; imprisonments; handing over to be executed; stealing property; etc.

(And you cannot compare that to an individual person sinning. The RCC was an entity made up of MANY 'leaders' who were supposedly God's channel on earth, and their bad fruit spanned over many people and many hundreds of years)

All Scripture needs interpreted, less, If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off would mean the entire human race handless.

Yes, but you are not just interpreting scripture, you're interpreting it at the expense of others passages, such as stating that the apostles were to have no leader except Christ.

When interpreting Scripture it is to be read as a whole.

When interpreting scripture, if we want to know what IS true, then we need to listen to CHRIST - who had to open even the apostles eyes; how much more so our own. For goodness sakes, the Pharisees knew the scripture inside and out, yet did not recognize Christ standing directly in front of them.

Christ did not say anything like what you are saying.

"You diligently search the scriptures because you think that by them you have eternal life. These are the scriptures that testify to me, yet you refuse to come to ME, to have life."


Many people are doing exactly the same thing today. Searching the scriptures... yet refusing to come to CHRIST.

We take all we know about God/Christ and all of Scripture both the OT and NT, and look at context, and history, etc.

That does not lead anyone into the truth. Some truth, sure. All truth, no. Only Christ leads us into all truth.

And I used the example of the Trinity to point out that the only way we know about something is not if God makes some specific statement about that specific thing.

Like Christ making the specific statement that the apostles were not to have any other master/teacher/leader except Him?

However... by your logic, anything could be true unless God has specifically states something against it. That is ridiculous. We know something IS true IF Christ Himself (or God) speaks it.

This is how/why we can know if something like IVF is moral, even though there was no such thing as IVF when the Bible was written. You are making my point of just how necessary is Gods plan for One Apostolic Church!

I don't need the RCC to tell me what to think or do about IVF. Love is the law; if it is not against that law, then what business is it of mine or yours?

True, people will make mistakes, but we are not supposed to remain immature, relying upon men, but rather to grow into maturity. And when we do make mistakes:

My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 1John 2:1


But being in the RCC does not save a person from sinning - indeed, being in the RCC would cause a person to fall into all the same pits that 'she' has fallen into. Especially blindly following her along.

Also, there is no other explanation then that Jesus made Peter the leader.

If this discussion has done nothing else, it has provided many other explanations other than my Lord making Peter the leader over the other apostles and of His Church (His Body).

I KNOW that one does not need religion to come to Christ, or to hear His voice. Because I have no part in it, not in religion; and yet my Father in heaven drew me to His Son, and as one of His sheep, I listen to HIS voice.

I KNOW that my Lord's promise here is true:

"If anyone loves ME, they will obey MY word. My father will love them, and we will come and make our home with(in) them."

Because He kept this promise to me.


But we might want to ask ourselves, who do we truly love? Because that is the one whose word we will keep, whose commands we will follow.

You failed to address everything I mentioned.

Says the pot to the kettle.

You want to bring up the trinity, and purgatory, etc. These are additional topics and you do not respond to all the points and questions I have yet asked you about the current topics. (And in order for us to test purgatory against the Truth, you would first have to PRESENT the doctrine of purgatory in order for it to BE tested)

You dismiss Christ giving Peter a new name, even though that is huge.

I do not dismiss it. I just do not assign it the meaning that you have.

The name change itself from Simon to Peter indicates the Apostle being called to a special role of leadership;

It does indicate that something has changed (often it indicates that someone is now belonging to and going to serve JAH - in the case of Abraham or Jacob - and to belong to and serve His Son, such as in the case of Peter and Paul. It can be indicative of a covenant between God (and Christ) and the person whose name is changed. But the covenant for a Kingdom has been made between all those who belong to Christ. The covenant to sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel was given to the twelve apostles. Not just one of them, but all of them.


What it does not mean is that Peter was being made leader over the other apostles.

...recall how Abram's name was changed to Abraham, or Jacob's to Israel, or Saul's to Paul, when each of them was called to assume a special role of leadership among God's people.

See above.

The word "rock" also has special significance. On one hand, to be called "rock" was a Semitic expression designating the solid foundation upon which a community would be built. For instance, Abraham was considered "rock" because he was the father of the Jewish people (and we refer to him as our father in faith) and the one with whom the covenant was first made.

Christ is also the ROCK upon whom a house must be built, else when the wind and rains come, the house will fall. Christ is also the CORNERSTONE upon whom His Church is built. You cannot possibly deny that? He is also the foundation as Paul stated, upon whom a man can build. No one can build on any other foundation - that is what Paul said.


For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is [Jesus] Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light.


It is all right here.

Jesus says, "I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." In the Old Testament, the "number two" person in the Kingdom literally held the keys. In Isaiah 22: 19-22 we find a reference to Eliakim, the master of the palace of King Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:17ff) and keeper of the keys. As a sign of his position, the one who held the keys represented the king, acted with his authority and had to act in accord with the king's mind. Therefore, St. Peter and each of his successors represent our Lord on this earth as His Vicar and lead the faithful flock of the Church to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Were not all twelve of the apostles told, 'if you forgive anyone, I forgive them also". What exactly do you think the keys to the Kingdom of heaven allow one to do?

Do they not allow one to enter, and to invite others in as well?

Jesus says, "Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This is rabbinic terminology. A rabbi could bind, declaring an act forbidden or excommunicating a person for serious sin; or a rabbi could loose, declaring an act permissible or reconciling an excommunicated sinner to the community.

So not just one person.

Here, Christ entrusted a special authority to St. Peter to preserve, interpret and teach His truth. In all, this understanding of Matthew 16 was unchallenged until the Protestant leaders wanted to legitimize their rejection of papal authority and the office of the pope.

This is demonstrably false; as shown in my previous post... in all those quotes from Paul that you have ignored.

St. Peter's role in the New Testament further substantiates the Catholic belief concerning the papacy and what Jesus said in Matthew 16. St. Peter held a preeminent position among the Apostles. He is always listed first (Mt. 10:14; Mk. 3:16-19; Lk. 6:14-1 5; Acts 1:13) and is sometimes the only one mentioned (Lk. 9:32). He speaks for the Apostles (Mt. 18:21; Mk. 8:28; Lk. 12:41; Jn. 6:69).

Peter was not the first apostle to know, acknowledge, or even announce that his Lord was the Messiah.

Andrew, Simon Peters brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, We have found the Messiah (that is, the Christ). And he brought him to Jesus.

Jesus looked at him and said, You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas (which, when translated, is Peter). John 1:40-42

When our Lord selects a group of three for some special event, such as the Transfiguration, St. Peter is in the first position.

What first position? Christ took three with him. How was Peter given the first position? Simply because he was named first, when the writing gives the name of the three Christ took with him?

You understand that all of this is AGAINST everything Christ taught, right?

He who wants to be first must be last.

The greatest among you must be your servant.

And His words to the disciples when two of them asked (well, their mother asked) that one be at this left hand and the other at this right hand, in the Kingdom.

What did my Lord say to the disciples after that?

Jesus said to them, "You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father."

When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers.

Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave-- just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."


Does that sound like a man who raised one apostle up over the others? Does it sound like the apostles (any of the twelve) were thinking that Christ raised one of them over the others?


If you want to know the truth to this matter - then you must look to and listen to CHRIST.

Not men. Not religion, which says come, follow me, pointing to itself... instead of pointing to Christ.

One must listen to Christ - who says, "Come, follow ME."

Our Lord chose to teach from St. Peter's boat.

So what? He got into a boat owned by Peter and taught - and that means Peter is leader over the other apostles?

At Pentecost St. Peter preached to the crowds and told of the mission of the Church (Acts 2;14-40).

Yes, Peter spoke. In other places Stephen spoke. Or John. Or Paul. Or James.

We ALL speak. Out of the heart's abundance, the mouth speaks. Just because Peter spoke at this time or any other does not mean that he is the leader; that he was raised up over the others. Christ's own words dispute this very IDEA.

He performed the first miraculous healing (Acts 3:6-7).

Then he obviously had the faith to do so. It does not mean that he was leader over the church and other apostles. Others also healed.

St. Peter also received the revelation that the Gentiles were to be baptized (Acts 10:9-48)

Yes, he did receive that revelation. Did he not need it in order to go where Christ was sending him?

And what of Paul, who took the place of Stephen, and who was chosen specifically to be an apostle to the gentiles. Paul was not listening to Peter; Paul did as he was told by Christ. That doesn't mean that Paul was leader over the church though, does it?

Paul and sided with St. Paul against the need for circumcision (Acts 15).

Not just Peter, but also James (who also spoke and for the rest of the apostles, declaring what it is they were going to write to the gentiles) and also the rest of the apostles. Note, that Paul and Barnabas did not need the apostles word to know that circumcision was not required for the gentiles. And if the apostles had said something else... Paul would not have listened to them over Christ.

At the end of his life, St. Peter was crucified, but in his humility asked to be crucified upside down.

This has nothing to do with anything, even if it were true.

Paul received lashes and imprisonment, Stephen was the first to be martyred... none of that made them leaders over the others.

Leader does not mean better. A leader is a servant.

I don't think leader means better. One who wishes to lead must serve. One who wishes to be great, must be least. We are all to be servants. We are all - if we are in Christ - going to reign with Him.

It seems as if you are letting your human jealously prevent you from accepting who God appoints.

I am not leader over anyone. I am a servant, and grateful to be that.

The fact that my Lord's words contradict the teaching of your religion, is the reason I cannot accept what you say. I don't care where I am positioned in the Body; I am just grateful to be here.

If that sounds like jealousy to you... well, what can I do about that?

Such people are not the first Christians

You realize the Fathers of the early Church came to be known and respected for their writings because of their closeness to the era and their witness to the apostolic way.

Does that mean that they were the first Christians? Because that was your claim, and your claim was untrue.

There are some writings from as early as AD 95-150 from fathers who had living contact with the apostles.

Paul had contact with the apostles. He never mentioned this primacy; indeed, neither did other disciples who had contact with the apostles.

All these questions that you are asking of me... how did the apostles know it was Christ speaking to them

Because He was there in person audibly speaking to them. We dont have that privilege, but we also dont need it because He chose to speak to us through His Church.

Ah, but you left out Paul, and Phillip, and Stephen, and Ananias, and all the others who heard him. How did they know?

Why would He NOT speak to us? Does He not love His sheep? Is He not capable? Scripture shows that He does speak and that He can speak. He also said He would speak, and He did just that after His ascension.

(But even if I were completely on my own -though I am not on my own- how could I possibly do worse on my own than the RCC has done?

Spoken exactly how disgruntled followers of Christ spoke regarding the faith at the time of Christ.

You keep trying to cast doubts on my character in order to dismiss my words and perhaps take the focus off the RCC and place the focus on me. Of course the point is not to have our eyes upon the RCC or upon me... but upon CHRIST.


May anyone who wishes them be given ears to hear. May any who thirst and any who seek, "Come! Take the free gift of the water of life!"

(which water is holy spirit, which is poured out by Christ and given to whomever He chooses; as His Father gave to Him without end)

Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[RightReason]

[Replying to tam]

IMO, this is what this all boils down to . . . you cling to this motto (or excuse depending on how one wants to look at it) Christ alone! Its a little bit similar to JWs in their Only Jehovah! You both somehow think it is a kind of betrayal to listen to any other leader, chosen one, or Church. Even though Christs own command is to do so. From the beginning God has selected leaders to relay his message and it does not detract from the Glory or power of God!

But thats ok. Your reaction to the Catholic Church is exactly as God promised.

If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you: A servant is not greater than his master.[a] If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21 They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.23 Whoever hates me hates my Father as well. 24 If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin.As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25 But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: They hated me without reason.- John 15:18:25

I also have to keep in mind what Bishop Fulton Sheen says:

There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.
I simply find your faith both unscriptural and illogical. The only thing that makes sense is that Christ left us an authoritative earthly Church. You wont admit this, but it is how we know what we know about Christ. I have spent many hours alone with my Lord. Just me and Him in the silence. Me lifting my heart to Him, talking to Him, telling Him my joys and my fears, and listening as He spoke to me. I have at times felt peace and comfort, but even if I hadnt " even if I felt I wasnt getting some answer from Him or even if I felt He wasnt speaking to me or no feelings of comfort swelled up in me (which quite frankly happens a lot as well) that would not negate the truth that He is there and He is listening. And it certainly doesnt mean if I was somehow getting some feeling that He was telling something that it definitely was coming from Him. Our feelings or emotions is not what we should be basing truth on. We know what we know via the means God intended us to. Via His public revelation to us via Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (His Church). Nothing else makes sense!

Even Mother Teresa confessed she didnt always feel Gods presence. That she often felt alone and empty even when spending hours in contemplation. But despite the lack of warm and fuzzies she remained true to Christ and His Church. Because she had faith in Christ and His words.

No matter how beneficial it might be to have a personal relationship with Jesus, it is of the upmost importance to have clear recognizable precepts of faith. The whole question, Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus? is wrought with subjectivity and not necessarily Truth.

***************************************************************

For Catholics there is an observable measure of ones relationship with our Lord. The Eucharist is the source and summit of our life as Catholics, and a baptized, confirmed Catholic who faithfully partakes of the sacraments of reconciliation and Holy Communion in the manner prescribed by the Church certainly has a personal relationship with Jesus, whether or not he or she uses that phrase to describe it. Of course, this presupposes a belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. It presupposes a belief in hell and in the necessity of sacramental confession. In other words, it presupposes a basic knowledge of the faith.


http://www.hprweb.com/2014/07/the-probl ... ith-jesus/

^ And that is soooooooo important!

***************************************************************


A personalistic construct of a personal relationship with Jesus leads to relativism. After all, implicit in the notion of a personal relationship with the Lord is the conclusion that one can define that relationship as one pleases. Its personal,after all! This is a false notion of what a relationship with Jesus truly entails; it implies that one must feel something. But what of St. John of the Cross and his teaching on the Dark Night of the Soul? What would a person experiencing that aspect of spiritual development say in response to the question, Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus? I suspect the answer for such a person would be too sublime to be accurately expressed in words.


Furthermore, the danger with encouraging a personalistic view of ones relationship with the Lord also encourages a personalistic view of the doctrines of the faith; in other words, it may lead toward . . . individuals maintain that they are entitled to believe or disbelieve certain tenets.


I have been to many a Protestant prayer service in which those pious souls, who truly believed they had a personal relationship with Jesus, prayed for others out of a personal agenda, and proclaimed a word that they felt was given to them by the Holy Spirit"but which was misleading and even sinful.


Fidelity to the Church does certainly indicate a personal relationship with Jesus"in the context of the Church Jesus himself instituted, and in conformity with his will.


Coupled with this emphasis on the subjective, there is a downplaying of the objective criteria of our faith. . . . Purely personal motives for faith, motives that have mainly to do with feelings, are given primary place. Religion, therefore, would consist, . . . entirely in the religious feeling itself.

http://www.hprweb.com/2014/07/the-probl ... ith-jesus/

So, like I said, I see the set up of your faith as extremely problematic and simply untrue in regards to the means Christ intended.

I wish you well.

[tam]

Peace to you RR,

[Replying to tam]

IMO, this is what this all boils down to . . .

No, dear RR.

What all of this boils down to is this:

I have tested everything that you have said (as the RCC has taught you) against the Truth (Christ). Held everything up against the Light (Christ). Each thing you have presented has not stood against Him. I am not going to repeat anything; if you (or anyone) is interested, it is all there in the past few pages.

Instead of responding to my posts, as I have done with yours, you link to things unrelated to me and my faith (though I have taken the time to respond to the content in those links as well), you have attempted to cast aspirations upon my character (my 'human jealousy', my 'unforgiving or unmerciful' nature), and now you have turned to the fallback of accusing me of persecuting you (or your RCC) because you are claiming that I hate Christ and God. (unbelievably ironic considering the persecution your church has committed against so many others)


Personal attacks. I believe you said to Onewithhim elsewhere, that this was a sign of having lost an argument, did you not? When she did the same thing to me on another thread, that you are doing on this thread?

you cling to this motto (or excuse depending on how one wants to look at it) Christ alone!

I cling to Christ.

"I am the Way, The Truth, and the Life."

Its a little bit similar to JWs in their Only Jehovah!

JW's do not have an 'only Jehovah' motto. JW's have the exact same model as you have: that their religion is "God's channel on earth; his visible organization on earth; they must remain in her, no matter what, and listen to whatever she says.

The JW religion even has its own mini inquisitions. Not to the scale that the RCC had them, of course, since the RCC had more authority and power with the state than the WTS has. Members within the WTS who are suspected of heresy (apostasy) against the religion (not the same thing as being apostate against Christ; just as heresy against the RCC did not mean heresy against Christ), are also brought before a judicial committee (headed by three elders), and 'tried'.

You both somehow think it is a kind of betrayal to listen to any other leader, chosen one, or Church.

JW's must listen to their religion and its leaders. Just as you must listen to your religion and its leaders. They are the same as you in that regard.

And it would be a betrayal to listen to any other so called leader, 'chosen one' or 'church' instead of to Christ. If indeed one has promised oneself to Him, if one considers oneself to be HIS Bride.

Even though Christs own command is to do so. From the beginning God has selected leaders to relay his message and it does not detract from the Glory or power of God!

Christ did not command that we blindly follow anyone who says they have come from Him. He told us that there would be false christs and false prophets. How can we know who is who if we do not hold their words up to the Truth (Christ Himself)?

We are TOLD to test the inspired expressions to see if they have come from God.

But thats ok. Your reaction to the Catholic Church is exactly as God promised.

So here we go again with personal aspirations against my character, refusing to respond to the content of my posts. And you do not seem to realize that these verses could be applied to you with regard to me.

If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.

I have merely held your claims up against the Light/Truth (Christ Himself).

If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own.

What do you think, Simon? He asked. From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs and taxes: from their own sons, or from others? From others, Peter answered. Then the sons are exempt", Jesus declared.


Last I checked, kings of the earth do not collect taxes from religion. Sounds to me as though the world loves religion as its own. Indeed, the RCC (and other daughters) have acquired great (monetary) wealth from the world.

As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember what I told you: A servant is not greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.

You do realize that not long ago, your religion would have persecuted someone like me for my faith in Christ. I would have been brought before a tribunal of some sort, tried and punished, and perhaps even handed over to the state to be executed...unless I hid that faith or denied my Lord.

(And if you think holding up your claims - or the deeds and teaching of the RCC - to Christ is persecution, then you spent the earlier part of this thread persecuting onewithhim.)

They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me.

The RCC has brought reproach upon herself due to her own deeds and the harm she has caused to countless innocent people.

22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.23 Whoever hates me hates my Father as well.

I love my Lord and His Father.

24 If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin.As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25 But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: They hated me without reason.- John 15:18:25

But people have a reason to 'hate' the RCC. Some people hate (and/or leave) Christ and God as well, because the RCC (or the WTS or the LDS or protestants or any other daughter) has convinced them that they accurately represent what God wants and what God is like.


But this is a lie. As such, it did not come from Christ (the Truth).

Christ is the One who reveals the truth of God to us. Christ is the one who represents God.

"Whoever has seen me, has seen the Father."

"If you know me, you know my Father also."

I simply find your faith both unscriptural and illogical.

Yet you have been unable to show that my faith is 'unscriptural' or illogical.

The only thing that makes sense is that Christ left us an authoritative earthly Church. You wont admit this, but it is how we know what we know about Christ. I have spent many hours alone with my Lord. Just me and Him in the silence. Me lifting my heart to Him, talking to Him, telling Him my joys and my fears, and listening as He spoke to me.

If you can listen to Christ speaking to you then why could you not know about Him from Him?

I have at times felt peace and comfort, but even if I hadnt " even if I felt I wasnt getting some answer from Him or even if I felt He wasnt speaking to me or no feelings of comfort swelled up in me (which quite frankly happens a lot as well) that would not negate the truth that He is there and He is listening. And it certainly doesnt mean if I was somehow getting some feeling that He was telling something that it definitely was coming from Him.

It is hard for me to respond to this. I am not speaking about just a feeling, but also words. Often those words are accompanied BY a feeling. But I cannot test your 'feelings' and have no desire to do so. I can only test the inspired expression (a statement, a claim, a teaching, words). That is all I have done in our discussion.

Our feelings or emotions is not what we should be basing truth on.

I agree. We should be basing truth upon Christ (THE Truth).

We know what we know via the means God intended us to. Via His public revelation to us via Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (His Church). Nothing else makes sense!

Via His Son.

"No one comes to the Father except through the Son."

"If you know me, you know my Father also."



But this has been shared in the previous posts.

Even Mother Teresa confessed she didnt always feel Gods presence. That she often felt alone and empty even when spending hours in contemplation. But despite the lack of warm and fuzzies she remained true to Christ and His Church.

If 'warm and fuzzies' is your description for knowing or listening to Christ, then a) how is that not derogatory, toward Him?; and b) the examples that I gave are of Him actually speaking to people. His voice; His words. Not mere 'warm and fuzzies'.

Are you tearing Christ down - the LIVING Christ - in order to justify yourself and the RCC?

A personalistic construct of a personal relationship with Jesus leads to relativism. After all, implicit in the notion of a personal relationship with the Lord is the conclusion that one can define that relationship as one pleases. Its personal,after all!

Maybe some people mean that when they say it. But for the most part, I would suggest that this is a strawman. I certainly would not understand it that way.

A personal relationship simply means that you know someone personally; you know them and they know you.

This is a false notion of what a relationship with Jesus truly entails;

I agree... that definition that the article has provided is a strawman argument.

it implies that one must feel something.

A - isn't that exactly how you described your experience (sometimes)?

B - sounds like they are trying to say that someone feeling NOTHING (and hearing NOTHING) means nothing; that the person still somehow knows Christ and has a relationship with Him.

You think that is scriptural and logical?

But what of St. John of the Cross and his teaching on the Dark Night of the Soul? What would a person experiencing that aspect of spiritual development say in response to the question, Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus? I suspect the answer for such a person would be too sublime to be accurately expressed in words.

I have noticed that Catholics tend to think some things are too sublime to be accurately expressed in words. Yet the author of Acts had no problem describing Christ speaking, accurately and in words. None of those who heard Him had a problem describing what they heard from Him, accurately and in words.

I have been to many a Protestant prayer service in which those pious souls, who truly believed they had a personal relationship with Jesus, prayed for others out of a personal agenda, and proclaimed a word that they felt was given to them by the Holy Spirit"but which was misleading and even sinful.

Sure... but what does this have to do with me? I would be testing those 'words' as much as your own.


"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through ME."


I'm not sure there is much more for me to say, but since you are a fan of links, here is a link to a description of the Roman State religion long before Christ, paying attention in particular to pontifex maximus under the 'high offices of state religion' section. Might shed some light for you on what the RCC was truly built upon, if indeed truth is what you seek.

http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/religion.html



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy