Nihil Obstat Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1295648958' post='2202674'] I'm over it if you are. Let's drink beer and talk about sports or something. [/quote] [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1295652279' post='2202703'] Title changes don't show up in the admin log for some reason. When a prankster mod on another site changed a certain someone's title the first thing I did was check the mod logs and there was nothing about it. Fortunately in this case the offending moderator confessed and was severely punished as is demanded by teh gods. *Another site using the same forum software that is. [/quote] Let it be known that I apologized quite sincerely to all who were affected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark of the Cross Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 (edited) [quote name='IcePrincessKRS' timestamp='1295648698' post='2202669'] That's kind of magical. [/quote] Heyyy I got into trouble for making jokes about the occult. Where's Nihil?? Besides to answer the question it was the Marks bros that changed Cams title. And yaayyy LDs here, break out the scotch [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1295658651' post='2202806'] 'if anyone teaches another gospel than the one taught by the apostles, let him be anathema' 'have we not done wonderous deeds and prophesies in your name?' "depart from me evil doer, i never knew you' two verses from the bible that clash with the protestant Mark fellow. the first clashes with the 'if they are teaching about Jesus, it doesn't matter if they aren't with us', perhaps. the second one clashes with the idea that doing great deeds for jesus is an indicator that you're just fine as is. it's about interpretation and what to do about that. [/quote] What?? Edited January 22, 2011 by Mark of the Cross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkKurallSchuenemann Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 [quote]Dairy 'if anyone teaches another gospel than the one taught by the apostles, let him be anathema' 'have we not done wonderous deeds and prophesies in your name?' "depart from me evil doer, i never knew you' two verses from the bible that clash with the protestant Mark fellow. the first clashes with the 'if they are teaching about Jesus, it doesn't matter if they aren't with us', perhaps. the second one clashes with the idea that doing great deeds for jesus is an indicator that you're just fine as is. it's about interpretation and what to do about that.[/quote] [quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1295695046' post='2203014'] What?? [/quote] I had the same reaction there. Dairy - all I will say to you will be the same as I have said to everybody else on this forum - You decide where my interpretation comes from, and let God judge between us when the day of judgment happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorForJesus Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 [quote name='MarkKurallSchuenemann' timestamp='1295220894' post='2200824'] Sure. [sup][/sup] And - And considering Considering Christ is the same yesterday, when he said to the apostles - that person who also calls out on my name to perform miracles, who teaches and loves me who isn't part of your group pleases me and is for me, then he also has the same attitude today - or scripture is wrong, and will always have that attitude. So Christ disagrees with his stand that you must be a Catholic to please God - you only have to believe in and trust Jesus Christ! [/quote] [color="#800080"]Those are all fine and dandy. I love Scripture. But how do you make your idea that it matters not what is taught, but only that one teaches about Jesus with the Bible passage that states there will be those who go to hell who had preached in Jesus' name, had expellled devils in Jesus' name, and who called Jesus "Lord"? Surely not all those Jesus said were with Him, as long as they were not against, were saved, in the Evangelical understanding of the word. Perhaps, just perhaps, Jesus was telling the Apostles not to worry about them, as He would take care of sorting it all out. Janice[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark of the Cross Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 (edited) [quote name='WarriorForJesus' timestamp='1295718256' post='2203060'] [color="#800080"]Those are all fine and dandy. I love Scripture. Janice[/color] [/quote] [quote]Considering Christ is the same yesterday, when he said to the apostles - that person who also calls out on my name to perform miracles, who teaches and loves me who isn't part of your group pleases me and is for me, then he also has the same attitude today - or scripture is wrong, and will always have that attitude.[/quote] I think the scripture was saying that you don't have to have soem qualification or title to do Jesus work. Anyone can do it. [quote][color="#800080"]states there will be those who go to hell who had preached in Jesus' name, had expellled devils in Jesus' name, and who called Jesus "Lord"?[/color][/quote] This is about those who preach Jesus teaching, but in their own behaviour do the opposite. A paedophile priest may be an example. [quote name='MarkKurallSchuenemann' timestamp='1295705952' post='2203026'] I had the same reaction there. Dairy - all I will say to you will be the same as I have said to everybody else on this forum - You decide where my interpretation comes from, and let God judge between us when the day of judgment happens. [/quote] I think Dairy's photon torpedo has missed the target by several billion parsecs! Edited January 22, 2011 by Mark of the Cross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkKurallSchuenemann Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 (edited) [quote name='WarriorForJesus' timestamp='1295718256' post='2203060'] [color="#800080"]Those are all fine and dandy. I love Scripture. But how do you make your idea that it matters not what is taught, but only that one teaches about Jesus with the Bible passage that states there will be those who go to hell who had preached in Jesus' name, had expellled devils in Jesus' name, and who called Jesus "Lord"? Surely not all those Jesus said were with Him, as long as they were not against, were saved, in the Evangelical understanding of the word. Perhaps, just perhaps, Jesus was telling the Apostles not to worry about them, as He would take care of sorting it all out. Janice[/color] [/quote] Then why did Jesus say in those passages that the people who were doing that were for him (do you think he would reject people for him) and for them as well. It wasn't just saying - don't worry about them. I'll take care of the sorting of it all out, but he was saying - don't worry - they're part of the body as you are. On your surely not - Jesus said you are either for him or against him, so if they were with him and for him in an evangelical understanding - than they were saved. When I look at the scriptures that talk about people saying they will go up to Jesus and say - I did this and that, and this other wonderful thing (I'm parapharseing for maximum effect) - just think about what they are saying. They are practically saying, I am so wonderful - and they are taking the glory for what Jesus did! And doesn't the Bible say, God hates pride - to brag about things like you did these wonderful things in Jesus name means you are God's target list. I don't know you, but when it comes down to the day of judgment and Jesus judges my life, all I will ever do is fall down before him before he says anything and say - Jesus I am a horrible, horrible, horrible sinner, and I ask for your mercy - because without it, I am lost and nothing! [quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1295725262' post='2203106'] I think Dairy's photon torpedo has missed the target by several billion parsecs! [/quote] Yes, most definitely. Edited January 22, 2011 by MarkKurallSchuenemann Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 all i'm doing is saying things are open to interpretation, saying what most catholics here have said about Mark's posts, and even as Janice just posted. so one person says the "lord lord" verse means "being prideful is what gets you" the other says "saying one thing doing another" is what gets you. as you can see, from the two people who post, there's two interpretations. "you're either with us or against us" is what Mark says. but when Jesus says "don't hinder them as long as they're preaching in my name" or whatever, he could be argued to be saying "just because they're not with us doesn't mean they're against us". this might be just a play on words, given we have to know what is meant by "not with us, then against us" or "not against us, so with us" or whatever. but it's very easy as one can see to distort Jesus' intention. some "don't hinder as long as they're preaching in my name" interpretations ccontradict "haven't we didn't great deeds in your name", obviously tehre's ways to reconcile them propertyly, and some that are not proper. it's a matter of interpretation. that's all i'm saying. i'm not sayinga nyone is right or wrong, just that it's a matter of interpretation. don't act as if you're beliefs are God's truth, show some humility when apprpriate. no one is totally right, so stop acting like you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archaeology cat Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1295836819' post='2203646'] but when Jesus says "don't hinder them as long as they're preaching in my name" or whatever, he could be argued to be saying "just because they're not with us doesn't mean they're against us". this might be just a play on words, given we have to know what is meant by "not with us, then against us" or "not against us, so with us" or whatever. but it's very easy as one can see to distort Jesus' intention. [/quote] I'm actually inclined to agree here, dairy. Here's the context of what Jesus says in Mark 9: "John said to Him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us.” 39But Jesus said, “Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. 40“For he who is not against us is for us. 41“For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of your name as followers of Christ, truly I say to you, he will not lose his reward." That doesn't necessarily translate to "let him do whatever he wants and don't teach him the full truth", but translates to not treating him as an enemy. I still think it's comparable to Apollos, who didn't know all the truth; he wasn't rebuked or told to stop preaching, but was given the full truth. We can't just take one passage and not look at the full story, IMO. It should also be noted that this passage in Mark comes immediately after the disciples are arguing about who is the greatest, so they're having some issues with pride, too, it sounds like. As in all of these things, the above is my opinion, bearing in mind that I'm not a Biblical scholar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark of the Cross Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 [quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1295865666' post='2203729'] Here's the context of what Jesus says in Mark 9: "John said to Him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us." 39But Jesus said, "Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. 40"For he who is not against us is for us. 41"For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of your name as followers of Christ, truly I say to you, he will not lose his reward." [/quote] There may be more to it than what I interpreted but I thought it means that the apostles were kinda being territorial or jealous and thinking only they can teach Jesus message and do his stuff. Jesus is telling them that anyone can do it and they don't need the apostles permission or even have to associate with their clique. He is saying that whoever does his work he will live in them and they are saved. This could even go so far as to say that another denomination doing Jesus work does not have to have the CCs permission or to even associate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archaeology cat Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 [quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1295896566' post='2203852'] There may be more to it than what I interpreted but I thought it means that the apostles were kinda being territorial or jealous and thinking only they can teach Jesus message and do his stuff. Jesus is telling them that anyone can do it and they don't need the apostles permission or even have to associate with their clique. He is saying that whoever does his work he will live in them and they are saved. This could even go so far as to say that another denomination doing Jesus work does not have to have the CCs permission or to even associate. [/quote] I do think part of it was the Apostles' pride/jealousy coming to play, but I still don't think it can be construed as saying they're OK as-is in light of the rest of Scripture and Church teaching. Jesus prays that all may be truly one (John 17, I think). He says all must be baptised and must partake of His Body & Blood, yet only the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have the Eucharist. And so I continue to think that Jesus is saying that we shouldn't see others as enemies, or presume to think He can't bestow gifts on others, but that this doesn't mean we shouldn't be doctrinally united. Hasn't that been a teaching throughout the history of the Church, that we be doctrinally united? If not, why call councils to settle doctrinal questions, as has been done from the very beginning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark of the Cross Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 [quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1295950588' post='2204120'] I do think part of it was the Apostles' pride/jealousy coming to play, but I still don't think it can be construed as saying they're OK as-is in light of the rest of Scripture and Church teaching. Jesus prays that all may be truly one (John 17, I think). He says all must be baptised and must partake of His Body & Blood, yet only the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have the Eucharist. And so I continue to think that Jesus is saying that we shouldn't see others as enemies, or presume to think He can't bestow gifts on others, but that this doesn't mean we shouldn't be doctrinally united. Hasn't that been a teaching throughout the history of the Church, that we be doctrinally united? If not, why call councils to settle doctrinal questions, as has been done from the very beginning? [/quote] Yes, That would be the case! My option would have been his second preference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archaeology cat Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 [quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1295952455' post='2204125'] Yes, That would be the case! My option would have been his second preference. [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts