reyb Posted May 4, 2012 Author Share Posted May 4, 2012 [quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1336086341' post='2426678'] Reyb fails to get the connection between laying down your life for love (God) and laying it down for evil (satan). [/quote] Up to now you do not see my point that they are believers too. Do you think in their eyes they are doing it for Satan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted May 4, 2012 Author Share Posted May 4, 2012 (edited) [quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1336086413' post='2426680'] [b] [url="http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=5416666"]2Tim.2[/url][/b][list=1] [*][[b]2[/b]] and what you have heard from me before many[b] witness[/b]es entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. [/list] Luke is a witness of this type. He heard from Paul and passed it along. Mark also is a witness of this type who heard from Peter. They wrote down what they gathered from Peter and Paul. Why is that difficult to understand. They heard the word of God and wrote it down. Non-catholics have this idea that everything happened so miraculously. God is at work in the ordinary. Luke and Mark didn't have to see visions and dream dreams. They saw God in the Apostles. [/quote] Your argument is not hard to understand but again, this is an issue whether 'Divine Revelation' can be handed-down or not. Divine Revelation is not a Tradition which you can handed-down to another man but to Catholics Divine Revelation is the same as Tradition which is highly irregular considering the very definition of these two terms. Divine Revelation is the revelation of God himself to a man while Tradition is handling down of belief from one man to another. Is there a man who can reveal to you the mystery of God? Is it not God alone can reveal his mystery? Thus, divine revelation comes from God alone and not from any other man even if you are an Apostle like Paul. Edited May 4, 2012 by reyb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 (edited) [quote name='reyb' timestamp='1336101883' post='2426831'] Of course, we all believe God creates everything in heavens and earth. But our discussion is in this particular verse – what Jesus did can’t be contained in this world if everything will be written down. Thus, I asked if every second for full 33 years of his earthly life will be taken into account, Do you think this world have no rooms for the books that would be written? [/quote] Our Christ is God. The passage in question simply means that our Jesus, the Christ, God, while on earth did many things that werent written down. Because there would far too much to write about. Edited May 4, 2012 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 The passage is also proof of Sacred Tradition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted May 4, 2012 Author Share Posted May 4, 2012 (edited) [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1336104483' post='2426872'] Our Christ is God. The passage in question simply means that our Jesus, the Christ, God, while on earth did many things that werent written down. Because there would far to much to write about. [/quote] Are you now saying if whatever Jesus did are written for every second for full 33 years of his earthly life, this world has enough room for them? Edited May 4, 2012 by reyb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted May 4, 2012 Author Share Posted May 4, 2012 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1336106257' post='2426884'] The passage is also proof of Sacred Tradition. [/quote] Obviously this verse was used by Catholics to justify 'doctrines' that are not written in the scriptures like Mariology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 You can't quote the bible when it clearly says Jesus physically walked the earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted May 4, 2012 Author Share Posted May 4, 2012 [quote name='mortify' timestamp='1336106891' post='2426895'] You can't quote the bible when it clearly says Jesus physically walked the earth. [/quote] And why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted May 4, 2012 Author Share Posted May 4, 2012 [quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1336098334' post='2426785'] [size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]MotC - read John 21:25 please.[/font][/size] [/quote] [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1336101320' post='2426817'] The full works of God would indeed fill more rooms than the earth could hold. [/quote] [quote name='mortify' timestamp='1336106891' post='2426895'] You can't quote the bible when it clearly says Jesus physically walked the earth. [/quote] Are you now saying if whatever Jesus did are written for every second for full 33 years of his earthly life, this world has enough room for them? Am I Correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 [quote name='reyb' timestamp='1336106508' post='2426888'] Are you now saying if whatever Jesus did will be written for every second for full 33 years of his earthly life, this world has enough room for these books? [/quote] Divine Revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle. So in that way no. After Christ returns perhaps He will reveal every second detail of His 33 year life on earth. Since I do not know every second of His life on earth I cannot say if there would be enough rooms on the earth to filled with those writings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 (edited) [quote name='reyb' timestamp='1336107162' post='2426900'] And why not? [/quote] Because it would disprove that Christ did not walk the earth. Edited May 4, 2012 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 [quote name='reyb' timestamp='1336107162' post='2426900'] And why not? [/quote] The very books you quote go against you. They are riddled with accounts of Jesus teaching, walking, eating, doing regular physical activities, all taking for granted that He ACTUALLY existed. Your hypothesis is in absolute contradiction with the Bible. You've misinterpretede a view verses, and in your pride you have declared yourself the sole true believer. How do you quote the same books that record Jesus being born? The word was made FLESH, or do you not believe that? If you don't, then you are more lost than of us feared you to be. And often at the root of heresy, is a much deeper problem within the soul. Wake up my friend, before you lose grasp of all reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark of the Cross Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1336098334' post='2426785'] [size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]MotC - read John 21:25 please. Again...if the 4 writers gave a word for word account of exactly the same thing, there would be no need of 4 Gospel accounts in the Bible, eh?[/font][/size] [/quote] Again I say we are in agreement! 4 accounts having [b]slight[/b] differences and written in varying different styles aimed at different audiences adds to the credibility of the story. I'm just a bit puzzled as to why 3 would ommit entirely a [b]very important[/b] part. With only one relating it. It is lacking in reinforcement! Maybe I'm looking for something that isn't there and need not be there, but I was just asking in case someone had some idea regarding this. If there is non apart from it just being a variation then okay. The documented history sourced from many and varied witnesses plus the logic that it would be impossible for an author to write a ficticious story containing so much profound wisdom, sound reasoning and multilayered scriptural lessons is the empirical evidence that Reyb chooses to ignore in preference for his own imagination that has no sound basis. For example he can claim that he has divine revelation for his account, but the fact that it conflicts with historical records and reason means he has no empirical evidence as proof of his divine revelation. The Bible has some contradictions but these can be accounted for by the fact that many scriptures are situation dependent. This is what I was referring to that KofC misunderstood. If we are going to state to a disbeliever that something was by divine revelation then we need to be able to demonstrate how this fits with historical accounts ie we need to produce some empirical evidence. In debates if you don't have hard evidence then you must have logic and reasoning or you can't debate. Edited May 4, 2012 by Mark of the Cross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 [quote name='reyb' timestamp='1336107369' post='2426901'] Are you now saying if whatever Jesus did are written for every second for full 33 years of his earthly life, this world has enough room for them? Am I Correct? [/quote] no you are not. the point of this verse is that not every single thing Jesus said or did was written down. does that mean He didn't say or do them? of course not - only someone obtusely dense would believe that. out of all the books in the Bible, how many did Jesus write? zero. the idea that one has to be an eyewitness to something for it to have occurred is also insane. i never saw the founding fathers of the USA, but i know they existed. also you statement that the Church Fathers writings contradict Sacred Scripture is wrong. If think they are contradictory, you do not understand one or the other or both. or more likely you are again cherry-picking certain verses for comparison. are some passages written by some of the Church Fathers suspect? yeah....but as a whole they are not. hence why the writings are not considered part of the canon of the Bible. You keep forgetting (or refusing to admit) that Catholicism is not an either/or faith. it is a both/and faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 [quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1336126309' post='2426952'] The Bible has some contradictions but these can be accounted for by the fact that many scriptures are situation dependent. [/quote] the Bible has NO contradictions. it is neither a science text nor a history book in the 21st century style of writing. it is the story of God's revelation of Himself to His people in history. if one thinks there is a contradiction, one does not understand what is being said fully. case in point: 2 accounts in Genesis of the creation. one says Man was made before the animals, one says after. Contradiction? NO. The point is that Man is the pinnacle of creation. Both accounts show this, albeit in a different way. One shows Mans dominion by being made first and having the right to name the animals. The other shows Man's dominion by being the final part of God's creation. another case in point: 3 accounts of Jesus's baptism in the synoptic Gospels. 2 state that God said "this is my Son in whom I am well pleased." 1 states "you are my Son in whom I am well pleased." Contradiction? NO. The point is that Jesus is the Son of God and has the Father's favor. When one tries to read the Bible as if it were a factual point by point eyewitness analysis of the events like one expects to see on the evening news, one will surely fall into error. Thank God for the teaching authority of the Church, the Magisterium, to help us not to fall into such grave error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts