Succession Of Lies

[reyb]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1336308680' post='2427606']
The "Scriptures" that Paul keeps referring to are the books in the Old Testament. Aka the Jewish Scriptures. They believed that what we now call the Old Testament contained lots of foreshadowing for Jesus, and by saying "according to the Scriptures" Paul is reaching out to the Jewish Christians in his audience.

Most of Paul's letters were written to help correct specific issues in a particular community, so he's going to use tools that each community was familiar with, i.e. the Old Testament and not the Gospels which weren't written yet AND even if they had been wouldn't have the kind of circulation necessary for such references.
[/quote]


I want you to see these verses in the book of Isaiah which says ‘that Christ died for our sins’ (in summary) are written in past tense. They are not written on things to come as if Isaiah did not see this death and resurrection of Christ. All witnesses saw this passion of Christ. It was handed-down too to Apostle Paul by them who are witnesses before him. Thus, he said (1 Cor 15:3) ‘For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures’. But this ‘Divine Revelation’ which is now become ‘Sacred Tradition’ does not remain tradition in the eyes of Apostle Paul because Apostle Paul confirmed its truthfulness when Christ appeared to him. Thus, he can now say (Rom 6:3-4)

[indent=1]‘Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.[/indent]

Again, I want you to take note in the above verses, he is not saying as if he just believes being buried with Christ through baptism which is now your present position. He is truly buried with Christ when Christ died for him. That is the big difference between tradition and revelation. In tradition you know this passion in your mind and you accepted its benefit by faith. While in revelation, you are there in that passion and you know what you did to him and its consequences hence you are always ready to forgive others in the same way Christ forgiven you at that moment.

You will never accomplish this kind of ‘true to life story of baptism in Christ's death’ from your historical Jesus because he is not for real. He just exists in your mind for being a believer.

Edited May 6, 2012 by reyb

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

reyb i have read some of the prophetic words in the o.t. that the christ would suffer and i think die also. Sorry i can't direct you to exact scripture. It doesn't say the christ directly but one i may know off the top of my head i think is Psalm 22 , but even if thats not one of them i have read other O.T. scripture that does. I can't remember verse and chapter number off the top of my head. If i remember one of the scripts says that "he will come riding on a donkey tethered to a colt.' or something like that, i had a friend run me through that section and it's like 2-3 pages and it was all prophetic in many ways and exactly what happens in the holy gospels.

Edited May 6, 2012 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[reyb]

[quote name='Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye' timestamp='1336321983' post='2427659']
reyb i have read some of the prophetic words in the o.t. that the christ would suffer and i think die also. Sorry i can't direct you to exact scripture. It doesn't say the christ directly but one i may know off the top of my head i think is Psalm 22 , but even if thats not one of them i have read other O.T. scripture that does. I can't remember verse and chapter number off the top of my head. If i remember one of the scripts says that "he will come riding on a donkey tethered to a colt.'
[/quote]

For sure, we will see it later since we are already reading the scriptures every now and then. TY for info.

[Basilisa Marie]

If you really want to get technical, Biblical Hebrew doesn't have tenses in the same way English does. It only has perfect and imperfect, i.e "I run" and "I will run". So any "past tense" translations are additions and judgments about the text made by the translators. There's nothing [i]wrong [/i]with these translator judgment calls, but because of them you can't say something like "Isaiah 53 is in the past tense, therefore it can't apply to Christ."

Futhermore, the Ancient Jews had a very loose idea of proper biblical interpretation. There was a general belief that there were as many interpretations of a passage as people of the tribe. Everything had meaning, and rabbis had different opinions about a text all the time. No one was more "right" than the other. So saying that one interpretation of Isaiah is meant to be one that prefigures Christ is actually very much in line with how the original Christians and ancient Jews read the scriptures, because there is definitely room for such an interpretation among others.

Also, I don't think you understand what "Sacred Tradition" is.

[reyb]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1336335226' post='2427725']
If you really want to get technical, Biblical Hebrew doesn't have tenses in the same way English does. It only has perfect and imperfect, i.e "I run" and "I will run". So any "past tense" translations are additions and judgments about the text made by the translators. There's nothing [i]wrong [/i]with these translator judgment calls, but because of them you can't say something like "Isaiah 53 is in the past tense, therefore it can't apply to Christ."

Futhermore, the Ancient Jews had a very loose idea of proper biblical interpretation. There was a general belief that there were as many interpretations of a passage as people of the tribe. Everything had meaning, and rabbis had different opinions about a text all the time. No one was more "right" than the other. So saying that one interpretation of Isaiah is meant to be one that prefigures Christ is actually very much in line with how the original Christians and ancient Jews read the scriptures, because there is definitely room for such an interpretation among others.

Also, I don't think you understand what "Sacred Tradition" is.
[/quote]


To make it short, you are saying Isaiah and all witnesses of God did not see this 'passion of Christ' and they only prophesied about it. How about Apostle Paul? Did he saw this passion of Christ?

Edited May 6, 2012 by reyb

[Mark of the Cross]

Shouldn't this thread be named 'Succession of loops'?

Using the Bible as proof that the Bible is a lie is pretty loopy.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1336343706' post='2427769']
To make it short, you are saying Isaiah and all witnesses of God did not see this 'passion of Christ' and they only prophesied about it. How about Apostle Paul? Did he saw this passion of Christ?
[/quote]

I don't understand why you're so hung up on someone literally seeing what happened.

[reyb]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1336346559' post='2427796']
I don't understand why you're so hung up on someone literally seeing what happened.
[/quote]


Because I want you to see the truth from where your faith is useless and if you really wanted to be one with Apostle Paul listen to what he said in 2 Cor 11:7-12

[indent=1]Was it a sin for me to lower myself in order to elevate you by preaching the gospel of God to you free of charge? I robbed other churches by receiving support from them so as to serve you. And when I was with you and needed something, I was not a burden to anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied what I needed. I have kept myself from being a burden to you in any way, and will continue to do so. As surely as the truth of Christ is in me, nobody in the regions of Achaia will stop this boasting of mine. Why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do! And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about . [/indent]

[reyb]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1336345957' post='2427792']


Shouldn't this thread be named 'Succession of loops'?

Using the Bible as proof that the Bible is a lie is pretty loopy.
[/quote]


It is not the bible against the bible itself bur rather it is their testimonies against your interpretation to the scriptures.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1336347869' post='2427811']
It is not the bible against the bible itself bur rather it is their testimonies against your interpretation to the scriptures.
[/quote]
Sure there is often disagreement in interpretation albeit minor, Phatmass couldn't exist otherwise. But to state that historically Jesus, the core of the Bible! did not exist as a physical man is not just a case of misinterpretation. It is suggesting a total fail in which case you cannot then use it (Bible) as evidence for anything. It is blatantly apparent to any reader of these threads that you are writing by a confused, uneducated, sole writers distorted viewpoint. And your opponents are writing from amassed learning and intelligent interpretation attained by their willingness to listen and learn from Church scholars. The probability of errors on their behalf exists, but it would be extremely low. Your unwillingness to listen and learn from those more educated and wiser than you has an almost guaranteed probability of fail. My apologies if I'm being harsh and unkind, but it's a truth that you need to realise. I've been through that lesson myself!

[cmotherofpirl]

No, its your personal interpretation of Scriptures of the Catholic Church. This has gone on for over 250 posts with absolutely no change, so I really don't see the point of continuing this thread. Please sum up your points now.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1336349381' post='2427822']
Sure there is often disagreement in interpretation albeit minor, Phatmass couldn't exist otherwise. But to state that historically Jesus, the core of the Bible! did not exist as a physical man is not just a case of misinterpretation. It is suggesting a total fail in which case you cannot then use it (Bible) as evidence for anything. It is blatantly apparent to any reader of these threads that you are writing by a confused, uneducated, sole writers distorted viewpoint. And your opponents are writing from amassed learning and intelligent interpretation attained by their willingness to listen and learn from Church scholars. The probability of errors on their behalf exists, but it would be extremely low. Your unwillingness to listen and learn from those more educated and wiser than you has an almost guaranteed probability of fail. My apologies if I'm being harsh and unkind, but it's a truth that you need to realise. I've been through that lesson myself!
[/quote]
It has nothing to do with education or wisdom Mark. We have faith in the 2000 year old teachings of the Church, Reyb doesn't.Check mate. Game over.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1336349595' post='2427825']
It has nothing to do with education or wisdom Mark. We have faith in the 2000 year old teachings of the Church, Reyb doesn't.Check mate. Game over.
[/quote]
I'm not quite clear what you are saying but basically I was considering that the respondents can only discuss scripture through their education and their ability to match it against Reys errors. IMO faith is not just blind it is a combination of empirical evidence, reason, intuition and because it feels right or just because I want it. We need these additional factors in order to be able choose Christo/Catholicism in preference to other religions. I have a strong faith in the 2000 year teachings, but I don't have the education to engage in in-depth scriptural discussions. The quotes from MB can only come as a result of some study and the wisdom to use it.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Mark of the Cross

[reyb]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1336349475' post='2427824'] No, its your personal interpretation of Scriptures of the Catholic Church. This has gone on for over 250 posts with absolutely no change, so I really don't see the point of continuing this thread. Please sum up your points now. [/quote] [quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1336349595' post='2427825'] It has nothing to do with education or wisdom Mark. We have faith in the 2000 year old teachings of the Church, Reyb doesn't.Check mate. Game over. [/quote]



To summarize: Anyone who teaches about Christ without seeing Jesus Christ is already a false teacher and since they cannot explain even among themselves whatever they teaches about God, Christ and Holy Spirit they tend to invent ways of justifying this '[b]succession of lies[/b]' by saying their 2000-years-teachings are hidden in mystery, unknowingly they are already in the devil’s trap while bringing many souls to destruction. This is to warn you as Apostle Paul said ‘Their end will be what their actions deserve’ because you are the causes of these little ones who believes in the Power and Wisdom of God to sin.

Edited May 7, 2012 by reyb

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1336354817' post='2427846']
To summarize: Anyone who teaches about Christ without seeing Jesus Christ is already a false teacher...
[/quote]

In all compassion, that is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen on Phatmass. His Excellency Fulton Sheen said that 'stupidity is also a gift from God, but it should not be misused.' You should heed him.

Using your faulty and grossly errant logic, I cannot teach anyone about Germany, sperm whales, Gingko trees, cobras, good American beer, betamax tape cassettes, or the Beatles because I have seen none of them.

Surely you do not even remotely intend to be taken seriously when you spew asinine things like this. Please think before you type things. Look at the argument you are trying to make and see if a sane, rational person can follow it, support it, and apply it to other situations. If not, don;t bother.