Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Someone doing actual investigation into the Pyramids and aliens would be a scientist, hence my use of the term. Had I used scholar, you would have gone and found some nutjob like the "I'm not saying its aliens" guy and put him forth as an example . So I short circuited that line of argument.
Peter was an adult when he met Christ . If you understand the differences between the writings, and I emphasize IF, then you understand why this claim doesn't work. But it requires getting into some serious textual criticism to see this. If you are determined to ignore the differences because it upsets your beliefs, of course you will choose not to see them. (The you used euphemistically )
Yes. He was. And he underwent some major life changes between that time and the time he wrote 2 Peter.
Quote:
In addition, the two books, even though both are about the Christian faith, use mostly totally different words to describe the same things. 1Peter has over 500 words that don't appear in 2 Peter. 2Peter has around 400 words that don't appear in 1 Peter.
Do you have 2 totally different vocabularies that you switch back and forth in when writing here on CD? Or do you tend to use the same vocabulary set in every post?
I can tell you that many of the papers I wrote in college are probably much different than the posts I make here.
Quote:
You don't get the point of a supposed new Lord of the Rings book written using words like ain't, or American slang unknown to the Tolkien, when claiming to have found a lost book written by the same Tolkien? If not, sorry, I can't explain it much better. The point should be very obvious.
No. You're making some major assumptions.
In any event, even IF 2 Peter was merely written "in his name", it does not invalidate it's Inspiration.
Yes. He was. And he underwent some major life changes between that time and the time he wrote 2 Peter.
I can tell you that many of the papers I wrote in college are probably much different than the posts I make here.
I know that evangelicals have a hard time accepting things that threaten their world view, but regardless of your opinion or excuses, scholars who have spent years training in languages and textual criticism and who have decades of daily experience researching these matters hold the well educated opinions that 2Peter is questionable on authorship. You may not agree and try to find ways to deny their research, but it doesn't change things any. Experts in the field of study believe that the authorship of 2 Peter isn't actually Peter, based on intense scholarly research.
Quote:
No. You're making some major assumptions.
In any event, even IF 2 Peter was merely written "in his name", it does not invalidate it's Inspiration.
Exactly what assumptions am I making? I am simply relaying that scholars believe that 2 Peter wasn't written by Peter. Thats not my opinion or assumption, it is the belief of educated scholars on the subject.
In their view, from the Traditions they were taught by the Apostles. The problem with Protestants is they think everything must have been layed out in the Bible to be valid. The Bible though was written after Christianity was formed . Therefore, the early Christians did not depend on the Bible, since the NT did not exist . They depended on the teachings of the church fathers, who learned them from the Apostles . You may not agree with this, but then you would need to explain how the church operated in the years before any of the Bible was written, and even centuries actually before the Bible was codified by the very church you are questioning into the modern Bible . There was no codified Bible or accepted start and finish of the books to the Bible until after a period longer than the US has been a nation. How did the Church get by ? By adhering to the teachings of the apostles .
So, back to my question, who would know better what John meant when he wrote the Gospel of John? A Bishop who studied in person with John , was a contemporary of John, and got to ask questions of anything he didn’t understand of the actual writer of the Gospel of John, or someone reading a Bible that has undergone multiple translations to get to the point some guy is reading it in the year 2021. I put this as MissKate vs Ignatius not to embarrass you, but rather to put the question rather pointedly nonetheless. Who would understand Johns intent better , you reading your Bible in 2021 , or Bishop Ignatius studying under the actual writer of the Gospel of John for years in 100AD ?
Are you not Roman Catholic? Orthodox? Lutheran? I ask because you said, “In their view…”. Does your church
have a minister, pastor or Reverend who takes part in “transubstantiation” like the Catholic priest does? Please explain what your church does where communion is concerned.
Our congregation has elders (plural) and deacons. The elders are our spiritual leaders, but all the men of our congregation participate in the worship service in one form or another. Some lead prayers. Others lead singing. Some offer a prayer of thanksgiving over the bread and fruit of the vine. We have communion every first day of the week. We remember Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and show His death till He comes.
The New Testament manuscripts did not begin to exist in written form until twenty or more years after the church began on Pentecost, but make no mistake, the teachings of the Holy Spirit existed in oral oral form via the Apostles. The Holy Spirit was working through the Apostles from the very beginning of the church, long before they wrote their words on scrolls. He was with them every step of the way. Jesus had promised that the Holy Spirit would come after He left and guide them into all truth It wasn’t like Jesus left them on their own, and they just made things up as they went. Eventually they committed the words they received from the Holy Spirit to paper. The gospels and epistles were circulated amongst the congregations as soon as they were written and able to be copied, some as early as the 50s.
It sounds like you do not have 100% faith in the Scriptures. That leads me to wonder how you make decisions about what you should believe or not believe. Where does your source of authority come from? The church Fathers? The problem with that is that the fathers were not inspired. The Holy Spirit did not speak through them.
Do you believe the Scriptures are Gods breathed? All or just some?
It is fact that Jesus said, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.” Yet you seem to doubt that and prefer to turn to the church fathers (no offense meant here. It’s the impression I’m getting. Correct me if I’m wrong).
I don’t have a lot to say about Ignatius except that the words he spoke were not God breathed. You said that Ignatius is reliable because he lived so close to the time of the Apostles. You do realize that there were those in the very early church who were teaching false? Many of the letters in the New Testament were written as refutations of false doctrines that had already sprung up in the first decades of the church while the Apostles were still alive and teaching! I agree that the closer in time to the Apostles, the more reliable the source, but the bottom line is the words Ignatius spoke were not God breathed. They carry no authority.
Ignatius wrote the following. “…I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ who is of the seed of David; and for the drink, I want his blood…” (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, Chapter 7).
To say that the bread is the flesh of Christ and the wine His blood says no more than Baptists, Presbyterians or I would say. But where is transubstantiation in Ignatius’ writings?
Another quote from Ignatius, “because they refuse to acknowledge that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father by his goodness raised up,” (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnians, Chapter 6).
Nothing about transubstantiation there either.
Ignatius never says the bread has ceased to be bread or that the fruit of the vine had ceased to be the fruit of the vine.
Weird. I thought that word was forbidden on this forum. Yet, here you are, a mod, using that to describe people.
The word "troll" is not forbidden. It is forbidden to accuse someone of being a troll in a post.
Mods use the term "troll" all the time, because we get trolls on the forum every.single.day, and as you are aware because you've read the TOS, "Trolling" is a standard violation.
One might even apply that to the post that I quoted above, since purposely misrepresenting what has been said to make it appear something else was meant can be construed as trolling. But one is not going to do that this time.
And Paul refutes that 'the bread and wine are just powerless symbols':
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying. 1Cor11:27-30
How can partaking unworthily 'just a symbol' result in judgement?
I don’t have a lot to say about Ignatius except that the words he spoke were not God breathed. You said that Ignatius is reliable because he lived so close to the time of the Apostles. You do realize that there were those in the very early church who were teaching false?
You're saying Ignatius could be a heretic? Unbelievable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissKate12
Many of the letters in the New Testament were written as refutations of false doctrines that had already sprung up in the first decades of the church while the Apostles were still alive and teaching! I agree that the closer in time to the Apostles, the more reliable the source, but the bottom line is the words Ignatius spoke were not God breathed. They carry no authority.
No authority? Unbelievable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissKate12
Ignatius wrote the following. “…I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ who is of the seed of David; and for the drink, I want his blood…” (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, Chapter 7).
To say that the bread is the flesh of Christ and the wine His blood says no more than Baptists, Presbyterians or I would say. But where is transubstantiation in Ignatius’ writings?
Unbelievable
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissKate12
Another quote from Ignatius, “because they refuse to acknowledge that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father by his goodness raised up,” (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnians, Chapter 6).
Nothing about transubstantiation there either.
Unbelievable
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissKate12
Ignatius never says the bread has ceased to be bread or that the fruit of the vine had ceased to be the fruit of the vine.
Are you not Roman Catholic? Orthodox? Lutheran? I ask because you said, “In their view…”. Does your church
have a minister, pastor or Reverend who takes part in “transubstantiation” like the Catholic priest does? Please explain what your church does where communion is concerned.
No, I am not RCC or EO . I attended an EO church for a couple of years and underwent an intensive training session with the priest , but ultimately did not join .
Quote:
Do you believe the Scriptures are Gods breathed? All or just some?
No I do not believe all the Scripture inspired .
Quote:
I don’t have a lot to say about Ignatius except that the words he spoke were not God breathed. You said that Ignatius is reliable because he lived so close to the time of the Apostles. You do realize that there were those in the very early church who were teaching false? Many of the letters in the New Testament were written as refutations of false doctrines that had already sprung up in the first decades of the church while the Apostles were still alive and teaching! I agree that the closer in time to the Apostles, the more reliable the source, but the bottom line is the words Ignatius spoke were not God breathed. They carry no authority.
Nobody said his words were God breathed . I simply asked who was a more reliable interpreter of what John wrote, one of his disciples who studied in the flesh with him and could ask questions of him , or Protestant readers 2000 years later ?
Quote:
Another quote from Ignatius, “because they refuse to acknowledge that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father by his goodness raised up,” (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnians, Chapter 6).
Nothing about transubstantiation there either.
Do you understand what is meant by transsubstantiation? Do you believe that if someone doesn’t use this word they can’t mean that the real physical presence of Christ is in the Eucharist ? Ignatius says very plainly in the bolded that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus . I’m not sure how one can avoid this except to simply deny what your eyes read .
Transsubstantiation is simply the Catholic explanation for how bread becomes the flesh of Jesus . Martin Luther agreed that the bread was the flesh of Jesus but didn’t accept the Catholic explanation of how the change occurs . The EO and OO do not even bother trying to explain it . They are satisfied to call it a mystery without explanation. But ALL of them, along with Ignatius , believe that the bread does turn into the real flesh of Jesus .
Do you understand what is meant by transsubstantiation? Do you believe that if someone doesn’t use this word they can’t mean that the real physical presence of Christ is in the Eucharist ? Ignatius says very plainly in the bolded that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus . I’m not sure how one can avoid this except to simply deny what your eyes read .
The bolded is the only possible explanation.
She knows what she would have to do if she were to concede to transubstantiation. It would be too hard to bear.
MissKate, things never turn out to be as difficult as they seemed once you're past it
And Paul refutes that 'the bread and wine are just powerless symbols':
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying. 1Cor11:27-30
How can partaking unworthily 'just a symbol' result in judgement?
Nowhere in that passage does he say that it's literally flesh and blood. Read it again with an open mind. Seriously. It just doesn't.
Instead, it commands us to eat it worthily, with a clean heart. Confessing our sins before. Not taking it lightly. It's not a simple after-thought (as I frequently found it to be as a Catholic). It isn't something we just do thoughtlessly. We remember him. We thank him. We worship him.
Nowhere in that passage does he say that it's literally flesh and blood. Read it again with an open mind. Seriously. It just doesn't.
Instead, it commands us to eat it worthily, with a clean heart. Confessing our sins before. Not taking it lightly. It's not a simple after-thought (as I frequently found it to be as a Catholic). It isn't something we just do thoughtlessly. We remember him. We thank him. We worship him.
It seems to me that the bolded would be a problem with you and not with the Catholic belief.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unbelievable
