Wow! This is the kind of teaching that grabs me and doesn't let me turn away. The kind that my ears receive with out a struggle. So powerful and poetic. Can't wait to hear the rest of the series. Thank you Fr. Stan
I had just got in the habit recently of saying to people who feel socially discouraged that if people misunderstand you remember you were created in the image and likeness of mystery...thank you for the confirmation.
I don't know much about buddhism but in christianity God makes himself man and suffers willingly for everyone's sake and teaches us not to escape from suffering but confront it daily and like boris said it can be transformative if you know how to deal with it and there is great wisdom in the bible that shows how to live ones life that surpasses anything else if you truthfully abide by it
@BigBearPaul Thankyou...you are absolutely right! and dont forget that scripture itself says that The church - not scripture alone - is "the pillar and foundation of truth" ..meaning the teaching authority as well as Tradition that has been handed down for 2000 years.
@ohsnap31 - Please correct me if I'm wrong but the impression I have always had of the Buddhist philosophy is that suffering is something to escape from which is in direct contrast to the belief that we all gotta suffer and take up our cross daily....I think that the real problem here though is that for many what Fr. Stan is rapin' about will come across as making out that suffering is something good in itself, which it is definitely not...It is however real and can be transformative.
...one last thing. Since this is our last exchange I'll just suggest some resources: 1. The website "Association of Hebrew Catholics". There is a great series of MP3 talks on the Church Fathers. 2. The website "Salvation is from the Jews" by Roy Shoeman. 3. The book "The Crucified Rabbi" by Taylor Marshall. I often listen to non-Catholic sources to glean what is of value and to make sure my faith stands up to the scrutiny of the challenges that are presented.
That is correct, we can go down the list of all the heresies the Mother Church had to fight in order to preserve the ONE truth...I mean Non catholic Christians don't even eat & drink the body & blood of Christ like HE requested...
Suffering, hmmmmm....for the catholic,when we suffer, even if it is regular physical suffering and not necessarily suffering of or from persecution for the sake of the gospel, is an opportunity to come along side Christ and share, if only slightly, in His suffering. We then are invited to offer it up, as a free will gift of trust to the savior for Him to take it and do what he pleases with it. We are invited to ask Him to use our humble acceptance of this suffering as a way to become closer to
@BorisG7 Yes, Buddhism teaches us about the transformative value of suffering and the end purpose is a life of happiness. The purpose is not to escape from suffering by avoiding it. It is precisely be meeting it head on and dealing with it that we can transform it. The contrast is that Fr. Stan is telling us that we have to suffer for God. We have to take up the cross for him. The philosophy of Buddhism is much more positive, the purpose is to end suffering and live a life of happiness.
@ohsnap31 lol and their "Church Raffles" always crack me up. :D We disagree on so much, but really, I do feel bad for way I replied the first few times. Sorry 'bout that and I hope you have a good future. Best of luck with all. :D :D
Thank you very much for your honesty with regards to the canon. I'll be happy to continue that conversation when you have found an answer. 1 Peter 1 certainly mentions being born again, but I don't see how you reach your definition. Please explain more. John 3 speaks of being "born of water and Spirit". How do you understand that phrase? Is verse 22 significant? How do you understand Rom 6:34 which I paraphrased earlier? What do you see as the link between baptism and circumcision?
WOW - That many contradictions in 7 minutes (AMAZING) I GUESS WHEN YOU START WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT GOD LIVES IN ALL OF US - IT CAN GET PRETTY CRAZY FROM THERE.
Actually, read the Acts of the apostles, the early Church dedicated itself to four things, prayer, the communal life, the breaking of the bread and the Techings of the Apostles, we continue this even today, 2000 years later.
Yes, I'm born again (but we may each mean different things by that phrase) I've been asking these same questions from the beginning because they get to the heart of the issue: what you trust and why. If you believe Luke's Gospel is inspired, why? Who said so and when? Why should you trust them? How do you know if you're interpreting the text in the way the first Christians did? If you belong to a community which historically did this for the Church it shouldn't be hard to provide evidence.
Before you go I really would like to know, in your opinion, when the canon was established, by whom and your reason for trusting them. It's the main question I've been trying to get you to answer all along.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by *Scriptural* Testimony. As for being born again, it happened when I "died with Christ in baptism" and was born again "of water and the Spirit". In my journey of faith since that day I have drawn close to my Father, but also at times wandered away from the Lord. There have been some wonderful moments when His Spirit has drawn me back home and into a deeper relationship than before. Anyway, this is all way off-topic. You were telling me about the canon...
At the very beginning sure, but even by Acts 10 you have Cornelius and his household being baptised. Even though the Church was initially predominantly Jewish, it grew much faster in Gentile areas, especially after 70AD and the Jewish council of Jamnia where the Rabbis expelled the Christians. "First the Jew, then the gentile". Paul discusses all this in Romans 11.
@ohsnap31 That does sound quite ridiculous now, does it not? In any case, the Bible is a library of books from many different genres. It makes sense when you realise that it is not always supposed to read literally, and that it can be understood consistently. I believe in evolution, it doesn't contradict the Bible. Creationists have done so much damage to us. Genesis was never meant to be a geologic or biologic record of creation. It was written to emphasise the importance of the Sabbath.
You said "Real Scripture is ...." and then only spoke about the books of the Old Covenant, not mentioning the NT and this surprised me, which is why I wrote "Matthew, Mark, Luke, ...". I'm assuming you do consider these part of the canon. But again, if you "only trust Scripture" how do you know what actually is Scripture? Is there a divinely inspired table of contents? Who decides what's in and out and with what certainty can they be trusted? Did Paul teach scripture alone? 2 Thes 2:15
Looking over our conversation, another important question still hasn't been answered: Outside of the Bible, what is the first source you can provide which corresponds to your understanding of the Eucharist? If your understanding is correct then there really should be some historical record which confirms this belief. Like the previous question, all I want is a short answer - in this case a name and a date. I won't even comment on your answer - we'll leave it at that.
The CJB is just a 1998 Bible translation . I asked who assembled the canon. *Who* decided that James' Epistle was Scripture and that the Shepherd of Hermas wasn't? *When* was this settled? *Why* did this person or group have authority to do this?
This sounds like "Find me somebody I agree with and then I'll listen". Is it possible that those who sat at the feet of the Apostles might perhaps have a better understanding of the faith than someone living 2000 years later? I've heard the imagery in Daniel and Revelation applied to everything from Sadam Hussain to the EU. How do you know your interpretation is correct? Also, I've asked it *twice* before and got no answer: If you only trust Scripture, how do you know what is Scripture?
I still don't know what you believe though: Who assembled the canon? When? Why can I trust them? And concerning the power of God on earth, the Bible is full of examples of God's power and glory being bestowed on and channelled through mere creatures. The judges of Israel were even called "elohiym"
@ohsnap31 To prove that we exist is rather more difficult than you might imagine. If there ever was an important question, it is "Does god exist?". If there is no god, then why not be evil? Why the truth? Why not lies? If there is no god, then everything is permissible, but nothing is meaningful. Was is wrong to write to you the way I did? Yes, and I apologize. Not because I think you will accept it. But because I did wrong, and I am sorry. Stay safe for it is indeed a dangerous world.
Testing everything against Sacred Scripture is indeed a good thing to do. However, you do first have to read something before you can test it, so I think reading some of the Fathers would be a good thing to do. However, to read Scripture is to interpret Scripture. How do you know for certain your interpretation is correct?
If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. (Lk 9:23). Thks.... Wow, can hardly believe Father stan is 52. Great.... Love.
If the meaning of Scripture becomes crystal clear, does this mean that all the different denominations are not born again because they do not share the *same* crystal clear sense of Scripture? Also, if being born again means that the Scriptures become crystal clear, why are teachers and bible commentaries needed?
"Repenting, believing and trusting in the Name of the Lord" Yeah, all good stuff - I doubt you'll hear any disagreements here. Have you read any of the early church fathers at all? Ignatius of Antioch? Ireneus? Justin Martyr?
In response to your rather unpleasant and unproductive email I will now no longer be continuing in this dialogue. However, if you still feel you have something to share, there are still many questions left unanswered over the course of this discussion for you to address. Shalom.
Oops, sorry, you're quite right. I did misread it. I'm not hugely sure what point you're trying to make talking again about "the Jewishness of your Savior". I doubt you'll find anyone here who doubts the pivotal role of the Jews in salvation history and the importance of reading the New Testament in light of the Old (and vice-versa).
You've answered which canon you follow, but not when it was assembled, by whom or by what authority. Your "Scripture Test" is whether or not a present-day Messianic Jew recognises it. Why? What guarantee do you have that what a Messianic Jew today believes is Scripture is what the first Christians believed was Scripture? Also, if I find someone that says they're a Messianic Jew but rejects James' epistle, is it Scripture? It's a silly question, but I wonder how you test orthodoxy of belief.
Clement was the Bishop of Rome (96AD) and, as such, a Catholic would consider him Peter's successor and therefore Pope. This however shouldn't stop you at least reading him (1 Thes 5:21) as he may have things of value to say (Chapter 49 is gorgeous). Ignatius was only continuing what had been said before him and what he had been taught by the Apostles. The Eucharist was important to Jesus (Lk 22), the first disciples (Acts 2:42) and Paul (1 Cor 11:27) & should therefore should be to us.
You're entitled to your preferences, but the term "Early Church Fathers" is a pretty standard. It's logical too - they were the leaders of the Church in its early years. How early? Clement of Rome wrote his letter to the Corinthians sometime before 96AD so John would still have been alive. Ignatius of Antioch wrote his letters around 107 AD. I'm not asking that you consider their writings as Scripture but at least recognise their witness.
Who decided what was and what was not part of the New Testament canon? When? Why can I trust them? Why is a tradition immediately wrong if a Messianic Jew doesn't observe it? Being Jewish doesn't automatically make them right. What proof do you have that the first churches didn't teach the Real Presence?All the Church Father certainly did. As for Jesus, "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink...this is my body...this is my blood".
It looks like somebody really did fail you in your original Catholic formation. If "sola gratia" (grace alone) isn't Catholicism 101, I don't know what is. In fact, in my answer I was just paraphrasing the Catholic Catechism (#1722). This doctrine is also proclaimed in the liturgy - infants are baptised who clearly have no capacity to "do" anything for God - it's all about grace. There is a difference between objections to Catholicism and objections to misconceptions of it...
Suffering for Christ, unlikes Buddhism, guarantees us an eternity in paradise with God, not just a life of happiness here. Catholocism is much more positive because it deals with what is to come, not some blink of an eye period of time on this earth. That said, Fr. Stan seems to be really dumbing it down. Maybe the audience for this needs it. Just sayin...........
The Fathers come from all across the Christian world, not just Rome. Your emphasis on the *Jewish* writers is interesting. Do you reject Paul's teaching about there is no difference between Jew and Gentile because of Christ? I'm guessing you assume St. Luke was Jewish too? More importantly, if you don't trust anything outside Sacred Scripture, how do you know what actually counts as Sacred Scripture? Why trust John's Gospel as inspired scripture? Why can't I just discard James' epistle?
@ohsnap31 You fail. None of the Abrahamic religions can be so easily debunked. These three believe in a much different deity than any before or since. Pantheism can be put down very simply. And the other creation myths have deities who created the world form things which already existed in the world. The god of Abraham(That is the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god) is the only one which fits into the "not so easily debunked" category.
the bible is not eay to interpret you can't just pick it up. read it and take it literally it is a compilation of 76 different books with many genres. although there are many religions/philosophies you have to agree there is only 1 truth in life and for me it's christianity there are many scientifically proved miracles and personal experiences to back it up and if you believe there is nothing after death when your time comes your gonna be surprised I mean really why is there such a complex
So Luke could have been Gentile and being "in Christ" is more important than ethnicity? Why all the gentile/jewish rhetoric then? If you ever actually read the Fathers you'll see how soaked in Scripture they are. Back to my original question: if you don't trust anything outside Sacred Scripture, how do you know what actually counts as Sacred Scripture?
Again you're saying things that I'm obviously not going to disagree with. Of course want *Sacred* Tradition - teaching given by Christ to His Apostles. However, you said earlier that unless a Messianic Jew practised a tradition it wasn't "real". I asked *why*... Piecing together your responses you seem to suggest that if a Messianic Jew does it then it must from the Lord. Is that what you believe? If so, why?
What's worrying here is that you didn't know that Roy is a Jew, making it clear that you responded even before looking at the websites... Also, there continues an obstinacy to listen to anything from anybody with a contrary opinion to yourself. If you indeed have the truth then you have *nothing* to fear from testing it. You also have yet to provide me with a citation for the first person who shares your view on the Eucharist to prove the historicity of your belief.
@trevywankenobi Of course you think that Buddhism or any other religion that is not your own is screwed up. In a nutshell, research shows how strong the tendency is to excessively critique new information that is inconsistent with preferences and to let preference consistent info slide by easy. I can't imagine that this bias is more pronounced anywhere than with religious beliefs. You have been brainwashed by your beliefs.
I ask questions because you won't "be taught Scripture by a Catholic". I'm therefore letting you teach me. In a sentence, I'd say that the Gospel is the good news that while we were still sinners God became man and died in our place for our sins and this salvation is a free gift from God.
Your proof will be an *interpretation* of Scripture. Why should I trust your interpretation? Jesus was indeed the Lamb of God. He was prefigured in Exodus where the lamb was killed, *eaten* and its blood put on the door posts. You see the same thing acted out from the Upper Room to Calvary. Why should I care about what Messianic Jews today say? When was that interpretation of scripture first recorded? Surely the Apostles would have taught their disciples correctly?
The Bible is full of contradictions and you would not dare want to live by everything the Bible says, like how to treat your children if they disobey you for example. The wisdom that can be found in the Bible could be found throughout history long before the Bible came into existence. It is a religion that is borrowed from previous religions. Live your one life and forget about this nonsense that life lasts forever.
![แฉ [2/4] 12 ก.ค. 67 เจ้าของไวรัลดังในโซเชียล 'ลิลลี่ เหงียน' ฝันอยากเข้าวงการ โดนหลอกสารพัด | GMM25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7zntQK2U8-8/mqdefault.jpg)
![[TH] VCT Pacific Stage 2 - Playoffs Day 2 // PRX vs GEN | DRX vs TLN](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gmrSk-_ahlA/mqdefault.jpg)
Wow! This is the kind of teaching that grabs me and doesn't let me turn away. The kind that my ears receive with out a struggle. So powerful and poetic. Can't wait to hear the rest of the series. Thank you Fr. Stan
Peace! Thanks Boris and God bless.
Cool man! "You have the message of eternal life". Praise God.
Thank you for sharing.
Welldone and God bless †
Very deep and expressed in an accessible way, Great approach by Fr Stan
I had just got in the habit recently of saying to people who feel socially discouraged that if people misunderstand you remember you were created in the image and likeness of mystery...thank you for the confirmation.
Fr. Stan is AWESOME!!!!!
we need more than any and all of the 5 solos of the reformation. We need those things, but we need a lot more than that.
Beautiful.
May you find love, kindness, and truth in your heart through God's love.
I've seen this man live, he's incredible, especially his songs and messages.
YOU ROCK OUT FATHER!!!!
Fr.Stan fortuna - greatest priest of life, i just recently saw him at steubenville ohio , he is incredible
I don't know much about buddhism but in christianity God makes himself man and suffers willingly for everyone's sake and teaches us not to escape from suffering but confront it daily and like boris said it can be transformative if you know how to deal with it and there is great wisdom in the bible that shows how to live ones life that surpasses anything else if you truthfully abide by it
@BigBearPaul Thankyou...you are absolutely right! and dont forget that scripture itself says that The church - not scripture alone - is "the pillar and foundation of truth" ..meaning the teaching authority as well as Tradition that has been handed down for 2000 years.
YOU GO FATHER!!!!!
the good news about Jesus Christ and his message.
Ephesians 2;5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, brought us to life with Christ (by grace you have been saved).
@ohsnap31 - Please correct me if I'm wrong but the impression I have always had of the Buddhist philosophy is that suffering is something to escape from which is in direct contrast to the belief that we all gotta suffer and take up our cross daily....I think that the real problem here though is that for many what Fr. Stan is rapin' about will come across as making out that suffering is something good in itself, which it is definitely not...It is however real and can be transformative.
...one last thing. Since this is our last exchange I'll just suggest some resources:
1. The website "Association of Hebrew Catholics". There is a great series of MP3 talks on the Church Fathers.
2. The website "Salvation is from the Jews" by Roy Shoeman.
3. The book "The Crucified Rabbi" by Taylor Marshall.
I often listen to non-Catholic sources to glean what is of value and to make sure my faith stands up to the scrutiny of the challenges that are presented.
thanks.
I love Pope John II.
That is correct, we can go down the list of all the heresies the Mother Church had to fight in order to preserve the ONE truth...I mean Non catholic Christians don't even eat & drink the body & blood of Christ like HE requested...
Suffering, hmmmmm....for the catholic,when we suffer, even if it is regular physical suffering and not necessarily suffering of or from persecution for the sake of the gospel, is an opportunity to come along side Christ and share, if only slightly,
in His suffering. We then are invited to offer it up, as a free will gift of trust to the savior for Him to take it and do what he pleases with it. We are invited to ask Him to use our humble acceptance of this suffering as a way to become closer to
@BorisG7 Yes, Buddhism teaches us about the transformative value of suffering and the end purpose is a life of happiness. The purpose is not to escape from suffering by avoiding it. It is precisely be meeting it head on and dealing with it that we can transform it. The contrast is that Fr. Stan is telling us that we have to suffer for God. We have to take up the cross for him. The philosophy of Buddhism is much more positive, the purpose is to end suffering and live a life of happiness.
@ohsnap31 lol and their "Church Raffles" always crack me up. :D We disagree on so much, but really, I do feel bad for way I replied the first few times. Sorry 'bout that and I hope you have a good future. Best of luck with all. :D :D
Thank you very much for your honesty with regards to the canon. I'll be happy to continue that conversation when you have found an answer.
1 Peter 1 certainly mentions being born again, but I don't see how you reach your definition. Please explain more.
John 3 speaks of being "born of water and Spirit". How do you understand that phrase? Is verse 22 significant? How do you understand Rom 6:34 which I paraphrased earlier?
What do you see as the link between baptism and circumcision?
WOW - That many contradictions in 7 minutes (AMAZING)
I GUESS WHEN YOU START WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT GOD LIVES IN ALL OF US - IT CAN GET PRETTY CRAZY FROM THERE.
Watch the Music video made by him: Everybody got 2 suffer
Actually, read the Acts of the apostles, the early Church dedicated itself to four things, prayer, the communal life, the breaking of the bread and the Techings of the Apostles, we continue this even today, 2000 years later.
How did you reach this definition about being born again?
And my questions about the canon still go answered...
Yes, I'm born again (but we may each mean different things by that phrase)
I've been asking these same questions from the beginning because they get to the heart of the issue: what you trust and why. If you believe Luke's Gospel is inspired, why? Who said so and when? Why should you trust them? How do you know if you're interpreting the text in the way the first Christians did?
If you belong to a community which historically did this for the Church it shouldn't be hard to provide evidence.
DarthMambo r
@bcharville Yeah, keep living in the dark and not asking questions - just the way the church likes it.
Before you go I really would like to know, in your opinion, when the canon was established, by whom and your reason for trusting them.
It's the main question I've been trying to get you to answer all along.
@ohsnap31 Leviticus makes perfect sense to me, although I do not think the Jews understood why it was so significant, over 3000 years ago.
@bannergreen17 Asking questions is so 1490s. ;)
:D
I'm not quite sure what you mean by *Scriptural* Testimony. As for being born again, it happened when I "died with Christ in baptism" and was born again "of water and the Spirit".
In my journey of faith since that day I have drawn close to my Father, but also at times wandered away from the Lord. There have been some wonderful moments when His Spirit has drawn me back home and into a deeper relationship than before.
Anyway, this is all way off-topic. You were telling me about the canon...
did you watch the rest of the videos? and he's not talking about Buddhism.
At the very beginning sure, but even by Acts 10 you have Cornelius and his household being baptised. Even though the Church was initially predominantly Jewish, it grew much faster in Gentile areas, especially after 70AD and the Jewish council of Jamnia where the Rabbis expelled the Christians.
"First the Jew, then the gentile". Paul discusses all this in Romans 11.
@ohsnap31
That does sound quite ridiculous now, does it not?
In any case, the Bible is a library of books
from many different genres.
It makes sense when you realise that it is not always supposed to read
literally, and that it can be understood consistently.
I believe in evolution, it doesn't contradict the Bible. Creationists have done so much damage to us.
Genesis was never meant to be a geologic or biologic record of creation.
It was written to emphasise the importance of the Sabbath.
You said "Real Scripture is ...." and then only spoke about the books of the Old Covenant, not mentioning the NT and this surprised me, which is why I wrote "Matthew, Mark, Luke, ...". I'm assuming you do consider these part of the canon.
But again, if you "only trust Scripture" how do you know what actually is Scripture? Is there a divinely inspired table of contents? Who decides what's in and out and with what certainty can they be trusted?
Did Paul teach scripture alone?
2 Thes 2:15
Looking over our conversation, another important question still hasn't been answered:
Outside of the Bible, what is the first source you can provide which corresponds to your understanding of the Eucharist?
If your understanding is correct then there really should be some historical record which confirms this belief.
Like the previous question, all I want is a short answer - in this case a name and a date. I won't even comment on your answer - we'll leave it at that.
The CJB is just a 1998 Bible translation . I asked who assembled the canon. *Who* decided that James' Epistle was Scripture and that the Shepherd of Hermas wasn't? *When* was this settled? *Why* did this person or group have authority to do this?
So Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Romans, ...?
This sounds like "Find me somebody I agree with and then I'll listen". Is it possible that those who sat at the feet of the Apostles might perhaps have a better understanding of the faith than someone living 2000 years later?
I've heard the imagery in Daniel and Revelation applied to everything from Sadam Hussain to the EU. How do you know your interpretation is correct?
Also, I've asked it *twice* before and got no answer: If you only trust Scripture, how do you know what is Scripture?
Make sure and vitamin supplement, particularly B12
I still don't know what you believe though: Who assembled the canon? When? Why can I trust them?
And concerning the power of God on earth, the Bible is full of examples of God's power and glory being bestowed on and channelled through mere creatures. The judges of Israel were even called "elohiym"
hehe nice username
@ohsnap31 To prove that we exist is rather more difficult
than you might imagine. If there ever was an
important question, it is "Does god exist?".
If there is no god, then why not be evil?
Why the truth? Why not lies?
If there is no god, then everything is permissible,
but nothing is meaningful.
Was is wrong to write to you the way I did?
Yes, and I apologize. Not because I think you will accept it.
But because I did wrong, and I am sorry.
Stay safe for it is indeed a dangerous world.
Testing everything against Sacred Scripture is indeed a good thing to do. However, you do first have to read something before you can test it, so I think reading some of the Fathers would be a good thing to do.
However, to read Scripture is to interpret Scripture. How do you know for certain your interpretation is correct?
If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. (Lk 9:23).
Thks....
Wow, can hardly believe Father stan is 52.
Great....
Love.
If the meaning of Scripture becomes crystal clear, does this mean that all the different denominations are not born again because they do not share the *same* crystal clear sense of Scripture?
Also, if being born again means that the Scriptures become crystal clear, why are teachers and bible commentaries needed?
If you want to know the meaning of suffering study Buddhism. The four noble truths contain wisdom this guy can't even imagine.
Jesus bless you
@ohsnap31 Stop using our calendar then!
"Repenting, believing and trusting in the Name of the Lord"
Yeah, all good stuff - I doubt you'll hear any disagreements here.
Have you read any of the early church fathers at all? Ignatius of Antioch? Ireneus? Justin Martyr?
In response to your rather unpleasant and unproductive email I will now no longer be continuing in this dialogue. However, if you still feel you have something to share, there are still many questions left unanswered over the course of this discussion for you to address. Shalom.
Oops, sorry, you're quite right. I did misread it.
I'm not hugely sure what point you're trying to make talking again about "the Jewishness of your Savior". I doubt you'll find anyone here who doubts the pivotal role of the Jews in salvation history and the importance of reading the New Testament in light of the Old (and vice-versa).
how is it a false gospel??
@cheesemonkey1990 Really?! Sola Scriptura? Sola Fide?
Scripture, yes.
Faith, yes.
Sola, no.
If Paul didn't teach it then why do you trust only Scripture?
You've answered which canon you follow, but not when it was assembled, by whom or by what authority.
Your "Scripture Test" is whether or not a present-day Messianic Jew recognises it. Why? What guarantee do you have that what a Messianic Jew today believes is Scripture is what the first Christians believed was Scripture?
Also, if I find someone that says they're a Messianic Jew but rejects James' epistle, is it Scripture? It's a silly question, but I wonder how you test orthodoxy of belief.
Clement was the Bishop of Rome (96AD) and, as such, a Catholic would consider him Peter's successor and therefore Pope. This however shouldn't stop you at least reading him (1 Thes 5:21) as he may have things of value to say (Chapter 49 is gorgeous).
Ignatius was only continuing what had been said before him and what he had been taught by the Apostles. The Eucharist was important to Jesus (Lk 22), the first disciples (Acts 2:42) and Paul (1 Cor 11:27) & should therefore should be to us.
You're entitled to your preferences, but the term "Early Church Fathers" is a pretty standard.
It's logical too - they were the leaders of the Church in its early years. How early? Clement of Rome wrote his letter to the Corinthians sometime before 96AD so John would still have been alive. Ignatius of Antioch wrote his letters around 107 AD.
I'm not asking that you consider their writings as Scripture but at least recognise their witness.
@ohsnap31 sorry Buddhism is screwed up
Who decided what was and what was not part of the New Testament canon? When? Why can I trust them?
Why is a tradition immediately wrong if a Messianic Jew doesn't observe it? Being Jewish doesn't automatically make them right.
What proof do you have that the first churches didn't teach the Real Presence?All the Church Father certainly did.
As for Jesus, "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink...this is my body...this is my blood".
It looks like somebody really did fail you in your original Catholic formation. If "sola gratia" (grace alone) isn't Catholicism 101, I don't know what is.
In fact, in my answer I was just paraphrasing the Catholic Catechism (#1722). This doctrine is also proclaimed in the liturgy - infants are baptised who clearly have no capacity to "do" anything for God - it's all about grace.
There is a difference between objections to Catholicism and objections to misconceptions of it...
Suffering for Christ, unlikes Buddhism, guarantees us an eternity in paradise with God, not just a life of happiness here. Catholocism is much more positive because it deals with what is to come, not some blink of an eye period of time on this earth. That said, Fr. Stan seems to be really dumbing it down. Maybe the audience for this needs it. Just sayin...........
The Fathers come from all across the Christian world, not just Rome.
Your emphasis on the *Jewish* writers is interesting. Do you reject Paul's teaching about there is no difference between Jew and Gentile because of Christ?
I'm guessing you assume St. Luke was Jewish too?
More importantly, if you don't trust anything outside Sacred Scripture, how do you know what actually counts as Sacred Scripture? Why trust John's Gospel as inspired scripture? Why can't I just discard James' epistle?
@ohsnap31 You fail. None of the Abrahamic religions can be so easily debunked. These three believe in a much different deity than any before or since.
Pantheism can be put down very simply.
And the other creation myths have deities who created the world form things which already existed in the world.
The god of Abraham(That is the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god) is the only one which fits into the "not so easily debunked" category.
the bible is not eay to interpret you can't just pick it up. read it and take it literally it is a compilation of 76 different books with many genres. although there are many religions/philosophies you have to agree there is only 1 truth in life and for me it's christianity there are many scientifically proved miracles and personal experiences to back it up and if you believe there is nothing after death when your time comes your gonna be surprised I mean really why is there such a complex
So Luke could have been Gentile and being "in Christ" is more important than ethnicity? Why all the gentile/jewish rhetoric then?
If you ever actually read the Fathers you'll see how soaked in Scripture they are.
Back to my original question: if you don't trust anything outside Sacred Scripture, how do you know what actually counts as Sacred Scripture?
Again you're saying things that I'm obviously not going to disagree with. Of course want *Sacred* Tradition - teaching given by Christ to His Apostles.
However, you said earlier that unless a Messianic Jew practised a tradition it wasn't "real". I asked *why*...
Piecing together your responses you seem to suggest that if a Messianic Jew does it then it must from the Lord. Is that what you believe? If so, why?
What's worrying here is that you didn't know that Roy is a Jew, making it clear that you responded even before looking at the websites...
Also, there continues an obstinacy to listen to anything from anybody with a contrary opinion to yourself. If you indeed have the truth then you have *nothing* to fear from testing it.
You also have yet to provide me with a citation for the first person who shares your view on the Eucharist to prove the historicity of your belief.
@trevywankenobi
Of course you think that Buddhism or any other religion that is not your own is screwed up. In a nutshell, research shows how strong the tendency is to excessively critique new information that is inconsistent with preferences and to let preference consistent info slide by easy. I can't imagine that this bias is more pronounced anywhere than with religious beliefs. You have been brainwashed by your beliefs.
I ask questions because you won't "be taught Scripture by a Catholic". I'm therefore letting you teach me.
In a sentence, I'd say that the Gospel is the good news that while we were still sinners God became man and died in our place for our sins and this salvation is a free gift from God.
Whatever! Put down the Jack Chick Comic Books and seek Truth instead of bearing false witness.
Your proof will be an *interpretation* of Scripture. Why should I trust your interpretation?
Jesus was indeed the Lamb of God. He was prefigured in Exodus where the lamb was killed, *eaten* and its blood put on the door posts. You see the same thing acted out from the Upper Room to Calvary.
Why should I care about what Messianic Jews today say? When was that interpretation of scripture first recorded? Surely the Apostles would have taught their disciples correctly?
why people suffer? - RELIGION!
The Bible is full of contradictions and you would not dare want to live by everything the Bible says, like how to treat your children if they disobey you for example. The wisdom that can be found in the Bible could be found throughout history long before the Bible came into existence. It is a religion that is borrowed from previous religions. Live your one life and forget about this nonsense that life lasts forever.