Why do we need priests?

[Waiting on him]

This is my thought as well, but if one is born from above, then that is something altogether different.
In the day He creates us we are one in Him male and female

I think procreated. I do not have access myself to the image and likeness of God. I believe we are "conformed" to the image of His Son.

 

[Waiting on him]

You can't be asking if Adam and Eve were procreated?
Are you?

No, I’m asking about you,

 

[Marymog]

Don't hold your breath. You should know me better than this by now. When I see I made a mistake, I say so as fast as possible.

The FACT is that you said "I would not want blind people following me."

I then QUOTED YOU when I accused you of saying, You would not want the blind to follow you....

You then falsely said, "I did not say anything like that."

Soooo I WILL be holding my breath hoping that you will be honest and retract your false statement. I don't think honesty in a conversation is to much to ask.

Holding my breath....Mary

 

[Marymog]

Certainly the Reformation has contributed to the woes of the times, but that would just be a symptom. The actual cause came by anti-Christ forces present during the first century AD.

Hi Scott,

I do love Christian history. What is the historical documentation that you have to present to show me who these anti-Christ forces were that you speak of?

Who were they? The Apostolic Fathers? The ECF's? The Gnostics? Adoptionism? Apollinarism?

Curious Mary

 

[Waiting on him]

Hi Scott,

I do love Christian history. What is the historical documentation that you have to present to show me who these anti-Christ forces were that you speak of?

Who were they? The Apostolic Fathers? The ECF's? The Gnostics? Adoptionism? Apollinarism?

Curious Mary

Mary has anyone ever brought it to your attention that all of your apologetics are pointed towards men?

 

[Marymog]

Mary has anyone ever brought it to your attention that all of your apologetics are pointed towards men?

Hi Waiting,

Did you know that apologetics is a argumentative discourse in defense of a doctrine?

If it is not men who argue in this discourse then WHO would?

Curious Mary

 

[ScottA]

Hi Scott,

I do love Christian history. What is the historical documentation that you have to present to show me who these anti-Christ forces were that you speak of?

Who were they? The Apostolic Fathers? The ECF's? The Gnostics? Adoptionism? Apollinarism?

Curious Mary

The Bible, i.e. the scriptures, only:

Matthew 16:17-18 NKJV
"Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."​

"This rock" is stated as "not flesh and blood", "but My Father." (‘You are my Father, My God, and the rock of my salvation." Psalm 89:26). But considering Peter to be that same Rock (as some do), is antichrist, for it is contrary to what Jesus said to Peter.

1 John 2:18
"Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour."​

 

[Marymog]

The Bible, i.e. the scriptures, only:

Matthew 16:17-18 NKJV
"Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."​

"This rock" is stated as "not flesh and blood", "but My Father." (‘You are my Father, My God, and the rock of my salvation." Psalm 89:26). But considering Peter to be that same Rock (as some do), is antichrist, for it is contrary to what Jesus said to Peter.

1 John 2:18
"Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour."​

I sincerely apologize. I don't see an answer to my question.

Who were the anti-Christ forces that you speak of?

 

[ScottA]

I sincerely apologize. I don't see an answer to my question.

Who were the anti-Christ forces that you speak of?

Oh, it was there alright. Let me help you with that. Below in Red/Bold:

The Bible, i.e. the scriptures, only:

Matthew 16:17-18 NKJV
"Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."​

"This rock" is stated as "not flesh and blood", "but My Father." (‘You are my Father, My God, and the rock of my salvation." Psalm 89:26). But considering Peter to be that same Rock (as some do), is antichrist, for it is contrary to what Jesus said to Peter.

1 John 2:18
"Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour."​

 

[Philip James]

But considering Peter to be that same Rock (as some do), is antichrist, for it is contrary to what Jesus said to Peter.

Really? You must be a twister champion...

Your name is Rock, and on this rock I'll build my church.... oh by the way you are not 'this rock' , I just called you that to confuse you....

sheesh...

 

[ScottA]

Really? You must be a twister champion...

Your name is Rock, and on this rock I'll build my church.... oh by the way you are not 'this rock' , I just called you that to confuse you....

sheesh...

Thank you for the compliment, but the correct word is not "twister" but "confound." But close enough. Yet, it is not I who deserve the credit, God does, for it was He who twisted/confounded all language at Babel.

As such, the terms are that "it must be discerned spiritually." Which, if you are spiritually following the Rock passage, Jesus first states that Rock as His Father. It "is foolishness to the natural man" of course, which are also the terms. And so the spiritual and the natural argue about it. What else is new?

But, hey, good idea--let's all speak up and be counted as being lead by the Spirit or by the flesh!

 

[Philip James]

It "is foolishness to the natural man" of course, which are also the terms

You think? Or is it foolishness to the natural to think the Holy Spirit would work through men to preserve, pass on, and teach the Truth?

You are welcome to do as you wish of course, but I will remain in communion with my brothers and sisters of the last 2000 years, i know from whom we have received the deposit of faith.

Peace be with you.

 

[ScottA]

You think? Or is it foolishness to the natural to think the Holy Spirit would work through men to preserve, pass on, and teach the Truth?

You are welcome to do as you wish of course, but I will remain in communion with my brothers and sisters of the last 2000 years, i know from whom we have received the deposit of faith.

Peace be with you.

By "communion", I believe you mean fellowship, in which I too remain...as is also true of many individual Catholics. But I cannot say the same for the Catholic church organization. While the doors are open to "guests", the distinction remains apparent on their part, rather members only--not of Christ's church, but of their church.

But my point is, it is their error of understanding that makes the rift.

 

[Giuliano]

The FACT is that you said "I would not want blind people following me."

I then QUOTED YOU when I accused you of saying, You would not want the blind to follow you....

You then falsely said, "I did not say anything like that."

You wrote something and I told you I didn't say what you said.

You wrote -- falsely:

You would not want the blind to follow you and help them open their eyes because you don't care about their soul. (Acts 26:17-18).

I did not write that and said so. I wrote:

I did not say anything like that. In my time, I have opened a few eyes, but not by talking down to people.

Soooo I WILL be holding my breath hoping that you will be honest and retract your false statement. I don't think honesty in a conversation is to much to ask.

Holding my breath....Mary

Who's being dishonest here? You appear so desperate to defend your beliefs, you are falling into dishonesty yourself.

You should avoid putting words in my mouth and asking me to retract things I never said. You are getting stupid. How can you ever come to understand Heavenly things if you can't understand earthly things like what other people actually said? Your imagining things that simply aren't so.

I've nothing to retract. I don't want blind people following me. However if I say something and a person has spiritual discernment himself, then I am glad if he finds what I said acceptable. If I can say something to help Heaven open his eyes, he's no longer blind. Why rant and rave over this? It's not that hard to understand. I want people to see and know for themselves, not follow me around blindly hanging on my every word as if I were somebody special.

 

[Philip James]

By "communion", I believe you mean fellowship, in which I too remain...

By communion, I mean the intimate union we share by sharing in the one loaf broken for us and given to us by Jesus who said 'take and eat'

By communion , I mean the intimate union we share by sharing the one cup given to us by Jesus who said 'this cup is the new covenant in my blood'

By communion, i mean the intimate union of the Groom and His bride. The union of which Jesus said: 'if you eat my flesh and drink my blood, I will abide in you and you in me'

All are welcome to come to the wedding feast of the Lamb of God!

Peace be with you.

Christ IS risen!
Alleluia!

 

[ScottA]

By communion, I mean the intimate union we share by sharing in the one loaf broken for us and given to us by Jesus who said 'take and eat'

By communion , I mean the intimate union we share by sharing the one cup given to us by Jesus who said 'this cup is the new covenant in my blood'

By communion, i mean the intimate union of the Groom and His bride. The union of which Jesus said: 'if you eat my flesh and drink my blood, I will abide in you and you in me'

All are welcome to come to the wedding feast of the Lamb of God!

Peace be with you.

Christ IS risen!
Alleluia!

Okay...and even though it is a bit on the christianese side and some may not completely understand, I do.

But as I said, the rift here, is the rift here. Which also comes with a similar christianese and pretense, and an imposed official ere of distinction and separation, complete with special garb and hats and such...certainly not the greeting one would put out for a child.

So...if I have been hard on you or any other, it is because I expect the mature to know when to put down and when to take up. And the rift between the Catholic church and the rest of the church, is the result of not knowing either.

 

[Waiting on him]

Hi Waiting,

Did you know that apologetics is a argumentative discourse in defense of a doctrine?

If it is not men who argue in this discourse then WHO would?

Curious Mary

Ok, so why is your argument always for the authority of dead men, when I feel it should be the doctrine of Christ?

 

[amadeus]

So when they become one flesh are they male or female?

To a lot of people a union without the involvement of a celebrant would mean the couple would be 'living in sin'.

Fortunately, "a lot of people" do not ultimately determine what sin is or is not!

 

[amadeus]

As you say, in God exists both male and female. The way I see it is that God created/made Adam from the earth in His own image and then took out the female part and made/created a separate being. Together male and female, man and wife are complete, each providing for the other the missing element.

Yes together when each is doing his/her part as God would have prescribed they would have been complete. In the flesh alone following fleshly ways this is an impossibility because both parts [husband and wife] are already corrupted. The closest to a "perfect" marriage between a physical man and a physical woman occurs when both of them are born again or from above and both of them are becoming mature in Christ. This is good for the flesh and for the natural/carnal lives we live here, but the best thing is not that very good marriage we may see while unfinished in the corrupted vessel of flesh.

The best is found in the marriage of the Bride [consisting of both physical males and females] to the Bridegroom. Back to what Giuliano said in this post:

It is hard to see in English since both ADM and HADM are translated as Adam. At first, it reads HADM (or the Adam) in Hebrew. This is the being that is both male and female. The two are then separated. How could they know love if they remained one? Indeed we see God looking at HADM and saying it is not good for "the Man" to be alone. That suggests to me that God created man because God also wanted someone to love. Later it switches to ADAM, the male half.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal 3:28

 

[epostle]

Ok, so why is your argument always for the authority of dead men, when I feel it should be the doctrine of Christ?

Apologetics can also be defined as a branch of evangelism that explains and defends the faith, so it is a much broader term that includes the doctrine of Christ. There are no professional apologist members in this forum. I am not an apologist, I do apologetics as a hobby. We often turn to the great apologists of the past to see how they defended the faith against harmful heresies. I turn to today's apologists because they have the expertise to explain things better than I can. My favorite apologists are Scott Hahn and Dave Armstrong, both former Protestants. I notice they don't go around trashing their former faith, the way some ex-Catholics do.