Why do we need priests?

[Marymog]

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

LOL....ok, thank you.

 

[Marymog]

Who's being dishonest here?

You....

 

[Marymog]

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

Hi,

Is your interpretation of Scripture your creation? Or are you repeating what dead men have taught?

Why should I believe what you teach? You will be dead some day....

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

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

2 Timothy 2:2

You should read your bible....all of it.

 

[ScottA]

LOL....ok, thank you.

I do hope that you see or will come to see, in the exchange with Jesus and Peter (below), that the actual "subject" that Jesus was conveying was NOT Peter, but rather HOW Peter received the knowledge that Jesus was the Christ. The proper recognition of "subject" verses "object" changes everything about what He said. Notice that Jesus did not speak [regarding] Peter, but rather ["to"] Peter. Meaning simply that He was not speaking of Peter, but ["to"] Peter, and that [how] Peter received the knowledge was the actual subject ("this rock"), rather than Peter.

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."

 

[Waiting on him]

Hi,

Is your interpretation of Scripture your creation? Or are you repeating what dead men have taught?

Why should I believe what you teach? You will be dead some day....

Curious Mary

I was dead, Mary. Now I’m alive!

 

[Waiting on him]

2 Timothy 2:2

You should read your bible....all of it.

Why are you so offended?

 

[Marymog]

I do hope that you see or will come to see, in the exchange with Jesus and Peter (below), that the actual "subject" that Jesus was conveying was NOT Peter, but rather HOW Peter received the knowledge that Jesus was the Christ. The proper recognition of "subject" verses "object" changes everything about what He said. Notice that Jesus did not speak [regarding] Peter, but rather ["to"] Peter. Meaning simply that He was not speaking of Peter, but ["to"] Peter, and that [how] Peter received the knowledge was the actual subject ("this rock"), rather than Peter.

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."

2 Peter 3:16

2 Timothy 4:3-4

 

[Marymog]

Why are you so offended?

When people twist scripture.....I get "offended".....not the word I would use but I digress.

 

[Marymog]

I was dead, Mary. Now I’m alive!

Ummmmm.......and so were the dead men you despise who teach opposite of what you teach.

Try to explain away the faithful (dead) men spoken of in 2 Timoty 2:2....

Patient Mary

 

[ScottA]

2 Peter 3:16

2 Timothy 4:3-4

Good passages.

But does that mean you see what the actual subject of Jesus' exchange with Peter was in Matthew 16:17-18...that it was how Peter received the knowledge that Jesus was the Christ, which he received from the Father, and that it was not about Peter himself; and therefore the "rock" that He referred to was the Father, rather than Peter?

 

[Waiting on him]

Ummmmm.......and so were the dead men you despise who teach opposite of what you teach.

Try to explain away the faithful (dead) men spoken of in 2 Timoty 2:2....

Patient Mary

The key word in this bit of scripture is faithful,

Not full of,,,,,,

 

[Marymog]

The key word in this bit of scripture is faithful,

Not full of,,,,,,

You crack me up...

 

[Giuliano]

Ummmmm.......and so were the dead men you despise who teach opposite of what you teach.

Try to explain away the faithful (dead) men spoken of in 2 Timoty 2:2....

Patient Mary

Dead people were teaching Timothy? Is that what you're saying? What are you saying?

I wonder why Paul bothered to write anything to Timothy.

I also wonder why dead people don't tell bishops today when their priests are doing bad things.

September 18, 2019 Valletta priest to be charged over theft of sacred art worth €100,000

A priest is expected to be charged in court with his alleged involvement in the theft of sacred works of art worth around €100,000.

Fr Deo Debono, parish priest of Saint Augustine's Church, Valletta, has admitted his involvement in the theft, police sources say.

Meanwhile, he has been stopped from exercising his priestly ministry in public and has been removed from parish priest by Archbishop Charles Scicluna in agreement with Provincial Fr Leslie Gatt.

The Archbishop's ban remains in place for as long as police investigations and any other procedures in the Civil Court are concluded, the Curia said in a statement.

It is understood the theft happened at Saint Augustine's Church some months ago but the police began to investigate him when a stolen cassolette - incense boat - appeared at an antique shop.

Fr Debono was arrested and questioned at length by the police and is now out on police bail.

Months went by and nobody knew anything about it? Wouldn't it have been better if dead people had told the Archbishop something was going on before so many things were stolen? Why the need for the police to detect the thefts?

 

[amadeus]

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.

You say there are no professional apologists who are members of this forum. Is there a master list of these apologists to which we may refer and compare against the membership list. Apparently you must have done that...or?

And then would you say that only by "professional apologists" people may come to Christ and serve God correctly and faithfully? If not, why even mention them?

 

[epostle]

You say there are no professional apologists who are members of this forum. Is there a master list of these apologists to which we may refer and compare against the membership list. Apparently you must have done that...or?

I simply defined what apologetics is. I named two professional apologists, I can name more if you like. None of them are members of this forum.

And then would you say that only by "professional apologists" people may come to Christ and serve God correctly and faithfully?

No, I wouldn't say that.

If not, why even mention them?

Waiting on Him first brought up the subject of apologetics, Marymog defined it, I embellished her definition. There is no need to muddy the waters.

 

[epostle]

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

Paul : 1st generation
Timothy: 2nd generation
faithful men: 3rd generation
able to teach others also: 4th generation
who in turn teach others until the end of time.

This is how authority is passed down, also known as apostolic succession. Paul is preparing Timothy to succeed him, he is talking about bishops, not any individual believer.

 

[Enoch111]

the same commit thou to faithful men

Have the Catholic bishops been faithful men, or have they conspired (over centuries) with priests and prelates to hide the sins being committed by the Catholic clergy? And have those who have spoken out also walked away from this travesty of Christianity?

Apostolic succession within the RCC is a total myth. The apostles woul never tolerate the false teachings of the RCC.

 

[farouk]

I was dead, Mary. Now I’m alive!

1 Corinthians 15 and John 3 speak gloriously of the Resurrection and the New Birth, respectively. :)

 

[Marymog]

Dead people were teaching Timothy? Is that what you're saying? What are you saying?

I wonder why Paul bothered to write anything to Timothy.

I also wonder why dead people don't tell bishops today when their priests are doing bad things.

Hi Giuliano,

No, dead people were not teaching Timothy.

The passage I referenced states "entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others."

That means that Paul taught Timothy what was taught to him by the Apostles and Jesus. Paul then told Timothy to teach "reliable people" what he taught Timothy. Those "reliable people" were then to teach others. This is known our Christian community as Apostolic Succession and it is spoken about in the earliest writings of our Christian Fathers.

All those faithful men are dead. According to your theory, since they are now dead, we can not trust the teachings of those faithful men.

Sooooo whose teachings do you trust sir?

Why do you do "bad things"?

Mary