-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
More Righteous than I
- Thread starter ForeverFaithful
- Start date
shawn001
Well-Known Member
I hear what your saying.
I am just interested. It seems like they still are selling them as far as I can tell.
However this was interesting at least to me.
"
The Council of Trent (1545-1564) issued a decree that gave Church teaching on indulgences and that provided stringent guidelines to eliminate abuses:
Since the power of granting indulgences was conferred by Christ on the Church (cf. Mt 16:19, 18:18, Jn 20:23), and she has even in the earliest times made use of that power divinely given to her, the holy council teaches and commands that the use of indulgences, most salutary to the Christian people and approved by the authority of the holy councils, is to be retained in the Church, and it condemns with anathema those who assert that they are useless or deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them.
In granting them, however, it desires that in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church moderation be observed, lest by too great facility ecclesiastical discipline be weakened. But desiring that the abuses which have become connected with them, and by any reason of which this excellent name of indulgences is blasphemed by the heretics, be amended and corrected, it ordains in a general way by the present decree that all evil traffic in them, which has been a most prolific source of abuses among the Christian people, be absolutely abolished. Other abuses, however, of this kind which have sprung from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from whatever other sources, since by reason of the manifold corruptions in places and provinces where they are committed, they cannot conveniently be prohibited individually, it commands all bishops diligently to make note of, each in his own church, and report them to the next provincial synod. (Sess. 25, Decree on Indulgences)"
In 1967 Pope Paul VI reiterated Catholic teaching on indulgences and added new reforms in his apostolic constitution Indulgentiarum Doctrina (cf. Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery, O.P. Northport, New York: Costello, 1980, 62-79).
Does the Catholic Church still sell indulgences? | Catholic AnswersIn granting them, however, it desires that in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church moderation be observed, lest by too great facility ecclesiastical discipline be weakened. But desiring that the abuses which have become connected with them, and by any reason of which this excellent name of indulgences is blasphemed by the heretics, be amended and corrected, it ordains in a general way by the present decree that all evil traffic in them, which has been a most prolific source of abuses among the Christian people, be absolutely abolished. Other abuses, however, of this kind which have sprung from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from whatever other sources, since by reason of the manifold corruptions in places and provinces where they are committed, they cannot conveniently be prohibited individually, it commands all bishops diligently to make note of, each in his own church, and report them to the next provincial synod. (Sess. 25, Decree on Indulgences)"
In 1967 Pope Paul VI reiterated Catholic teaching on indulgences and added new reforms in his apostolic constitution Indulgentiarum Doctrina (cf. Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery, O.P. Northport, New York: Costello, 1980, 62-79).
shawn001
Well-Known Member
No worries. The picture was interesting in another aspect, it was not aphotograph or a painting, but a really early photographic process, that I found first in the eastman kodak archives.
Thanks Storm.
ForeverFaithful
Son Worshiper
How are you more righteous then them?
Keeping days and following dietary laws? Or do you think you give more to Charity?
Between Catholic who believe in Faith and Work Salvation and Protestants who believe in Sola Fide, I doubt you can see more charity from Catholics, and doubt in that respect you can claim to be more righteous, however if I'm wrong show me some stats or whatever, because I've see charity is not dependent on religious doctrines.
Protestant Work Ethic is more noted and I've given my examples
I'm glad you can tell me what Jesus will think better then all of Christendom, however if God's kicking people out for keeping days and dietary laws, that's one thing, but if it's based on attempts to serve him, even by works, and these wicked Protestants come and tell God of all the times they helped their neighbor, will you still be deemed more righteous? does Micah 6:8 not show us what God wants of us, if we take Micah 6:8 are you still more worthy then I? or our both our good works filthy rags (Isa 64:6) ?
It's part of the New Covenant ( Ez 11:16, Ez 36:26)
Above I've given my scripture
Where is your righteousness? Is it in keeping days and dietary laws? because you might have that on Calvinists, but what works do you have outside that that can not be matched by Sola Fideists
Micah 6:8
He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly[a] with your God.
I was merely saying those two were how we should measure righteousness, as it makes more sense then keeping days which are mere shadows
This is all really great stuff, but has nothing to do with the Reformation in the least, which is what we were talking about, not the current secular states, seeing as Europe has one of the largest percent population of atheists
Germany's industriousness came from it's Protestant heritage that steept into all aspects of society
No, I was phrasing it nicely before disecting
It's hyperbole because Christ was emphasize their sinfulness and how NO ONE can earn the kingdom for the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23)
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Forever faithful
two things, the first one is not directed at anyone, just a statement.
"What right has any one to tell me what God wants or not and what I should do to please him?"
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent. "Eleanor Roosevelt, 'This Is My Story,' 1937
two things, the first one is not directed at anyone, just a statement.
"What right has any one to tell me what God wants or not and what I should do to please him?"
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent. "Eleanor Roosevelt, 'This Is My Story,' 1937
Shermana
Heretic
Are you not reading what I said? Keeping the commandments is righteousness. Thus, by keeping the commandments, one is more righteous than one who doesn't. Simple. I asked you to give your own definition of righteousness if you disagree.
Yes, that's part of it. If you disagree, you're disagreeing with the OT definition of righteousness.
Giving to charity is part of it, but not all or most. It's the entirety of the commandments which it seems most Christians dread to follow.
I don't know where I ever said giving more to charity means more righteousness. The Book of Sirach says to not give Charity to the wicked. So anyone who gives charity to the "wicked" is not doing righteousness to begin with. It seems by your straw man and avoidance of my question to define righteousness in your own terms you are hoping to dodge from the issue.
More noted by protestants perhaps. I know you gave your examples and I put them into historical context.
I'm glad you think "All Christendom" somehow knows better than Messianic Jews just because they are the majority. Why don't you pray and ask if I am right or wrong. Tell me if you get an answer.
The filthy rags thing I see very commonly, it is taken very out of context, why don't you quote the whole passage, not just the verse, of the filthy rags thing and I'll show you what it means. As for Micah 6:8, "Act justly" means obedience to the commandments. What do you think "Act justly" actually means?
Are you aware of what Jeremiah says about the New Covenant about how the "Law will be written on their hearts"?
Fine.
You keep using those two examples as if that's all there is to it. How about the REST of the commandments? Yes, my righteousness is in keeping the REST of the commandments too. It's about doing what G-d has commanded. That's the Scriptural definition. If you don't like it, tell me what YOU think righteousness actually means. And "Act justly" while you're at it.
Why don't you tell me what you consider "works" to be in the first place. Like I said, often it comes down to an argument about what exactly "works" are. So tell me your view on what "works" are exactly.
To act Justly = To obey the commandments. If you disagree, tell me what you think acting justly means.
So you're saying what G-d commanded is just 'mere shadows".
Huh? So you're saying historical context does not matter? Interesting.
NOW it does.
The German states were very rich and industrious long before the Protestant reformation. And Catholic Bavaria was its richest. You have no point here. Not only that, Italy's economy is very strong, it's just managed by fools.
But you didn't really dissect it.
So you're saying that Christ was speaking Hyperbole because of something PAUL says. That's not how it works. And what is their "Sinfulness" to begin with? Why was he calling them Sinful to begin with? Why did Jesus say one must Strive to enter the Kingdom? Do you know what "strive" means? According to your opinion on the matter, Jesus shouldn't have wasted his breath on even teaching anything, especially to "strive for the kingdom".
I don't think you understand what the liberation is. It's liberation from the punishment that comes from their sin, if they repent and stop sinning. If they willfully sin afterwards, there is no more sacrifice.
That's not a fact, that's a misguided post-Paulinian view, and your thing about me rejecting Paul doesn't fly, if you haven't noticed, there have been MANY debates on this board alone about whether Paul was a true apostle, the general answer is "no, he wasn't". For example, you used Paul's epistles to trump what Jesus says and to call it "Hyperbole". You are not blessed with the Holy Spirit, and I will take the risk of blaspheming it to say that, neither is any "Christian" who does not accept the Law of Moses. If you disagree, pray first and ask before responding.
You're vegan? Why? You completely missed the point of my objection. Do you see murder and theft on that list?
The 7 Laws of Noah is a Talmudic Pharisaic concept. Why do you suddenly accept it as doctrinal?
It's not just me who thinks its interpolation, it's scholars as well. And what's reasonable is to not just blindly believe the Roman canon as its presented but to look into the issue and study the manuscripts and the scholarly debates on the issue.
That's not what it means at all. If that's the case, the apostles can make murder and rape not a problem anymore by your logic.
So move a mountain, take a picture, and then prove that your belief is well placed by this logic. John's gospel teaches a lot more than just having "faith" in what JEsus is, it's about faith in what JEsus teaches.
By this logic, you'd have to ignore the "plain readings" of Matthew. Are you prepared to admit that your "plain readings" of John clash entirely with Matthew and Mark? I'm sorry if you find what I say silly, I find what YOU say silly too, but my view is a bit more consistent.
This is not just about "Biblical" debates. Would you argue with the Apocrypha and the books of the Ethiopian Bible? No? Then I could say the same for you. The issue of canon and whether Paul was a true Apostle is ripe for discussion, if you don't like it, I can suggest you look at the many threads on the issue of whether Paul was a legitimate Apostle. If you don't like the fact that scholars are divided on whether certain passages are interpolations by gentile sects, feel free to demonstrate this. But if you want objective debate on what Jesus originally taught, you're gonna have to accept that there are numerous Messianic Jews who reject Paul. Paul was rejected by the original Nazarenes and Ebionites. Even then, Paul says things like "As the Law says" regarding women being silent in church.
Last edited:
ForeverFaithful
Son Worshiper
He says that in a letter after speaking of women praying and prophesying in church, He then stress the relationship between wives and husbands in the next verse, leading a plain reader to assume he is speaking of husbands and wives interrupting the service
I accept the Canon as accept in the Protestant Bible, with out the additions found in the Roman or Greek Cannons, this is the base of Christianity and where we should draw our doctirnes, the same canon Jesus taught ( Luke 24:7, Luke 11:50-51)
Bob Dixon
>implying
The same canon Jesus taught? Really? Jesus put up a list of legitimate books somewhere?
Me Myself
Back to my username
Who is "more righteous" depends on the works, in my book.
That said, sometimes it just comes down to who is "less" unrighteous.
About "Faith alone" :
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."-KJB
Actions are more important than words to JC.
That said, sometimes it just comes down to who is "less" unrighteous.
About "Faith alone" :
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."-KJB
Actions are more important than words to JC.
The thing is one can't do much to change their nature. You are who you are. You desire what you desire. No one is any more "righteous" because of their works. If one works to obey God they are acting according to the law, not their nature.
That's not to say their actions have no value. Good actions are good actions. They are trying to live up to what they believe God expects of them. However obedience to the law is not righteousness. If they were righteous in their nature, for them there would be no need of any laws. They would act in love, compassion, fairness, forgiveness because to do otherwise would be against their nature.
One can't change who they are. However I think you are ask to trust that the Holy Spirit can. And, if it is the Holy Spirit that changes one's nature, what credit can we take for that change? We can do good works be we can't change our desires.
One desire is to be obedient to God's law. Nothing wrong with that desire. However the righteous wouldn't need such a desire. Because their nature alone would cause them to act according to God's will regardless whether the law existed or not.
You will know them by their works not because of their obedience but because of their nature. Their nature is not in their own hands but it is in the hands of the Holy Spirit.
Me Myself
Back to my username
But if part of your nature is righteous, then you are righteous. That doesn´t mean you are 100% righteous.
Is like, if someone asks me if I am a sinner. I don´t sin ALL THE TIME. Byut I have a bad thought and undesired effect of action form time to time and this makes me a sinner.
SO I am both righteous adn a sinner. This is the duality of human nature. If there was nothing righteous in us, we couldn´t even want to follow what we see as "good" or "holy", because that would deem at least some degree of righteousness.
About we not being "righteous" because righteousness would´ve come from the holy spirit, then there is no yummy pancake in the world.
Why? Because the yuminess wasn´t created by the pancake. It was the one who cooked it that made it yummy. Yet the pancake is yummy. And the one who cooked it is most likely both a sinner and a righteous person.
I agree to a point because it really would just be up to whether god feels like forgiving you or consider you righteous. Same for your quote where the Lord would judge which is supposed to be of works. Though with Abraham, for example, he was righteous even before he worked for god. Even after God was satisfied with his faith, God would not have hesitated to call him on something he did wrong. So there is a grace that needs to be obtained but there will still be a judgement. OSAS have to believe that they are exempt from judgement.
Last edited:
It's a work in progress for everyone. One becomes less tempted by sin because there is no desire for it. It takes time for the Holy Spirit to work. Just as it takes time for one to get better at cooking.
I'm a person who believes the Holy Spirit is at work on everyone. Even the most despicable of character. I suppose that makes me a universalist.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
idav,
"Though with Abraham, for example, he was righteous even before he worked for god."
Abraham came from the sumerian city of UR and must have known about the Babylonian Creation. Check out the major similarities.
Comparing the Genesis and Babylonian stories of creation
Shermana
Heretic
The Pericope Adulterae is an interpolation that doesn't exist in any known early manuscript.
Jesus and the woman taken in adultery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited:
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I think Christians of all kinds tend to be critical of other Christians who happen to disagree with them over points of doctrine. This works both ways. I don't actually know of a single, solitary Christian who believes himself to be saved by his own works.
In my experience as a Mormon, I am often accused of believing this when it is certainly not what my religion teaches. We believe that faith without works is dead, and that we can only be saved by a living faith, that is, a faith made evident by the way in which we live our lives. If someone were to intentionally misrepresent that belief, as many do, he would probably say that Mormons believe they earn their salvation instead of believing they must rely on Jesus Christ. I've never heard Protestants being described as "lazy" or "needing to work harder for their salvation." I have, however, heard people accuse believers in Sola Fide of believing that all that matters is that we believe, and that God doesn't care one bit about how we live our lives. That, in my opinion, is also probably a misrepresentation, although I'm afraid that it's one I've probably used myself when I've felt backed into a corner by someone who tells me that I believe I can earn my own salvation. I think people just like to fight sometimes, and don't make much effort to truly understand other people's positions.
Shermana
Heretic
Those verses do not define the canon.
Luke 24:7
Where do you possibly get any canonical reference in that verse?
Now as for Luke 11:50-51
This does not give an indication of Canon whatsoever. Those who say it does are extremely desparate to try to twist this verse to promote what their idea of the canon is, but it doesn't say anything such. Does this mean that Zeceriah, son of Berechiah was the last prophet or Zeceriah the son of Jehoida? Two Zehariahs there. Or perhaps its the one mentioned in the Apocryphal NT literature. Is there a book of Abel? No. Or is the Zechariah in question not the same Zechariah the prophet who wrote the book of Zechariah, but a more recent Zechariah who is mentioned in some of the Apocryphal NT literature who is also murdered in the temple, like the Gospel of Mary? This would make more sense, the Zechariah who is mentioned in Luke, since Jesus is referring from the beginning of time up until his time. Were there no prophets after Zeceriah? (And which one, Son of Jehoida or Berechiah)? Apparently not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zechariah_%28priest%29
Either way, in this logic, if you use this verse to prove your canon, that means you must throw out all books written after Chronicles.
Which Zechariah was murdered in the temple? - Errancy.com
Jude quotes from Enoch and the Assumption of Moses. Iraneus considered Enoch canon. Why not include the Apocrypha as well? Josephus counts 1 Esdras as part of Canon, and the Apocrypha is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Jesus says "Moses wrote of me", yet there is nothing Moses says about Moshiach in the traditional canon. To use those verses as proof of the Canon is a typical Protestant maneuver, which reveals their desparate exegesis on the subject, an objective reading will show that the verse does not at all mean that Jesus was saying the traditional canon is correct.
As for the thing about Paul saying "As the Law says", you totally skipped the point (as do most who I bring that up with), Paul says "As the Law says", so if Paul says "As the Law says", then he means to say "As the Law says" because he is believing that this part of the Law is still in force in order to say such a thing. Make sense? Hopefully.
And again, Jude quotes from Enoch and calls it "prophetic". The issue of the Canon is most certainly up to debate, if you try to throw out the issue of canon, it's a desparate dodge from the objective historicity. Paul's epistles are debated to this day, and they were debated back in the day. Are you even aware that most scholars consider Ephesians and the Pastorals to not even be by him in the first place? These things matter a lot. If you say one cannot have a "Biblical debate" because they dispute what you consider canon, then you are effectively attempting to dodge around this historical controversy.
Last edited:
shawn001
Well-Known Member
quote shawn001
"He who is without sin cast the first stone."
Should we throw out EVERYTHING that doesn't exist in any known early manuscript?
I posted that because of people who think they know religion and use it for who is going to go to heaven or hell and who "thinks" they are more rightgeues then others based on their beliefs and interpretations. If there is a god and both of you believe that, then it would seem to me god will be the judge, not either of you and your personal beliefs and interpretations on the bible or written texts.
But what it seems like stones are flying away.
"He who is without sin cast the first stone."
Should we throw out EVERYTHING that doesn't exist in any known early manuscript?
I posted that because of people who think they know religion and use it for who is going to go to heaven or hell and who "thinks" they are more rightgeues then others based on their beliefs and interpretations. If there is a god and both of you believe that, then it would seem to me god will be the judge, not either of you and your personal beliefs and interpretations on the bible or written texts.
But what it seems like stones are flying away.
