Comments for One Fold http://one-fold.com No Ideology - Just Facts! Sat, 04 Sep 2010 21:41:08 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 Comment on The Truth behind Catholic Answers Early Church Quotes: Papias on Apostolic Tradition by Detroit Catholic Examiner http://one-fold.com/?p=1&cpage=1#comment-1678 Detroit Catholic Examiner Sat, 04 Sep 2010 21:41:08 +0000 http://one-fold.com/?p=1#comment-1678 "Where Eusebius says Papius mentions Aristion and John by name, and gives their traditions in writings, Catholic Answers inserted 'concerning Jesus.' Eusebius didn’t say or even imply that the traditions Papias recorded were from Jesus,” something Catholic Answers dubiously added. By doing that, they created the premise that Papius’ writings revealed unwritten teachings of Christ. " Brian, the [ ] are used to indicate that something that is being inserted that was not in the text. That's why there is brackets there. “Where Eusebius says Papius mentions Aristion and John by name, and gives their traditions in writings, Catholic Answers inserted ‘concerning Jesus.’ Eusebius didn’t say or even imply that the traditions Papias recorded were from Jesus,” something Catholic Answers dubiously added. By doing that, they created the premise that Papius’ writings revealed unwritten teachings of Christ. ”

Brian, the [ ] are used to indicate that something that is being inserted that was not in the text. That’s why there is brackets there.

]]> Comment on Irenaeus of Lyons by Detroit Catholic Examiner http://one-fold.com/?page_id=62&cpage=1#comment-1677 Detroit Catholic Examiner Sat, 04 Sep 2010 21:34:31 +0000 http://one-fold.com/?page_id=62#comment-1677 To me, St Irenaeus' words that the bread and wine "receive the Word"*, that indicates the "Real Presence." *from Jonathan Brumley's citation To me, St Irenaeus’ words that the bread and wine “receive the Word”*, that indicates the “Real Presence.”

*from Jonathan Brumley’s citation

]]> Comment on Response to Martignoni’s “Biblical Evidence” for the Catholic Mass (Part 1) by Detroit Catholic Examiner http://one-fold.com/?p=138&cpage=1#comment-1674 Detroit Catholic Examiner Sat, 04 Sep 2010 15:18:25 +0000 http://one-fold.com/?p=138#comment-1674 P.S. I am in no way denying Transubstantiation here, but rather saying that it is more of a "both and" thing which you seem to agree with.. (?) Where we disagree is that the bread and wine literally become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ (under the appearance of bread and wine.) P.S. I am in no way denying Transubstantiation here, but rather saying that it is more of a “both and” thing which you seem to agree with.. (?) Where we disagree is that the bread and wine literally become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ (under the appearance of bread and wine.)

]]> Comment on Response to Martignoni’s “Biblical Evidence” for the Catholic Mass (Part 1) by Detroit Catholic Examiner http://one-fold.com/?p=138&cpage=1#comment-1672 Detroit Catholic Examiner Sat, 04 Sep 2010 15:11:20 +0000 http://one-fold.com/?p=138#comment-1672 I agree with you on the incense part..or that it at least could be prayer as Revelation tells us and St. Irenaeus seems to hold that interpretation. You can check out a short article I wrote on "Malachi's Prophecy of the Mass" here: http://www.examiner.com/catholic-in-detroit/malachi-s-prophecy-of-the-mass I would argue that the Eucharist is not "merely" a sacrifice of praise, but also includes the bread and wine that have become "the Eucharist." I agree with you on the incense part..or that it at least could be prayer as Revelation tells us and St. Irenaeus seems to hold that interpretation. You can check out a short article I wrote on “Malachi’s Prophecy of the Mass” here:

http://www.examiner.com/catholic-in-detroit/malachi-s-prophecy-of-the-mass

I would argue that the Eucharist is not “merely” a sacrifice of praise, but also includes the bread and wine that have become “the Eucharist.”

]]> Comment on John Martignoni’s video apologetics by Jonathan Brumley http://one-fold.com/?p=201&cpage=1#comment-1080 Jonathan Brumley Thu, 05 Aug 2010 05:15:46 +0000 http://one-fold.com/?p=201#comment-1080 It's a relationship: 1. God offers grace. 2. We accept. 3. God gives us the gift of the Spirit (faith, hope, love). 4. We live out our faith by following Christ. To do the works God requires, it depends: If we have not accepted God's grace, our first responsibility is to accept grace by believing the gospel. Trying to do good outside of friendship with God is pride and that is pointless. If we have accepted God's grace, then we are slaves to our new master. We have the responsibility a slave has, to "trust and obey" - as the hymn says. It’s a relationship:

1. God offers grace.
2. We accept.
3. God gives us the gift of the Spirit (faith, hope, love).
4. We live out our faith by following Christ.

To do the works God requires, it depends: If we have not accepted God’s grace, our first responsibility is to accept grace by believing the gospel. Trying to do good outside of friendship with God is pride and that is pointless.

If we have accepted God’s grace, then we are slaves to our new master. We have the responsibility a slave has, to “trust and obey” – as the hymn says.

]]> Comment on Irenaeus of Lyons by Jonathan Brumley http://one-fold.com/?page_id=62&cpage=1#comment-1078 Jonathan Brumley Thu, 05 Aug 2010 04:51:33 +0000 http://one-fold.com/?page_id=62#comment-1078 Whether you believe "this is my body" metaphorically or literally, you're placing your faith in an interpretation. It sure would be nice if Jesus, Paul, Ignatius, Justin, or Irenaeus would comment on this blog and explain what they meant. Assuming that doesn't happen, we should all go read John 17. Whether you believe “this is my body” metaphorically or literally, you’re placing your faith in an interpretation.

It sure would be nice if Jesus, Paul, Ignatius, Justin, or Irenaeus would comment on this blog and explain what they meant.

Assuming that doesn’t happen, we should all go read John 17.

]]> Comment on Justin Martyr by Jonathan Brumley http://one-fold.com/?page_id=64&cpage=1#comment-1077 Jonathan Brumley Thu, 05 Aug 2010 04:40:13 +0000 http://one-fold.com/?page_id=64#comment-1077 By showing the "flesh and blood" Christians eat starts out as bread and wine, Justin sets a clever logical trap for the accusers of Christians. Either: a) The reader believes that Christians perform a miracle - they really transform the bread and wine into flesh and blood. OR b) The reader believes that Christians are ridiculous - they believe in foolish miracles. Either way, Christians are acquitted of the charge of cannibalism against them. By showing the “flesh and blood” Christians eat starts out as bread and wine, Justin sets a clever logical trap for the accusers of Christians. Either:

a) The reader believes that Christians perform a miracle – they really transform the bread and wine into flesh and blood.
OR
b) The reader believes that Christians are ridiculous – they believe in foolish miracles.

Either way, Christians are acquitted of the charge of cannibalism against them.

]]> Comment on Ignatius of Antioch by Jonathan Brumley http://one-fold.com/?page_id=66&cpage=1#comment-1076 Jonathan Brumley Thu, 05 Aug 2010 04:25:43 +0000 http://one-fold.com/?page_id=66#comment-1076 Hi Brian, You said, 'And the Eucharist itself, Ignatius describes, is: “our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” In other words, the Eucharist is the celebration of the passion and resurrection of our Lord. ' In your interpretation, you inserted a number of words here which simply aren't in the text. What's wrong with the straightforward meaning? When I read it, I get that Ignatius is saying two distinct things about the Donatists: 1. They don't believe Jesus really died on the cross. 2. They don't pray or celebrate the Eucharist because they don't believe the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus Christ. Whether Jesus meant "this IS my body" literally or metaphorically, it seems understandable that Ignatius would have a problem with the Donatists not believing it and not celebrating it. Hi Brian,

You said,

‘And the Eucharist itself, Ignatius describes, is: “our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” In other words, the Eucharist is the celebration of the passion and resurrection of our Lord. ‘

In your interpretation, you inserted a number of words here which simply aren’t in the text. What’s wrong with the straightforward meaning?

When I read it, I get that Ignatius is saying two distinct things about the Donatists:
1. They don’t believe Jesus really died on the cross.
2. They don’t pray or celebrate the Eucharist because they don’t believe the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus Christ.

Whether Jesus meant “this IS my body” literally or metaphorically, it seems understandable that Ignatius would have a problem with the Donatists not believing it and not celebrating it.

]]> Comment on John Martignoni’s video apologetics by Brian Culliton http://one-fold.com/?p=201&cpage=1#comment-1029 Brian Culliton Tue, 03 Aug 2010 00:16:57 +0000 http://one-fold.com/?p=201#comment-1029 Let me ask you this: What must we do to do the works God requires?” Let me ask you this: What must we do to do the works God requires?”

]]> Comment on John Martignoni’s video apologetics by nik a morris http://one-fold.com/?p=201&cpage=1#comment-1016 nik a morris Mon, 02 Aug 2010 14:45:32 +0000 http://one-fold.com/?p=201#comment-1016 quote - If we apply this doctrine to the thief on the cross next to Jesus we have a conflict. In order for the thief to be saved, and we know he was, an exception has to be made to the Catholic doctrine. And if we are to say that a person can believe and be saved upon their deathbed we again have to make an exception to the doctrine. End of quote. 1. Did the thief merely said quietly to himself, "I have faith in Jesus Christ"? 2. Did the thief say loudly, "I have faith in Jesus Christ"? I am afraid that the thief did neither 1 nor 2. But, the thief did do some good works, when he declared his faith in Jesus Christ by doing something and ASKING Jesus to - "remember me when you come into your kingdom"! Again at the Last Judgment , the King said to the Sheep, "come into the kingdom of the Father, because you gave me food, you gave me drink, etc". "Faith or faith alone" was not mentioned at all. In fact to emphasise the point the King then turns to the Goats to say "go away from me because when I was hungry, gou gave me no food etc etc". I am truly puzzled as to why the King made no mention of Faith at all - do you know why? Sincerely, Nik quote – If we apply this doctrine to the thief on the cross next to Jesus we have a conflict. In order for the thief to be saved, and we know he was, an exception has to be made to the Catholic doctrine. And if we are to say that a person can believe and be saved upon their deathbed we again have to make an exception to the doctrine. End of quote.

1. Did the thief merely said quietly to himself, “I have faith in Jesus Christ”?

2. Did the thief say loudly, “I have faith in Jesus Christ”?

I am afraid that the thief did neither 1 nor 2.

But, the thief did do some good works, when he declared his faith in Jesus Christ by doing something and ASKING Jesus to – “remember me when you come into your kingdom”!

Again at the Last Judgment , the King said to the Sheep, “come into the kingdom of the Father, because you gave me food, you gave me drink, etc”.

“Faith or faith alone” was not mentioned at all.

In fact to emphasise the point the King then turns to the Goats to say “go away from me because when I was hungry, gou gave me no food etc etc”.

I am truly puzzled as to why the King made no mention of Faith at all – do you know why?

Sincerely, Nik

]]>