Oh, really?
Posted on 05/10/2005 12:14:52 PM PDT by Keyes2000mt
Either Jesus Christ, the Son of God, rose physically from the dead, or he didn't.
It's really that simple. Choose which side you're on and be done with it.
When Paul refers to "flesh," he means sinful nature. This is the pattern in all his letters. Stop purposefully misinterpreting.
As a New England Episcopalian, I'm a bit surprized to read that only 31% don't believe in the Resurrection -- based on my experience with Massachusetts so-called "pastors," I'd say over half don't believe in Jesus, even to the extent that Muslims do (and Muslims hold that He was a prophet, but only a man).
I would say 31% are overtly atheistic or agnostic. So why are they there, if they have no faith? Being a priest is a pretty good job, I guess.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
As I pointed out above, St. Paul clarifies this point immediately by pointing out that perishable, earthly flesh will be changed.
So I don't see a contradiction.
Our earthly, perishable flesh will be changed into glorified, imperishable substance.
It's not a cop-out.
The Gospels teach that Jesus' resurrected body was real and substantial, but different from earthly flesh.
St. Paul also teaches that the resurrected faithful will be changed.
What you are doing is isolating a single verse from St. Paul from its context and using it as a master prooftext to support an imaginary doctrine of merely spiritual resurrection.
It is clear in the context of the whole Scriptures that St. Paul taught "we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body."
Finding one passage of St. Paul that can be violently squeezed into one's idiosyncratic hermeneutic does not permit the serious exegete to ignore the rest of the Scriptures or to ignore the creeds of the ancient Church, like the Apostle's Creed, that clearly testify that those who first received St. Paul's teaching believed in the resurrection of the body.
That is a ridiculously stupid statement. I'm sorry I have to put it so harshly, but it is just frighteningly ignorant.
The Popes clearly trace their lineage to the Apostle Peter and to any holder to the Imperial throne, firstly.
Secondly, from the Resurrection until 1801 there was always a Roman Emperor and his claims were recognized by the Pope and the Pope never claimed his throne.
Since 1801 and the end of the Roman Empire as a legal entity the claim transferred to the royal house of Austria and no Pope since 1801 has tried to take over the claim or dispute the Habsburg family's existing claim.
"not to any holder of the Imperial throne"
And, to make that even more explicit, Pope Gelasius stated that he had the power to depose the Roman Emperor since he was above the Roman Emperor.
For the Popes, the Imperial throne would be a demotion.
Bohemund; You don't have to be a Catholic or accept papal authority to recognize
I did not recognize the papacy's authority, that was almost the complete point of the Protestant Wars. To declare that Roman did not have the final say on religion.
The papacy is a theocracy held in secret. It is the religious equivalent in structure as the (one-party) communist party system.
The papacy goes against a number of principles the U.S. was founded upon, least of which is Freedom Speech and Freedom of Religion, which Pope Benedict proves my point by him trying to tell other religions how to run their organizations.
The Papacy/The Church is not a democracy nor is it a republic. God also does not rule by democracy nor republican government.
So, you say we should obey them because they are tyrannies.
What are you smoking...
The U.S. founded on freedom, something I don't think you understand.
So God rules by tyranny?!?!?!?
Obeying God's commandments is not up for debate. Something you don't understand.
Again, this is simply a lie.
The Papacy existed before Constantine was born.
For example, the Roman writer Tertullian refers to the Papacy in the year 220. Tertullian died 40 years before Constantine was born.
Religion and government are two sides of the same coin, both claim the right to rule people.
So God rules by tyranny?!?!?!?
The "Wrath of God" parts of the bible seem to support this.
Obeying God's commandments is not up for debate.
So you believe other people do not deserve the right to Freedom of Speech because they disagree with you. What are you even doing on a DEBATING forum like Free Republic?
Something you don't understand.
I understand exactly what you are stating and I am completely against your tyrannical stances.
The structure of the papacy as it is known today did not come in being until Emperor Constantine nationalized christianity in Ancient Rome.
Oh, really?
The structure of the Papacy has been the same since it began.
The Pope is the bishop of Rome and as bishop of Rome holds primacy over his brother bishops. 165 years before Constantine was born, St. Ignatius of Antioch held that the bishop of Rome was the highest authority of the Church in Rome and that the Church in Rome was the highest in authority over all other Churches. This doctrine is unchanged to this day and did not begin with Constantine.
Constantine did not introduce that idea, since it was current before Constantine was born and he did not add anything to it.
You couldn't be more wrong. What are you smoking?
God rules because he is God, not because of the "Wrath of God". Yikes!
Obeying God's commandments is not up for debate.
I belong to the Catholic Church and being a practicing member requires me to believe in the beliefs and doctrines of the faith. How is this hard to understand? Beliefs and doctrines are not up for debate in the Catholic Church. If, as a member you do not believe, you are FREE to leave, otherwise you are excommunicating yourself, ipso facto.
The only tyranny I am imposing is in your own mind. I support Free speech in the U.S. Also, believing in free speech does not require me to listen to or believe the falsehoods YOU are spewing. If I didn't believe in free speech I would be trying my best to silence you. So you are wrong on that point as well.
I do not support opposing doctrines and beliefs in my church. That is heresy.
How dare you refute falsehoods with facts - sarcasm
(sarcasm) Like collecting taxes through the states (governments) to fund itself...
You are a liar, you have already stated that you are against people debating with you.
I do not support opposing doctrines and beliefs in my church.
You forget, that like most people, I am not catholic, therefore not part of your church.
That is heresy.
No, it is common sense, in that I am against you oppressing me and others with your arrogance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.