Posted on 07/10/2007 6:55:28 PM PDT by indcons
Thanks, Jude for your two cents. You did an excellent job (I’m not expert enough to say “flawless”, but it was quite good) of presenting the Catholic Church’s position. I wish the AP or Reuters would hire *you* as a religious correspondent. (Then they could also get excellent coverage of Calvinist news, too!)
Do you think that Giordano Bruno was persecuted for his scientific views?
So, is it also Calvinist belief that the Jews do not worship the Creator of the Universe because the Jews deny that Jesus is the Creator?
You'd have to ask a Calvinist.
Jews who deny Christ are not worshiping the God revealed in the scriptures. Unless, of course, Jesus is not that God.
Is Jesus the God of the scriptures?
Is Jesus the Creator?
Do Jews worship Him?
I thought that was you bragging recently about an on line quiz that indicated your belief was Calvinist, although you claim not to be.
Jews who deny Christ are not worshiping the God revealed in the scriptures.
So, your belief is the Jews do not worship the Creator?
Agreed that all truth is from God, yet something that merely contains an element of truth is no longer truth.
Consider a lie.
A lie is in essence a twisted truth. It has enough truth in it to confuse and appeal, yet digresses at some important point.
We can affirm that which is true, but it is also important (in God’s time and in God’s ways) to teach, correct and rebuke where the truth has been distorted.
God’s ‘church’ is not a building or a denomination, but the body of Christ (Col 1:24) which is made up of all those who are baptized in His Spirit (1Cor 12:13). It is not headship to a human Pope we should be looking to, but headship and clear ‘succession’ from Christ Jesus.
Within these standards, I see little to no reference to Apostolic Succession or human (or alter Christus, acting in persona Christi) delivery of the Eucharist as standards for determining a ‘church’.
Agreed. I mean, the Catholics don't claim to have apostles do they? It is my understanding even the Pope only claims to be a bishop. This would mean apostolic succession is not a claim that the positions of the 12 apostles were maintained, but rather that some inferior priesthood lineage was maintained from the priesthood given to the 12 apostles, i.e. the bishop and inferior priesthood offices were maintained.
Wrong. That is what is in question.
Hi Elsie,
Thank you for the post, but might I point out that it isn’t entirely clear what your point is.
If you are saying that the reference to ‘the rock’ in Matthew 16 refers to Christ, and not Peter, I would say that you are quite possibly correct, though Christ may have meant that Peter would be instrumental in the early life of the church.
If on the other hand you are implying that Peter was in some ways taking on Christ’s mantle and ‘becoming’ another Christ, then I would strongly disagree.
I don’t THINK you mean the latter... but I just wanted to ask you to make sure.
That is the faith of the Church which I profess. I have no problem with seeking out and reading the discussions and contemplations of the Church Fathers and Great Saints throughout the ages for answers.
If you are relying upon you own interpretation of scripture for your faith than what can I say but good luck.
You can tell me the truth ^_^ Are you really Yoda?k
If Mormonism is the True religion, then it must predate (traditional) Christianity.
Wouldn't any true religion predate Christianity? Are you stating that God didn't exist prior to being born 2000 years ago? Hmm, I think you are right ^_^
Therefore, Mormons should be claiming to be Mormons and the rest of us failed Mormons.
That doesn't make any sense. Why would Mormons consider a Taoist or a Muslim to be a failed Mormon? Or do you think that everyone was a Mormon originally? That would actually bolster Mormon claims then, wouldn't it?
In other words, it is a lie to claim to be part of an abomination (Christianity) while simultaneously claiming to precede and supersede this abomination.
I guess if you think that Christianity didn't exist prior to the Birth of Christ, 2000 years ago, you would be correct. If most Christians agree with the Mormons that Christ predates the existence of the earth then you would be wrong.
What is your definition of Christ's existence prior to his Birth?
Non sequitur. We are talking about the use of the word brother here not son.
So it stands to reason why Jesus entrusted His mother to His cousin, since by Mark 6:3, none of His brothers were there at the cross.
Except Jesus entrusted His Mother to the care of John.
Question: Since there were only two James in the list of Apostles, which one was Jesus' "Brother".
Yeah ^_^ I saw this wonderful post about the Pope saying that non Catholics aren't really Christians and I just had to share the good news : )
From an outsiders perspective, this all seems bizarre. All these Christians telling each other that they aren't Christians.
MSM: HOOK, LINE AND SINKER!
Shh, we don't want to let the secret out.
You apparently did not read my posts on the subject what I have said. I said that the Muslims & the Muslim Book do NOT recognize a Triune God. I posted a Mullah saying that same thing. He included an excerpt from his holy book.
I then demonstrated that the Old Testament DOES give reference to a Triune God. I quoted Paul who demonstrates the same. Paul says that the Jews are “blind” to this. However, it is still there.
So, if the Jews are worshipping the God named, YHWH, and this God has a different 3 part personality than they’ve discovered yet, they are STILL worshipping YHWH. They are worshipping in ignorance the One whom we worship in Truth.
“Since there were only two James in the list of Apostles, which one was Jesus’ “Brother”.”
I don’t know which list you are referring to but if you are thinking of the original Disciples, he was not one of them. His cousin James, the son of Zebedee, and James, the Less (Alpheus) were the original Disciples. James, his cousin, and Pastor of the church at Jerusalem was martyred right before Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem. In all probability, since James, the Lord’s brother was elevated to the office of Pastor of the Jerusalem church, he was in all probability elected an Apostle like Matthias was in Acts 1 so that their number would be twelve.
Where is this in scripture or are you relying upon "tradition"?
He was relying on Peter’s saying that the Apostles should elect another to replace Judas. In other words, once James, John’s brother, was killed, they would continue to follow that pattern.
Nonetheless, there would be other reasons to include James, Jesus’ brother, among the leadership of the church in Jerusalem. After all, he would have impeccable knowledge about Jesus’ family background.
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.