Posted on 07/22/2012 2:20:02 PM PDT by stpio
John, I fear it is because we are dealing with the disingenuous. Some study to seek truth, other to seek affirmation. Most of what we see from Daniel is a filtered presentation of Scripture and writings carefully edited to affirm Protestant doctrine. With selective presentation it is not difficult to make any author appear to completely endorse any doctrine.
Only when a student approaches a subject with an open mind and gives that subject an honest and THOROUGH consideration can the truth be arrives at. Unfortunately, for too many, the issue is who is right, not what is right. Read Daniels postings, and then, as you have done and Paul Harvey said, read "the rest of the story". In that you will find the truth.
Peace be with you
According to God’s calendar, the new day dawns as sunset, not sunrise. Scripture says it was “dawning” towards the 1st of the week when they headed out to the tomb, which means the 1st day of the week had not actually come to be yet. It was still Saturday evening.
The new day started after sundown but the dawning did not start until just before sunup
New International
After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
New Living Translation
Early on Sunday morning, as the new day was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went out to visit the tomb.
English Standard Version
Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.
New American Standard Bible
Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave.
King James Bible
In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
Considering your other examples of false charges, your typical response is expected, and a positive affirmation.
Don't take an honest assessment of your scholarship personally. I see you more as the victim of maleducation and not malevolent. I pray that you someday embrace all of the Truth.
Peace be with you.
10 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; 11 for it is written,
“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.”
12 So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.
Exactly...And excellent 'garbage dump' BTW...
They can't argue against it...They are not qualified to debate scripture nor their religion's attacks upon it...None of them know enough scripture to debate any of it...Just blindly follow Rome and dish out insults...
Chapter and verse, please. Because there's not one verse in Scripture to support that statement.
If it's divine decree, or so important, one would think that God would have bothered to put it in the Bible.
Or since the RCC thinks it's so important, why did THEY leave it out?
Don't take an honest assessment of your scholarship personally. I see you more as the victim of maleducation and not malevolent. I pray that you someday embrace all of the Truth.
How self righteously gracious of you. But I will let some others judge what substantiation has evidenced, versus overreactionary charges.
I just looked up St. Basil. He firmly believed in The Blessed Mary. You have him implying something that is not presented in full text then with an opinion from another writer.
Your response is another example of Catholics who are quick to charge a misrepresentation while it is they who are the ones who evidently failed to read or understand the context or what they protest against.
Your quote of Basil does not even refer to what my reference to him was about, which was that of a CF who did not believe in Mary, but as one of the church “fathers ” (i quote from my page) "who saw the sword as relating to Mary having doubt (some saying she sinned) during the Lord's crucifixion.”
And the link then takes you to one who understands Basil as teaching she sinned by such doubting, for (the ref. shows) he believed the sword that pierced the heart Mary was the fulfillment of the prophecy, "All ye shall be offended because of me," that being applicable to all, as Mary doubted like other disciples, and like Peter, she needed to be restored after the Lord's resurrection.
Regarding which Cyril of Alexandria is invoked as referred to by proMary RC scholar Michael O'Carroll, as one who,
"uses phrases about Mary which seem to continue the opinions of Origen (qv) and St. Basil (qv) on imperfection in her faith: 'In all likelihood, even the Lord's Mother was scandalised by the unexpected passion, and the intensely bitter death on the Cross...all but deprived her of right reason.' ((Michael O'Carroll, Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], p. 113)
And although I myself did not argue that Basil or the others taught that Mary sinned, as that is of little weight to me here (some even believed that marital relations had to involve sinful passions), and would not say Basil is a strong case for that, yet while some overeactionary Romanists are quick to charge "out of context" or "fabrications" when they see most any such thing that impugns their claims, more notable RCAs as Newman concurs that Basil saw Mary as committing sin, even though he disagrees with him:
1. St. Basil imputes to the Blessed Virgin, not only doubt, but the sin of doubt. On the other hand, 1. he imputes it only on one occasion; 2. he does not consider it to be a grave sin; 3. he implies that, in point of spiritual perfection, she is above the Apostles.
In arguing against Basil, he sees his understanding as derived from Origen who stated,
"Are we to think, that the Apostles were scandalized, and not the Lord's Mother? If she suffered not scandal at {144} our Lord's passion, then Jesus died not for her sins. If all have sinned and need the glory of God, being justified by His grace, and redeemed, certainly Mary at that time was scandalized." This is precisely the argument of Basil, as contained in the passage given above; his statement then of the Blessed Virgin's wavering in faith, instead of professing to be the tradition of a doctrine, carries with it an avowal of its being none at all.
(http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/pusey/notes.html)
The CE also affirms that "Some few patristic writers expressed their doubts as to the presence of minor moral defects in Our Blessed Lady," mentioning Basil and Chrysostom, even if they (of course) disallow dissenting views as being Apostolic tradition. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm
The demoniacs are coming out like busters I do not care to always be posting with daily life getting busier too. But that is my opinion on the writings. There are more important things going on right now.
Well John, silence would be better than dismissing all my work as horse excrement, even if you were being hasty, and protesting against a perceived misrepresentation, neither of which is the case.
I welcome the scrutiny. The Truth has nothing to fear from daylight and is not determined by a consensus of anti-Catholics, after all it was a crowd that chose Barabbas over Jesus.
"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." - John 8:32
Peace be with you Peace be with you
Perhaps you could explain how you can professes to know so very much about Catholic doctrine can know so very little about its development.
Catholic doctrine was not dictated complete and intact is a concise document hours after Jesus ascended. Councils were convened and doctrines stated only when the established consensus was challenged. To paraphrase G. K. Chesterton, doctrine was developed like a wagon careening down a mountain road bouncing off the guard rails. Those rails were encounters with heresy. If a doctrine like the doctrine of Mary being Theotokos, the mother of God and more than the Christokos, the mother of Christ followed only because Jesus status as both God and Man was challenged by the Arians. Prior to that it was unnecessary. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Peace be with you.
Amen.
The first recorded words in the Bible from Satan are words that are a challenge and contradiction to God’s Word.
Daniel is God's Own; therefore, the SALT of the earth! See, even, you recognized it. Truth isn't a view, TRUTH is TRUTH.
Did the salt sting?
"For the Word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; IT JUDGES THE THOUGHTS AND ATTITUDES OF THE HEART."
Angst shows the attitude of the heart and so would a thank you to Daniel. Choose wisely.
"This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses... now choose life"
Catholics keep trying to share and from the heart, read the quotes and writings of the early Church Fathers, some of them knew the Apostles and second, you can’t take Church teaching or writings to come against the Church.
Here is a help. I was watching a conversion story told by
a former Pentecostal, Brent Stubbs, his family was Pentecostal, attended Assemblies of God, graduated from the big one, Oral Roberts University and was a youth pastor. It bothered Brent at Oral Roberts how two well known nationwide ministers got up on two separate days and each one preached something completely different. ??
Daniel1212, Brent states some of the things that helped him convert, he read the early Fathers and Scott Hahn’s Rome Sweet Home which totally destroys “Bible Alone.” And he could see after reading much on Catholicism, the tactic of anti-Catholics to take a bit of Church teaching or writing out of context to come against the Church. Take the time and watch or you could listen and look at other things on the Net. thanks.
Brent Stubbs, former Pentecostal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CypJuCjn5FE
It you who once again professes to know what you presume, and which negates nothing.
The first thing we have to accept is that we, you and I and all other Christian posters, do not convert anyone. It is the Holy Spirit that converts and only at the moment of His choosing. All we can to is to prepare the way by prayer and the sharing of Grace through the Fruits and Gifts of the Holy Spirit. We have to be careful because, although we cannot convert anyone, we can certainly harden hearts and hinder the process.
Until someone opens their heart, their eyes, ears, and mind will remain closed. For those who have derived their spiritual identify from an opposition to "Rome" anything that is remotely Catholic is presumed to be false. As Jesus forgave his executioners from the cross because of their ignorance, so too is the ignorance of the anti-Catholics in need of forgiveness. Pray for them.
Peace be with you.
Typical bombast. Despite inferring those who concur with my evidence, versus your unsubstantiated, unproven charges against me, are like those who crucified Christ, seeing as it you who has been guilty of making false charges, which scrutiny exposes, once again the accusatory finger, which you esp. are prone to point, points back at you.
“The first thing we have to accept is that we, you and I and all other Christian posters, do not convert anyone. It is the Holy Spirit that converts and only at the moment of His choosing. All we can to is to prepare the way by prayer and the sharing of Grace through the Fruits and Gifts of the Holy Spirit. We have to be careful because, although we cannot convert anyone, we can certainly harden hearts and hinder the process.”
~ ~ ~
True and why Our Lady’s repeated pray, pray, pray. Prayer and God’s grace will bring people to conversion.
I post a few of the messages from Heaven and try to share the faith to help with misunderstandings about the faith. Important, some disbelievers may recall when the Great Warning happens.
The Remnant is Roman Catholic. The Great Warning could
happen in 2013...”soon” means it could be this close, only God knows.
What you seem to fail to understand is that this is not a debate or even a campaign for the hearts and minds of the innocent and ignorant. No preponderance of "evidence" that flies in the face of fundamental truths developed and affirmed over 2,000 years is going to sway anyone away from that truth.
If all you are trying to do is to bolster the conviction and morale of the like minded you are in danger of accomplishing the opposite. The more you hold Protestant doctrine up to the light of truth the more the holes and flaws will become apparent to even the staunchest Protestant apologists. I encourage you to continue to do so, but don't expect me to respect your positions or applaud the "brilliance" that produces them.
Peace be with you
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.