Posted on 07/26/2014 4:41:46 AM PDT by michaelwlf3
I am coming up on my first year as an ordained minister in a continuing Anglican church, and I have noticed that participating on political forums (even when the topic is religious) I find that my opinions and postings more often than not generate more hatred than anything else. Among the things I often hear are that the laity are the real priests and that I am a Pharisee, that my vocation disqualifies me from offering an opinion on anything Christian because I am too narrow minded, and (my personal favorite) because I look too Catholic I must be a child molester.
Are these people really Christians?
From the Religion Moderator profile page:
http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/
“When quoting a source, e.g. a website, article or book – be sure to include sufficient source information for the moderators to enforce copyright restrictions.”
Every quote from a website, article or book should be attributed so we can check for copyright violations.
With the exceptions posted earlier, obvious public domain quotes.
I don’t know what happened to the coding on that.
It was OK on the previous post where the formatting got lost.
.
Why not just say what you want to say, rather than spam us with gobldygook?
Just say it, and hopefully support it (as you see it anyway) with scripture.
Then we can talk.
>> “And what legalist don’t like about Christianity it liberty.” <<
.
What you appear to be calling liberty, Yehova defined as disobedience in his word. Sufficient disobedience to deny them his rest.
.
Sometimes we seem to have difficulty agreeing on even what it is that we disagree on!
.
I think you are mentioned here...
;^)
Don’t know the Athanasian Creed, huh?
But...
...does he NOURISH this misconception?
It seems to me that someone who looks likje Brad Pitt in public, and isn't, and does not LIKE being taken for him; would somehow change his appearance, other than complaining about what other people see.
HMMMmmm...
I thought that the Church of Invisibility did not ALLOW images of it's pastors to be published; and yet, there they are, in plain sight, in pix #3 and #4!!
And just how many corpses did THEY dig up and chop their fingers off?
All the experts according to you. regeneration as in born from above:
Thayer :
313 anagennáō (from 303 /aná, "up, again," which intensifies 1080 /gennáō, "give birth") – properly, born-again or "born from on high."
313 /anagennáō ("born again, from above") is used twice in the NT (1 Pet 1:3,23) – both times referring to God regenerating a believer (giving a supernatural, new birth).
Strongs:
anagennaō an-ag-en-nah'-o From G303 and G1080; to beget or (by extension) bear (again): - beget, (bear) X again.
Begat us again (anagennēsas hēmās). First aorist active articular (ho, who) participle of anagennaō, late, and rare word to beget again, in Aleph for Sirach (Prol. 20), in Philo, in Hermetic writings, in N.T. only here and 1Pe_1:23. “It was probably borrowed by the New Paganism from Christianity” (Bigg). The Stoics used anagennēsis for palingenesia (Tit_3:5). If anōthen in Joh_3:3 be taken to mean “again,” the same idea of regeneration is there, and if “from above” it is the new birth, anyhow.
Vines:
Hath begotten us again (ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς) The verb is used by Peter only, and by him only here and 1Pe_1:23. It is in the aorist tense, and should be rendered, as Rev., begat; because regeneration is regarded as a definite historical act accomplished once for all, or possibly because Peter regards the historical act of Christ's resurrection as virtually effecting the regeneration. The latter sentiment would be Pauline, since Paul is wont to speak of Christians as dying and rising with Christ. Rom_7:4; Rom_6:8-11.
Don’t quote me, but I think it’s because a certain font is not present on one of the computers, and another will get substituted for it.
“It’s Jesus who saved by trusting in Him.”
You can “trust” him all you want to, but until you repent and turn from your wicked ways, there will be no reconciliation. Jesus didn’t give you a license to steal, he says “Go, and sin no more”.
If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. 1 John 4:20
If someone says, “MY church's interpretation of the Scriptures is the ONLY true one...
Nope.
Where is it found in the bible?
Even the goofy RCCatholicism claims about Mary and her superpowers?
So you reject the Holy Trinity then, cause that's the next line?
Are you deliberately not reading what you post?
Both Thayer and strong say that is is a regeneration, not a true birth, as your post indicates.
That is exactly in agreement with the Mikva, sometimes mistranslated baptism, but really a washing to bring renewal. This fully fits in with Peter’s message.
Yeshua’s comments, on the other hand, were in explanation of our actual escape from the physical universe, into the realm of the Father, an actual recreation into a different kind of body, an individual creative event for each of us, dead or alive, at the resurrection.
Yeshua was speaking to a high priest, who was in need of no explanation of the gospel of the kingdom, as he had been educated in it throughout his entire life, while Peter was evangelizing to many who had never learned such things, and needed to know how begin their life in Yeshua.
A plain Apples and Oranges situation.
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.