Posted on 04/20/2015 1:46:59 PM PDT by NYer
Okay. But please cease from pinging me to posts that don’t involve me. Thanks.
Nothing there indicates that God said He would be the God of Ishmael.
Wouldn’t binary 511 be 111111111?
Their pope then should have no problem in encouraging all religions to join the Baptist church...
Then what would you call the likes of this;
Is it "anti-semiticism"? I know it to be false presentation of the more basic and fundamental facts.
Do you understand the accusation there? It conveys the notion that the Jews stripped out books of scripture (ha! as if they would do that!) from what would equate to idea or concept of 'canon' ---because of Christians, and no other reason.
Of course the real truth is that the religious authorities of Jerusalem did not and had never presented books of Apocrypha as being accepted as Holy Writ.
The written testimony of Josephus establishes that the Jews did not have a loose, undefined collection of writings which they considered as their canon, but rather they had a certain and firm number of writings. Josephus directly addresses that point.
As far as anti-Jewish sentiment ---- that began long ago within Catholicism.
Steps are being taken now to combat that. It is true that it could be said that anti-antisemitism was not always universal within the Christian Church, although I've come across expressions which could be seen as 'anti-Jewish' beginning right about the time those of the Church began to speak ill of Jews somewhat indiscriminately for reason that the seeming mainstream of Jewish religious teaching and subsequent mindset continued to outwardly express rejection of the one known of as "Jesus" was the promised Messiah, and as begotten Son of God was thus God himself also, come to the world in the flesh ---- Immanuel, God with us.
As for the Church of Rome in particular, it most certainly cannot be said that there has never been anti-Jewish sentiment. The first Jewish ghetto was in Rome, created (and later enforced) under guidance & orders of the Church of Rome.
That one individual here spoke briefly of Jews lacking a saving God (that was much how that was phrased, correct?) does not equate with being anti-semiticism, but rather was speaking towards theological understandings and the very basis of faith itself.
As it is written;
11 This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’[a] 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marveled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus.
My own view tends towards some amount of generosity (as much as possible whenever possible) to be extended to those of Jewish faith today ---- most particularly and first for those of them who grasp the spirit of the Law and thus recognize (if but through a glass darkly, as Paul wrote of Christians themselves, 1 Corithinians 13) just who the heavenly Creator is.
There could as well be (something of a minority?) among Muslims, who despite the wholesale distortions which Mohammed foisted upon what he had hi-jacked from Judaism & Christianity and re-worded, claiming it to be his own revelation -- some still seem to understand such basics as what Christ spoke towards as being that upon which hangs all the law and all the prophets.
Some get it (at times and places) despite the clouds of oratory and *extra* law gone on about in many, many words by their Immans. Even so --- by philosophy and understanding of principles alone none can be saved. It is simply not enough -- to better than the worst one can be.
But now evangelical types are being categorized by yourself as anti-semitic?
I saw the whole thing. It's awfully thin gruel to now be used as a slathering put-down which could be also characterized as "oh, at least I'm not anti-semitic (like you guys)".
That sort of posturing is as 'helpful' to discussion as the charge of racism hurled at those who dare criticism Obama is.
That's funny, but we know what the answers to that would be like.
We've been seeing them in close detail for year after year on this forum.
No matter what the objection to ultimately -- surrendering to Romish popey-dopey blathering "just think of it like this" regarding any particular issue or theological framework, all the rest of the ceaseless RCC promotion does come across as a siren-song of sorts, a come into my parlor said the spider to the fly, although there are also Roman Catholics who seem to be ok with the recognition that not all are going to submit themselves to the tender (and in past ages at times murderous) mercies of 'Rome' for hosts of reasons.
Ratzinger page 202,
But we can define the required action even more clearly in terms of the above diagnosis. It means that the Catholic does not insist on the dissolution of the Protestant confessions and the demolishing of their churches but hopes, rather, that they will be strengthened in their confessions and in their ecclesial reality.
He's trying to let go of those things which separate, yet the RCC won't let him (he is a prisoner of 'Roman' Catholicism...in all of his thinking, much as he himself remarked that Luther was) in end results himself not capable of letting go of all of Romish types of thing (such as "papacy" as that known of among those of the Church of Rome) even as seeming to my own eye as desiring to distance himself from the past excesses of it. (pages 185, and 195-198).
I love this post. And you're right, He did have a church on planet Earth, the Kingdom Church, which John the Baptist preached on, Christ preached about, the 12 Apostles preached about, and the complete actualization of Peter actually offered to Israel on the day of Pentecost. If only they had accepted Christ He would have returned and set up His kingdom and all the OT prophesies would have been fulfilled along with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. With Peter and the 11 ruling with Him on 12 thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Israel. But know that did not happen.
Which brings us to 1 Cor. 3:10-15. The foundation that was given to Paul to lay by God. God called him a wise masterbuilder. It cannot be the Kingdom Church, given to Peter and the 11 to build upon, with Christ as the cornerstone. Paul says he was specifically given this foundation to lay according to the grace of God. Christ was and is the cornerstone of the Kingdom Church and the Church that Paul was tasked to lay, The Church the Body of Christ, located in the heavenlies with Christ as its head and founded solely on the grace of God. Not convenants or prophecies. There is a heavenly Church, the Church the Body of Christ, and there was and will be again, an earthly Church, the Kingdom Church. Both built with the Cornerstone being Jesus Christ. One with heavenly promises and inheritances, and the other with earthly promises and inheritances.
"In the beginning God created the HEAVEN and the EARTH." (Gen. 1:1). The very first scripture in His word tells us He created both for His reason and purpose.
Yer right.
.
The “head of the corner” is the top of the pyramid.
.
Some are; some aren't. It's what they believe; it is part of their religious DNA. I expect the here are many here who agree with Bailey Smith and some who do not.
Thanks, Chief, for providing me with another way of looking at something I’ve seen only poorly through a smoked window. I intend to seek prayerful guidance as I consider in the days ahead what you have just posted on FR.
R2z
If you are building a pyramid, you could try laying the chief cornerstone on the top and last of all.
But I think this particular Scriptural Chief Cornerstone is foundational.
Elijah thought himself alone as he was hiding there in a cave.
The Lord told Elijah plainly that was not so.
Yet still there are many who reject Jesus in word and deed -- just as there are those who affirm in word yet do not do the work.
The two sons parable explains it.
It is things of that nature which brought me many years ago to this way of looking at it.
The RCC does not speak for myself. I arrived where I have without having followed instruction from (post Vatican II) "there".
It didn't take me centuries to get there, either.
Some people are naturals...hehhehheh.
D'jah hear the one about the difference between Jewish babies and Catholic babies?
Jewish babies are born with guilt, Catholic babies have to go to Catechism school and learn it.
And the other soul here who wrote concerning lack of a saving God has nothing to worry about either.
False; God sent his angel to name the boy after himself. Abraham prayed for Ishmael and God heard him. Although God would not use Ishmael as the father of Israel, God did bless him and deliver him. Abraham circumcised Ishmael. Read about it in Genesis. And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham. And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him. And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son. And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking. Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac. And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight because of his son. And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called. And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed. And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba. And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs. And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bow shot: for she said, Let me not see the death of the child. And she sat over against him, and lift up her voice, and wept. And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is. Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation. And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink. And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer.
Genesis, Catholic chapter seventeen, Protestant verses eighteen to twenty,
Genesis, Catholic chapter twenty one, Protestant verses nine to twenty six,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
No, the scripture is speaking of the head stone, the most prominent part of the structure.
Foundations do not have a single corner stone, they have at least four of them.
.
I can see that what you say may be true. Yet, how does one build a building from the top down...?
Gotta give this post also some extra consideration.
G’night.
Its not about how the building was built, its about mastery and prominence.
Read the sentence a few times until the meaning comes through.He came out on top is the point.
I am looking from the outside in, but one thing does stand out in my mind in this prayer and in discussions of prayers with my Catholic friends: you ask Mary and the Saints to pray to God for you, not you praying to God directly. The way I see it, the veil has been lifted; we no longer need to approach God thru intermediaries like the High Preists or the Saints. We are told to boldly go directly to the Throne ourselves.
I do get that intercessory prayer is important. Praying for each other here is a bonding opportunity between the members of the Body of Christ. We gain intimacy with each other by sharing those personal moments of praise and sorrow. God wants us to grow closer together as a body and praying for each other helps accomplish this goal.
I just don't see how praying to those who have gone to Heaven before us accomplishes anything for the Body of Christ. Thank you again for the discussion.
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.