Like this one?.
Yes, I think there are lots of crocs in false religions. 😂🤣🤔
Posted on 08/16/2023 6:39:10 AM PDT by zucchini bob
(2 Peter 1:20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (Isaiah 28:10) For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: (Isaiah 28:13) But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
Lots of Romanians around. 😅😚😊😆😁🥹 My son was originally scheduled to go TDY to Romania, but ended up going to Kuwait City. 👍👍👍👍👍
And this is why saved believers have the Holy Spirit, and why the Father has given "teachers" to the local church as a gift.
Why do you guys still need "teachers" when "sola scriptura" is your sole creed?
Do you not understand Scripture, yourselves, that you still need "teachers"?
Have a nice once saved, always saved kind of day. 😊🥹😂😆😚😚😂😁😅😄😟😃🤣
Simply because your concept of SS is a Catholic (though some ignorant Prots as well) strawman, imposing meanings, as already shown you, but ignored - as is the norm. And not just teachers, but as Westminster even states: "It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." - The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)
Thus my 14 questions for those who argue for the alternative of sola scriptura, which is that of sola ecclesia.
And under sola ecclesia there are multitudes of variant interpretations, even among RC bible notes, and the the meanings of magisterial teaches, as well as their magisterial level of teaching and thus what manner of assent are required. And thus the status of people as yourself who deplore V2 and apparently have no living pope, or those as MurphsLaw who denies that every book in the RC Bible WAS INSPIRED by God.
Do you perhaps expect to receive an indulgence by repeatedly posting refuted polemics, even if such are an argument against being a RC? If not, why practice this?
That is simply an invalid argument, since what Rome venerates as a permanent, occupied burial place simply does not mean that such places actually are. And based upon the "missing graves=bodily assumption" principle, then others can be added to that list:
Dionysius of Alexandria, a bishop of the third century, wrote:
"Chaeremon, who was very old, was bishop of the city called Nilus. He fled with his wife to the Arabian mountain and did not return. And though the brethren searched diligently they could not find either them or their bodies." (cited in Eusebius, Church History, 6:42:3)
The church fathers of the earliest centuries repeatedly cite Enoch and Elijah as examples of people who didn’t die, were translated to Heaven, etc. (Clement of Rome, First Clement, 9; Tertullian, A Treatise On The Soul, 50; Tertullian, On The Resurrection Of The Flesh, 58; Tertullian, Against Marcion, 5:12; Methodius, From The Discourse On The Resurrection, 3:2:14), yet they never say any such thing about Mary or include her as an example.
John Chrysostom stated:
"Tell me, are not the bones of Moses himself laid in a strange land? And those of Aaron, of Daniel, of Jeremiah? And as to those of the Apostles we do not know where those of most of them are laid. For of Peter indeed, and Paul, and John, and Thomas, the sepulchers are well known; but those of the rest, being so many, have nowhere become known. Let us not therefore lament at all about this, nor be so little-minded. For where-ever we may be buried, 'the earth is the Lord's and all that therein is.'[Psalm 24:1]" (Homilies On Hebrews, 26:2, v. 22)even the Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it …’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17). For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’ These are his words:
But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried … Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] … For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence … The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain … Did she die, we do not know … Either the holy Virgin died and was buried … Or she was killed … Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).
In addition to Epiphanius, there is Jerome who also lived in Palestine and does not report any tradition of an assumption. Isidore of Seville, in the seventh century, echoes Epiphanius by saying that no one has any information at all about Mary’s death. The patristic testimony is therefore non-existent on this subject. Even Roman Catholic historians readily admit this fact:
In these conditions we shall not ask patristic thought—as some theologians still do today under one form or another—to transmit to us, with respect to the Assumption, a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages. Such an attitude would not fit the facts…Patristic thought has not, in this instance, played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission’ (Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 154).
How then did this teaching come to have such prominence in the Church that eventually led it to be declared an issue of dogma in 1950? The first Church father to affirm explicitly the assumption of Mary in the West was Gregory of Tours in 590 A.D. But the basis for his teaching was not the tradition of the Church but his acceptance of an apocryphal Gospel known as the Transitus Beatae Mariae which we first hear of at the end of the fifth century and which was spuriously attributed to Melito of Sardis. There were many versions of this literature which developed over time and which were found throughout the East and West but they all originated from one source. Mariologist, Juniper Carol, gives the following historical summary of the Transitus literature:
An intriguing corpus of literature on the final lot of Mary is formed by the apocryphal Transitus Mariae. The genesis of these accounts is shrouded in history’s mist. They apparently originated before the close of the fifth century, perhaps in Egypt, perhaps in Syria, in consequence of the stimulus given Marian devotion by the definition of the divine Maternity at Ephesus. The period of proliferation is the sixth century. At least a score of Transitus accounts are extant, in Coptic, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Armenian. Not all are prototypes, for many are simply variations on more ancient models (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 144).
Thus, the Transitus literature is the real source of the teaching of the assumption of Mary and Roman Catholic authorities admit this fact. More - https://christiantruth.com/articles/assumption/
A group of some of the leading Roman Catholic and Lutheran scholars in the world concluded:
"Furthermore, the notion of Mary's assumption into heaven has left no trace in the literature of the third, much less of the second century. M. Jugie, the foremost authority on this question, concluded in his monumental study: 'The patristic tradition prior to the Council of Nicaea does not furnish us with any witness about the Assumption.'" (Raymond Brown, et al., Mary In The New Testament [Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1978], p. 266)More. Thus as cited, • as Ratzinger states,
Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner , the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C ; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared . ” — J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59 (emphasis added).
the egg containing the 23 chromosomes that God would miraculously fertilize with 23 chromosomes
Which is a unprovable presumption, one that limits the miraculous nature of the conception, as if God needed to use the existing egg of Mary, versus the whole of it being miraculous, both egg and fertilization, in fulfilling . "sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me.' (Hebrews 10:5)
But this assumption of an assumption is just one of many distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).
Not sure what do you mean by "inadequacy" - but if you are to mean "Rome" testified to the inadequacy of "scripture" as being the sole Rule or Authority of Faith... well I say Absolutley. That was a crock ever since it was invented. !!
But your first pope has written:
2 Peter 1:3His divine power has given us everything we need
for a godly life through our knowledge of him
who called us by his own glory and goodness.
Where's the, "WAIT!!
There is MORE 'tradition' to come!!"?
Who teaches the teachers in the RCC?
It must be terrifying, to not have any assurance of salvation. They must have a horrifying fear of hell, and they should fear it.
At least in the bible folks tended to cast lots.
Good evening, Mark.
When the top of Pinatubo gets dark,
Bedtime draws near for old Mark.
But elsie awakes with a yawn,
for like thunder, it’s dawn.
It’s time to lay down some more snark!
Like this one?.
Yes, I think there are lots of crocs in false religions. 😂🤣🤔
—> Why do you guys still need “teachers” when “sola scriptura” is your sole creed?
1. God gave teachers to the local church as a gift
2. God gave us His inspired Word to bring salvation and. Christian Maturity.
3. God the Spirit guide us into all truth
We know all three because His inspired Word reveals them as True.
All are gifts to those who have received His Indescribable Gift:
His Son!
Without salvation and the eternal security it brings us, none of those matter.
So the question is simple to you.
Have you come to saving faith yet ebb?
Do you know you will spend eternity in His presence?
Do you know you aren’t headed for bell?
(Matthew 23:4-12 [KJV])
For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
IFB, RCC, makes not much difference on the outside, just the inside counts if one is saved or not.
So glad I got saved and left religion for Jesus Christ, who will never leave me nor forsake me. I hate religion. Too evil.
Legalism makes people avoid IFBs a lot. I went to an IFB college, suits, ties.
Outward appearance is a joke, and I refuse to participate in it. Clean enough street clothes is all one needs.
Smelly, fishy tunics is what Jesus, Peter, James, John wore. The Pharisees and Sadducees wore the fancy garb, broad phylacteries for show. The inside, like the “priests”, “bishops”, “cardinals”, “nuns” (temple prostitutes) and the “popes”, especially with the Dagon fish god hat are all dead inside, look fantastic on the outside.
My denominations are ones, fives, tens, twenties, etc.
(John 3:3 [KJV])
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Cheers.
His,
Bobby Z.
Scripture itself tells us, warns us, that scripture alone has problems... ones that can destroy you.
That's quite the serious charge to level against God, not only that He didn't give us all we need to come to know Him and grow in becoming more Christlike but that His holy, inspired by the Holy Spirit (who is the Spirit of Truth) word can work destruction in us.
Who gave Rome the right to sit in judgment of the work of God?
If what you way is true, then post the verses that show that Scripture can lead us astray and destroy us.
Because what I read in Scripture is this...
2 Timothy 3:14-17 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
“Scripture itself tells us, warns us, that scripture alone has problems... ones that can destroy you.”
God tells us that God’s Word isn’t His Word? Someone has been smoking the sofa.
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.