Posted on 10/09/2001 12:20:12 PM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
| Threads 1-50 | Threads 51-100 | Threads 101-150 |
| Thread 151 | Thread 152 | Thread 153 | Thread 154 | Thread 155 | Thread 156 | Thread 157 |
| Thread 158 |
The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 159
So in your view, Jesus was capable of choosing to sin?
and as he grew he became more and more as his God self
So he wasn't fully God when he was a child, but grew to become more fully God as he matured?
angelo: Curiouser and curiouser. What would it mean to be a fraction (say, .375) of God?
JHavard: We Christians start out even smaller than that as babes in Christ.Lol
Surely you don't mean that you as a Christian are a tiny fraction of God in the same way as you mean Jesus was a larger part or fully God?
Lets see........ could it be that your a CATHOLIC and I'm a FUNDAMENTALIST and we both think that each other is on the wide road to that hot place.
BigMack
Havoc: Yep, he is
Doctrinal agreement between SoothingDave and Havoc? The end is truly nigh. Gabriel polishes his trumpet. Steven readies The Last Reply.
I'm late to the party, but one of my most vivid memories is awaking early one morning at 3:30am and feeling a pressing need to offer up prayer for my grandma. I prayed for about 2 hours straight for her and I had no idea why. The next day we found out she had had a heart attack at the same time I was praying.
Why does he call them hypocrites then? From reading it appears Jesus is pointing out that the Pharisse's traditions are at odds with God's law.
The salvation of the woman who was to be stoned is ample evidence of this. One answers to God for violating the law, not to man - thus the argument 'Let the one without this sin cast the first stone.' Only Jesus was sinless. And only the sinless have any right to judge - ie, only Jesus.
The Mt. Olive's story prompts another question in a similar vein. What was the trap or temptation that the Pharisse's were setting up for Jesus?
Ooo and one more... Who here can explain the parable of the two men who went to work for their father in the vinyard? Can't find the passage at the moment...In Luke perhaps?
But the Catholic church forged...
I don't want to go there. I really wanted some opinions just on this scripture and some related ones. I'm glad you brought up the Mt. Olives story. This thread looked as good as any, but I don't want to enter the inter-doctrinal fray. Yet. ;-)
Actually I see you and most others as "Invincibly ignorant" and therefore worthy of salvation as long as you have lived in a Christ like manner.
No good Christian would want to see another virtuous human being condemned to eternal separation from our Heavenly Father.
The invincibly ignorant “clause” is how the Church deals with the prospect of salvation for those unable to fully comprehend Christ’s ministry. You see there is salvation out side the Church, as long as you understand the definition of “church”. But I may be stretching the definition of “Invincibly ignorant” a bit;-)
G'nite...
Man you fell into the wrong thread. :)
Come on in the water is just fine.
BigMack
Kenoticism (from the Greek word "kenosis" - used in Phillipians 2 for "poured out") is the belief that Jeus emptied himself of the form of God (morphe theou - v.6). The Second Person of the Trinity laid aside his distinctly divine attributes (omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.) and took on human qualities instead. Or, in other words, the incarnation was an exchange of part of the divine nature of Christ for human characteristics. His moral qualities, such as love and mercy, were maintained.
This is, in reality, in the area of Christology, is a parallel to the solution of modalists in the area of the Trinity. Jesus is not God and man simultaneously, bu successively. When it comes to love, He's God. When it comes to omnipotence, he's man. When lined up with the Chalcedonian formula, it would claim that Jesus God in the same respect, but not at the same time. Though this view is innovative and solves some difficulties, it does not account for the evidence that the writers of the Bible did not divide up Jesus in such a fashion. See 1 Tim. 3:16.
Iowegian, please do me a favor. Spare me your condescension. I am intimately familiar with all of Paul's writings. I dare say that I even understand what he is saying. Having read and understood his teachings, I reject them.
Might I suggest you read Deuteronomy 13, and try and understand what that section has to say about the Jews and the Law?
What a load of crap this is. Boy you better pull your head out of the sand and start looking around for the truth of God's word, if you fall for this false doctrin of what was it you call it, oh yeah "Invincibly ignorant" your are the one who is ignorant of the ways of salvation.
BigMack
Tonight I'm feeling like a windshield. Don't mess with me! ;o)
Thank you for your time.
BigMack
Oral tradition is separate from written tradition. When it is written down it is not necessarily written tradition, just written oral tradition. However, oral tradition is formulaic (see Homer, or for a good and relevant example to this particular thread, I would say Phillipians 2's hymn is probably a bit of early oral tradition).
My challenge was to point out that Catholics cling to the belief that their Tradition = Oral tradition of the 1st century. Whenever they are challenged on the foundation of their belief, they say Tradition and claim validity for the tradition on the basis that it equals the Oral tradition of the 1st century believers. But, curiously, we have not one bit of the oral tradition preserved. If it was that important to the church, we should expect to have at least some of it preserved in its original form. Further we should expect to see a fully developed Tradition in the earliest writings of the church in regards to the Pope, primacy of Peter, etc. And yet we do not. So, from my vantage point, it appears that the "oral tradition" is an easy way of propping up the otherwise unsupported Tradition of the church. I do not think there's anything inherently wrong with Tradition. But I think to claim that there's a foundation for it that there is no evidence for is an "invisible cat in the chair" argument.
Now I know where Gene Rodenberry got the idea for the Borg’s, they had no mind of their own, they were part of consortium, and all they had to do was plug them selves into a wall plug every day, and they were programmed with all the common knowledge from all the others, they were not individual, but numbers.
God gave us the Holy Spirit that we could be like Christ, and all you seem to think it was for, was to make yes men out of us, and rely on a man or men to get us to salvation.
If the Catholic Church was to be the only Church, you failed miserably, because you have never allowed for any personalities except that of followers.
The apostles were as diverse as men could get, and that is why Christ choose them, to represent us, the world of personalities, it is as someone said earlier, we are Baskin Robbins with 49 flavors, and you are the Church of Vanilla, and one size fits all, or else.
What do you think Paul was telling us when he talked about the gifts of the Holy Spirit in 1 Cor 12, Besides these many different gifts, the Gospel mentions over 200 gifts as fruits of the Holy Spirit from prophesy to wisdom, knowledge, judging, searching all things, teaching, comparing spiritual to spiritual, faith, the working of miracles, healing, tongues, edifying, and on and on, are you saying that God meant for only you to have all these gifts? There is no place in your Church for someone who Christ had given these gifts to.
You would have them excommunicated before they could learn to make the sign of the cross.
You need to read this 12th chapter all the way through and see if you can fit it into the RCC, especially verse 11, where Paul says they are all the same spirit, and part of the same body, and he divides them up to every man severally as he will.
If one of your members tried to prophesy, or speak in tongues you would have them in front of the bishop before he could find 1 Cor in the Bible.
Just how many people in this world do you think can stand your ritualistic repetitive cold sterile idol filled Church?
God is no doubt using you as he uses all others, to appeal to the variety of different people in this world, and their is a certain type that is attracted to your Church, and that's fine, but don't think for a second that you have a monopoly on Christ, if you do, he has failed to supply us with a Church that the Holy spirit can thrive in, and utilize all the gifts he has given us.
Any Proddie who takes pride in the "development of doctrine" is as silly as the Catholic who has some puffed sense of importance over the beauty of their building. When we are led by the Holy Spirit (as we should strive to be, no doubt you'd agree), we can't be proud of obedience. We're just meeting the bare requirements that God has for us. To take pride in the "development of doctrine" is to in effect admit that the doctrine is not of God. If the doctrine is of God, then we had no hand in its formulation. We only accepted. There can be pride over the acceptance of a gift.
Doh
These two commands one to teach, and the other to believe for salvation,must be obeyed. But they cannot even be understood unless the Church proposes an inviolate and clear teaching,and in proposing it is immune from all danger of error. It is also false to say that, although the deposit of truth does indeed exist,it is only to be found with such laaborious effort and after such lengthy study that a man's life is hardly long enough for its discovery and attainment. This would be equivalent to saying that the most merciful God spoke through the prophets and through His only begotten Son merely in order that some few men,and those,advanced in years,might learn what He revealed,rather than inculcate a doctrine of faith and morals by which men should be guided throughout the whole of his life.
All I could think was Jesus must have had a vision and saw these threads,whereupon He said, "and who do you say I am".Simon responded,Jesus breathed a sigh of relief and said "You are Rocky,"etc. and so on.
No. Why do you think that?
It also makes the Bible seem like lies, since it says he was truly tempted in all ways, and yet did not sin.
Where does it say that? Also what if Jesus did sin? Would he still be God. And if you have some new idea about the relationship between the Father and the Son, one what verse do you base it on? or is it an extra-Biblical belief?
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.