Posted on 10/09/2001 8:21:36 PM PDT by Diago
I guess with your reading this way, you are also saying that Jesus is an angel as well because Matthew 22 must be consistent with this verse:
Beloved, now we are the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is.However, we know that Jesus is not an angel, but God:
And I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; and in the midst of the seven candlesticks One like unto the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the breast with a golden girdle. His head and His hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes were as a flame of fire; and His feet like unto fine brass, as though they burned in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters. And He had in His right hand seven stars, and out of His mouth went a sharp twoedged sword, and His countenance shone as the sun shineth in his strength. And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. And He laid His right hand upon me, saying unto me, "Fear not; I am the First and the Last. I am He that liveth, and was dead; and behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen, and have the keys of hell and of death.Could it be that Matthew is only saying that like the angels, we will neither marry nor be given in marriage...
P.S. I'm amazed that anybody could be a RC after reading the Bible.
It's not, as Ratzinger has recently pointed out. Be careful of "liberal" Catholics.
Where did he get that doctrinal statement from Robby? It was Aquinasfan that was talking about it the other day..That has to be out there floating around some where. Many years ago a Catholic Priest told me that Muslims could go to heaven,but I dismissed that as the rant of a "liberal"..it seems it is written and taught now
One of my favorite scriptures.
And then another chapter later...
1 Timothy 3:14-16 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
What do you make of this verse of scripture, which may not be a favorite?
What exactly is it?
I offer for you the commentary of Clarke on that scripture
2. It is well known that almost every Church supposes itself to be THE true Church; and some consider themselves the only Church, and deny salvation to all who are not of their communion.
To such a Church the two last verses in this chapter have been confidently self-applied, as being the pillar and ground of the truth - the possessor and dispenser of all the mysteries of God. But, supposing that the words in verse 15 are spoken of the Church, it is the Christian Church, as defined under article the third above, that must be meant; and we may see from this the vanity of applying the words to any particular Church, as if it had all the truth without error, and none else could pretend either to truth or ecclesiastical authority.
The Christian Church is a widely different thing; it is the whole system of Christianity as laid down in the New Testament; it is built on the great foundation of prophets and apostles, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.
It is composed of all who hold the doctrines of Christianity; who acknowledge Jesus as their Teacher, Redeemer, and only Advocate; of all who love God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength, and their neighbour as themselves; or who are labouring after this conformity to the mind and command of their Creator.
It is not known by any particular name; it is not distinguished by any particular form in its mode of worship; it is not exclusively here or there. It is the house of God - it is where God's Spirit dwells, where his precepts are obeyed, and where pure, unadulterated love to God and man prevails.
It is not in the creed or religious confessions of any denomination of Christians; for, as all who hold the truth and live a holy life, acknowledging Jesus alone as the head of the Church and saviour of the world, are members of his mystical body; (and such may be found in all sects and parties;) so the Church of Christ may be said to be everywhere, and to be confined nowhere; i.e. in whatever place Christianity is credited and acknowledged.
The wicked of all sorts, no matter what their profession may be, and all persecutors of religious people, who differ from them, are without the pale of this Church. Essentially must their spirit and conduct be changed, before the living Head of this spiritual building can acknowledge them as members of the heavenly family.
This text, therefore, will never apply to the Romish Church, till that Church be, both in doctrine and discipline, what the Christian Church should be. When it is the established religion of any country it gives no toleration to those who differ from it; and in Protestant countries its cry for toleration and secular authority is loud and long. I wish its partisans the full and free exercise of their religion, even to its superstitions and nonsense; but how can they expect toleration who give none? The Protestant Church tolerates it fully; it persecutes the Protestants to bonds and death when it has power; which then is the true Church of Christ?
As a matter of fact, you were talking to me. Here's what I said:
"The God of the Jews, the God of Islam, the God of the Philosophers and the God of Brahman Hindus, is the same as our God. Our paths diverge after that.
Granted, the Trinity has not been revealed to these other people, but we don't have a complete understanding of God's essence either."
If anyone's interested, they can follow the relevant discussion here.
Others can decide if I implied that "Islam and Hindi were just "other paths" to God..Jesus was just 'one way'"
Is his interpretation of Scripture infallible?
I figure it's as good as yours, or the pope's..
lurking
Well, then why did God send an angel to ask for her consent to be the mother of His only Son? What was she just a useful womb? Or, did He mean to make her part of His heavenly plan in making her pivotal in bringing His Son to us? Kindly look a little closer at the New Testament. Even Martin Luther would raise his eyebrows at you for the comment you posted.
Matthew 18:15-18
15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
How do you reconcile this verse with your assertion that the church "is not exclusively here or there"?
Is Christ telling Christians that if our brother tresspasses against us we should take our disagreement to a church that is not publicly identifiable?
Your assertion thus makes Christ's words nonsensical.
You wrote
Mohammed was a false prophet, but that doesn't mean that "Allah" is a false god. "Allah" is the Aramaic word for "God."
Yes, Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. But that also means that God is Truth. We can't deny truths in other religion, because all truth is God's truth. So when other religions teach that God sustains everything in existence, that God is One, that God is omnipotent, et cetera, we have to affirm these truths.
Yes, no one comes to the Father except through Jesus. But does that mean that someone has to recognize Jesus explicitly? Certainly someone who "loves his neighbor as himself," without understanding and explicitly acknowledging Jesus as Lord and Savior through no fault of his own, implicitly acknowledges Jesus.
PS I can and do deny the "truth " of Islam,Hindu,Buddhism,Mormonism,Jehovah Witnesses
I deny the "truth of any "religion" that denies the divinity of Christ,the trinity,or salvation by the blood of Jesus Christ
Dan
Hi lurker *grin* Only the word of God is infallible..the interpretation of men..(psssstttttt even the pope)..in very fallible.
So anyone is free to agree or disagree with Clarke..he was presented simply for discussion purposes
That would all depend on who was buying the next round. Bartender!!!
Or maybe even yours.
So how should we settle our disagreement? I wonder what it says in Scripture about that....
You quoted me accurately, but you seem to miss the point. I said,
"We can't deny truths in other religion, because all truth is God's truth. So when other religions teach that God sustains everything in existence, that God is One, that God is omnipotent, et cetera, we have to affirm these truths."
I didn't say that we had to affirm these religions as wholly valid. I said we have to affirm whatever truths they have as valid. After all, Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. So all truth in a sense is Jesus. If you deny any truths you deny the Truth, the embodiment of Truth, Jesus.
Matthew 18:15-18 15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.Your assertion thus makes Christ's words nonsensical.How do you reconcile this verse with your assertion that the church "is not exclusively here or there"?
Is Christ telling Christians that if our brother tresspasses against us we should take our disagreement to a church that is not publicly identifiable?
My Church (with a capital C,as opposed to the small general c)is a clearly identified body of belivers.
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.