Posted on 01/27/2004 3:18:34 PM PST by LS
I recently watched "The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc," starring Milla Jovovich. Not being a Catholic, I had some questions:
1) At the end, the notes said Joan was "canonized" 500 years later(approx. 1930s, I guess). Does canonization automatically mean one is "sainted?" Or are they different? If so, what is the difference?
2) What are the prerequisites to be either "canonized" or "sainted," if they are different?
3) Specifically to the movie---if anyone saw it---was the Dustin Hoffman character supposed to be Lucifer, the accuser?
4) I'm weak historically on this: was the film accurate about Joan often doing things on her own ("if you love me, fight for me") as opposed to leading the armies "in the name of God?" I suppose it depends on what you think of Joan, but among believers, is the consensus that she indeed received instructions from God, or that she was a fruitloop?
Well, let's see, your clergy dreamt up the lie and taught it to you. You repeat the lie. I suppose by assimilation that makes you a liar. Not a slur, just a statement of fact. If you don't like it, stop lying.
Peter as Rock, the foundation of the church, together with the other apostles and their successors, had the power to bind on earth and thereby in Heaven. Tamper? They church infallibly determined which books were inspired.
No, they meddled where they didn't belong and added things that didn't belong next to scripture under the pretense that there medling was proper. They had no authority to touch the OT - NONE. And by the testimony of Paul. You can dress it up prop it up and call it anything you want. It doesn't change the fact that they couldn't respect authority that was not their own and far overstepped any bounds they might have presumed to have.
Personal slurs? Does this pass for biblical argument in your neck of the woods?
Personal - your clergy dreamt it up. When you claim something, your credibility is part of the equation. And given Rome's history of false claims, fraud - either creating it or being duped by it, ect, lying about their own past in order to pull the wool,.. are you getting the picture. NO CREDIBILITY. That goes for whether they claim something or you repeat it. It isn't personal, it's just stating the facts. Of course if you want to take it personal, you might try doing something about it - like perhaps stopping your clergy from propounding falsehoods and dubious claims to ooh ad ahh the mindless into pretense.
The problem with your argument is that it doesn't work (for about a dozen reasons). If it did, there wouldn't be thousands of Protestant denomina
Well, for one, you just called God a liar. For two, protestant denoms don't exist because of their propensity for understanding scripture. Protestant denominations exist in plenty because they, like your religion, are trying to wrap scripture around their philosophies.. using scripture as it were to prove their opinions. It has nothing to do whatever with whether God is right at that point or whether scripture is right. It has to do with them and with you guys trying to prove your philosophy is right. When carnal minds grab what the spiritual mind only can understand and use it to prop up their philosophies as a replacement for God's direction, that isn't seeking God. It is seeking oneself and Ones intellectual puffiness. In short, it's fraud.
The only problem is, nobody knows which one might be right.
Christians do know. That's the problem with your tack. You probably don't understand much of scripture yourself. How long do you claim to have been a Christian, supposing to have the mind of Christ in you and want to pretend that the mind of Christ can't understand Christ's own message?! The jeopardy music is playing..
You have your syntax and metaphors mixed up a little there.
No, My syntax and metaphors are quite plain.. they weren't mine to begin with. Either a building is the pillar and foundation or God is. And here is where your approach is shown for the lie it is. If we call the building the Church, and then apply scripture to that and say the church is the Body of Christ - that would be all Christians - not your clergy or your congregants. Since you wish to say that you are fellow Christians with the protestants, then by your own testimony, Protestants become the pillar and foundation of truth. ROFL. I understand why your clergy latched onto that verse under the pretense of saying it applied to them and therefore one must by default believe whatever they professed. It's a simple charlotan's stance. Fortunately, they didn't bother to read what they were grabbing at and the context betrays them both for the frauds they are and for the fraud they were trying to perpetrate. Any thing else?
Oh, one more thing - the entire portion of the chapter is the author telling us as Christians How to behave ourselves. The final verse states how we are to behave in the meeting place. Meeting places at that time were not big elaborate buildings. They were people's homes. Try to handwring that.
Yep, seen this bogus lie countless times too. 'you are petros(small ungrounded piece of rock - stone) and/but on this the petra(grounded/immoveable massive rock) I will build of me my church..' Well, heck, why not just post the original:
kagw de - soi - legw - oti - su - ei - petros,
And I also - to thee - say[,] - that - thou - art - a stone
kai - epi - tauth - th - petra - oikodomhsw - mou - thn - ekklhsiav
and - on - this - the - rock - I will build - of me - the - church
kai - pulai - adou - ou katiscusousin - auths.
and - [the]gates - of hades - will not prevail against - it.
Petra and petros come from the same root; but, are state of being words with different meanings. They are not mistakeable one for the other. When you pick up a skipping stone and compare it to a mountain, they are of the same substance; but, you are not holding a mountain. The point is that petros by definition is stone that you can pickup and move. And though it be sizeable, it is not an immoveable mountain or bedrock, which is how PETRA is used. Christ didn't equate the two things. The selection of the two words is intentional and tells us that he is contrasting. Thus the Kai translated as "and" in this instance can also be "but" as that is one of it's many meanings. I'm not going to argue for a change in the translation of that word, I'm merely saying that the existing translation has been abused by those who want to wrap scripture around their philosophy rather than accept scripture for what it says. Thus, your church argues now that Peter's testimony is the rock - not peter. But, your cut and paste tracts largely come from them, meaning that at the same time you argue two different meanings. This tells us that the hand don't know what the other hand is doing.. it's by design. This is btw part of the argumentation that went with the fraud Rome used to prop up it's false claims. Just as the lie that Peter is always mentioned first - he isn't. And the lie that he always takes prominance or preimmenance - he does neither. And scripture is there to refute it. It may sound good; but, your clergy didn't know ought of what they were saying when they made the original statements - probably because they didn't have Concordances in those days to so readily betray the lies and false claims of this type. One could say they were mistaken; but, they're supposed to know this stuff. If they were simply mistaken, the lies should have been corrected. They aren't nor will they be. Because the church "can't err" on matters of faith and morals in an official capacity. Such an admittance would undermine their authority. So they continue in the lie as a matter of pretense. Credibility, sir, it matters.
Sorry. No. You've completely missed the context of that passage.
1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. [11] For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them [which are of the house] of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. [12] Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. [13] Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? [14] I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; [15] Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
No, it's quite plain. And this is how the passage wraps up:
1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; [28] And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: [29] That no flesh should glory in his presence. [30] But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: [31] That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
Plain, simple and clear. For those that carnally glory in and are contentious about whome they follow, he said, you follow christ and your glorying is due him. Basically, shut up and put it where it belongs cause there is no place for this stuff. And there you stand - 'we follow those that follow Peter. We are better, have special authority, etc because of it.' Not according to Paul. This isn't the only place that is shot down. The verses about there being no one above the others amongst the apostles - "It shall not be so among you". The point of the passage isn't missed.
No, but Protestantism sure is. ;-)
And this means what to me? Your anti-protestant venom has no effect on me. I'm not part of your battle of the religious philosophies going on between you. I'm pointing out that BOTH of you are wrong and BOTH of you are way off base and because NEITHER of you cares half as much for scripture - GOD's word as you do for your philosophies. You'll say anything even to the extent of calling the apostles liars if it makes your philosophy look more right than someone elses. Christians aren't called to philosophy, they're called to Christ and His word.
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.