Posted on 02/15/2006 6:22:47 AM PST by NYer
If this is the case, we can agree. You assume that they carried on as a normal average everyday family. We assume differently. But the text itself does not testify one way or another.
SD
You're assuming also that there were other brothers and sisters and that is part of your argument against perpetual virginity. If so, why did Jesus defy Jewish law and give over the care of his mother to someone who was NOT his blood brother? Someone who had no legal right to his mother?
The Bible, and all the books in it (including many that didn't make the cut) was written hundreds and thousands of years before there was a RCC.
um yes...they didn't settle on the final one until during
the Constantinian regime.
70ad in Yavneh for Hebrew scriptures.
Do you agree that there is no correspondence between the Old Testament prophesy of "young woman" and the New Testament use of "Virgin"?
Your list should be preceded by stating that God Himself gave the inspiration of the Scriptures to the writers.
"Can you lose your salvation if you fail to participate in the sacraments on a regular basis?
Without getting into a messy predestination/free will battle, the simple answer is "yes." We all sin, and sacraments like the Eucharist (Communion) give us strength to grow in holiness and sacraments like Confession restore us to grace after serious sin. Since we all sin, keeping ourselves from the sacraments is a sure way of letting your faith and your soul die from starvation, of falling out of grace."
___________________________________
Thanks for the honest answer. I think this is probably one of the most profound differences we have. According to your response in the RCC you view grace as something you can control through your actions. In my faith grace is a free gift from GOD, which is not the result of works. Also, we do not believe we control GOD, but rather we are GOD'S possession.
You're getting sidetracked anyway. I wasn't talking about when books were written. I was talking about who got to choose which books made the cut and how Protestants are in agreement with these people. And I'm sure doctrine was strongly considered.
You're assuming also that there were other brothers and sisters and that is part of your argument against perpetual virginity.
Actually, I haven't spoken regarding this point ... today. :^)
If so, why did Jesus defy Jewish law and give over the care of his mother to someone who was NOT his blood brother? Someone who had no legal right to his mother?
Jesus' brothers were not believers at the time of his death.
Would you, as a christian, hand the care of your mother utterly into the hands of non-believers, ... or into the care of a trusted disciple ?
You assume that they carried on as a normal average everyday family. We assume differently. But the text itself does not testify one way or another.
If you say so ... ;^)
On some issues ... I agree with you ... on others, I disagree, ... all probably for reasons which have absolutely nothing to do ... with you.
Well that's fine, I just wanted to offer an opinion that if you can trust those who've handed down doctrines that if preached in your congregation of worship would go over like a porkchop in a synagogue and at the same time totally trust their ability to canonize NT writings that is your perogative.
My point is ... that there is plenty of evidence for the inspiration of the New Testament documents ... which has nothing to do with their ultimate canonization.
IMO, more like maintaining grace through obedience. Even scriptures mention those who fall away. Seeds strewn among rocks or weeds. Some roots are shallow and dry up. Some grow and are choked by weeds.
"IMO, more like maintaining grace through obedience."
_______________________________
So in the RCC you could be saved today and if you don't do the right things tomorrow you could be lost. Who determines for you what works are sufficient to maintain your state of grace? What happens to the Catholic that dies while not in compliance with the works necessary to maintain their grace?
Hmm... interesting, misplaced I think, but interesting... as one whom you could call Catholic or Christian or less accurately a Protestant, I find the author's reasoning a bit off. ...and I don't consider my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters as "separated brethren" even though we may have some serious differences.
jw
Agreed. That "alledged" evidence convinces some. I've read the list you're so fond of posting from time to time. :-)
All writings have to be read in the context in which they were written. Example:
If Mary were a "young woman" back in that time who had "found favor" with God, that would mean that she lived according to God's teachings at the time and was, without a doubt, a virgin.
Back then, young women living at home with their parents did not consort or associate with men other than their family members; in fact, they often never laid eyes on their husbands-to-be until the day of their wedding.
So, whether one translates it to be "Young woman" or "Virgin," both mean exactly the same thing when read in context.
Secondly, Jesus never taught His followers to repeat 7 Hail Mary's and 5 Our Fathers for forgiveness. He was quite clear on how one would be forgiven: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life, and NONE SHALL COME TO THE FATHER BUT THROUGH ME . (Emphasis my own)
Catholic rigamarole is man-made paganism. The Catholic church is a cult which leads to death and damnation, because it teaches people lies about thier path to Salvation.
Many Catholics are saved, believing Christians, but not all. It depends on whether they place their faith in that false church, or in Jesus and His Word.
;-/
Yes. Often.
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.