Posted on 02/15/2006 6:22:47 AM PST by NYer
This is very entertaining. Discuss predestination or salvation theology with a Protestant though and you'll get the impression that the only scrpture they ever read was Romans and Galatians.
Was I impolite to you?
That's 2 more books and about 6 more chapters than John 6.
Thank you.
I assume you agree that the first real Ecumenical Council which established the current day RCC Bible Cannon was the Council of Trent?
What relevant context do you see in Matthew 1 other than Christ was born of a virgin?
John 6 does not discuss salvation and predestination. But the Gospels do, in many chapters, and it is virtually impossible to get a Protestant to discuss the healing episodes and the parables, which are essential if one wants to understand the Pauline formulae in Romans.
Nonsense. The three Carthage councils did, last in AD 409. Trent did not even include the Orthodox, who nevertheless have the same books we have. Trent reiterated the inspired nature of the Deuterocanon in the face of Protestant lies.
Apparently more than you see.
John 6 does not discuss salvation and predestination. But the Gospels do, in many chapters, and it is virtually impossible to get a Protestant to discuss the healing episodes and the parables, which are essential if one wants to understand the Pauline formulae in Romans.
What? You should have been around when these threads were 15,000 posts long.
Once again, I provide arguments and you, snarls.
If it is some other James please identify him from Scripture.
SD
God will bless you, don't worry about titles, when the occasions of sin present themselves , titles don't matter, I am a cradle Catholic, and I think it hard sometimes to see Christ's face in the face of the beggar etc. , but, in my opinion, that is what He wants us to do, self deny and think of others suffering, also if we have to suffer to do it in His name, then a purpose is there, welcome to Christianity and God Bless You, you might think about writing a book.
You really should be careful when you speak of lies.
you can bring in the LDS factor but it don't really has anything to do with here only to me because it has answered those questions!
But you keep missing the point I had these questions way before I became LDS at the age of 38!
So you can't reduce it LDS!
I have stuck to the Bible a few of you are aware I am LDS and can't answer my questions so you resort to my faith which has nothing to do with my focus and question!
FM
I have stuck to the Bible a few of you are aware I am LDS and can't answer my questions so you resort to my faith which has nothing to do with my focus and question!
Are you sure that you don't mean that ... you have stuck it to the Bible ?
Your post #1935 - Can you imagine when the last apostle was gone and the wars that took place and how many were killed for processing copies or even original or seal of approval!
I cringe at how many scared manuscripts were destroyed or burn!
Such is not an example of chrisitan belief ... it's pure LDS.
How about this? "Lies become truth with the passage of time."
Please don't snarls.
If I need to understand the passage I suspect is not self-evident, I can read the Catechism or talk to a priest, till that process brings a better understanding. Usually, a reference to the early Church writings closes the deal, if the Catechism is silent. That way, the meaning of a particular verse, say, Matthew 1:25 or Luke 1:28, is understood not through some archaeological analysis of surviving copies, but by evidence of understanding common to the Fathers.
Do I need to elaborate?
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.