Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
What is he repenting, and abhorring himself for when that same book tells us Job was "blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil." [Job 1:1]?
Matt, 4:1, “Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.”
I know what St. Matthew says. It doesn't answer my question if there was ever any doubt that Christ would not resist evil.
But consistent with the pre-divine Jesus Gospels, the author says Jesus was led by the Spirit. The Spirit here means the the Spirit of God, which in the Judaic sense does not mean a divine Hypostasis but the power of God.
So, then, Christ, whose both divine and human natures are in perfect harmony (basic orthodox Christology), had to be tested by His own divine nature and "needed" the Holy Spirit to "guide" Him! Hmmmm.
Matt. 26:37-39, “And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.”
More consistent writings indicating that Matthew's Gospel doesn't treat Jesus as divine, but as Jewish messiah. The Church interprets it through the Christological dogma declared later as something that was understood all along, namely that Christ suffered in His human nature and had fears and felt pain, but there was never any chance that He would have done anything that was not in harmony with His divine nature, which is the same nature is of the Father and the Spirit.
Matt. 27:46, “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
Of course, the Church here also tries to rescue the non-divine Jesus of St. Matthew by saying that, on accepting the sins of the world, Jesus felt the same separation we feel form Him when we sin. But that would mean that He actually sinned and distanced Himself form Himself.
Of course, your quote makes perfect sense if He is taken to be a non-divine Jewish messiah that Jews expect to this day.
And while you are at it, why not also mention John 14:28 "for the Father is greater than I." How Trinitarian is that?! And this was written at the end of the first century by St. John who believed that Jesus was divine (but apparently not as divine as the Father!). Is there any wonder that heretics also quote from the same New Testament?
Even John's own Gospel has enough spiritual food for Arians to feed on.
Heb. 5:7-9,”Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;”
Wonderful! I love your quotes. Look what it says here: (1) Jesus had to pray to the one who could save him form death! (2) Jesus had to learn (3) He was a Son!, (4) was made perfect (complete) through suffering.
Why would they pray to any one but the Father when He is the one Jesus commanded us to pray to? Jesus intercedes for us and the Holy spirit helps our infirmities in prayer.
So, He is not equal to the Father and we are not to worship Him, but only ask Him to intercede with the Father on our behalf? Hmmmm. Yet we all supposedly believe in one and the same God?
No, it [Christ's divinity] is introduced in Matt. 1:23, “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us
I disagree. There is nothing here to suggest that the child is God, only a favorite of God. This is consistent with the rest of St. Matthew's presentation of a very human Jesus.
Well then, it would be more accurate to say (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure 4th century Christianity)
Are you POSITIVE you don't understand negative theology? (Hint: correct answer is,"Who knows?")
***The Church viewed Cassian’s teachings as heretical. Shouldn’t that be sufficient?***
Let’s see what New Advent says:
The three opposing views have been summed up briefly as follows: St. Augustine regarded man in his natural state as dead, Pelagius as quite sound, Cassian as sick. The error of Cassian was to regard a purely natural act, proceeding from the exercise of free will, as the first step to salvation. In the controversy which, shortly before his death, arose over his teaching, Cassian took no part. His earliest opponent, Prosper of Aquitaine, without naming him, alludes to him with great respect as a man of more than ordinary virtues. Semipelagianism was finally condemned by the Council of Orange in 529.
The fact that semipelagianism was condemned is the entire basis of everything that you consider heretical or not? Do you really mean to say that?
***What evidence do I need? I’m not the one who sits in judgment. I’m merely stating venerating statues made with hands is idolatry. Let him who have ears hear.***
You are judging. Let him who has brains think.
New Advent is helpful:
Two questions that obviously must be kept apart are those of the use of sacred images and of the reverence paid to them. That Christians from the very beginning adorned their catacombs with paintings of Christ, of the saints, of scenes from the Bible and allegorical groups is too obvious and too well known for it to be necessary to insist upon the fact. The catacombs are the cradle of all Christian art. Since their discovery in the sixteenth century — on 31 May, 1578, an accident revealed part of the catacomb in the Via Salaria — and the investigation of their contents that has gone on steadily ever since, we are able to reconstruct an exact idea of the paintings that adorned them. That the first Christians had any sort of prejudice against images, pictures, or statues is a myth (defended amongst others by Erasmus) that has been abundantly dispelled by all students of Christian archaeology. The idea that they must have feared the danger of idolatry among their new converts is disproved in the simplest way by the pictures even statues, that remain from the first centuries. Even the Jewish Christians had no reason to be prejudiced against pictures, as we have seen; still less had the Gentile communities any such feeling. They accepted the art of their time and used it, as well as a poor and persecuted community could, to express their religious ideas.
The Christian sarcophagi were ornamented with indifferent or symbolic designs — palms, peacocks, vines, with the chi-rho monogram (long before Constantine), with bas-reliefs of Christ as the Good Shepherd, or seated between figures of saints, and sometimes, as in the famous one of Julius Bassus with elaborate scenes from the New Testament. And the catacombs were covered with paintings. There are other decorations such as garlands, ribands, stars landscapes, vines-no doubt in many cases having a symbolic meaning. ***
I thought that you guys trumpeted loudly and repeatedly that you were the most akin to the early Church. Why do you not practice what the early Church practiced? I notice that you also don’t believe in transubstantiation. Another significant departure from Christian beliefs. With the difference between yourselves and the Church, I think that the term Christian applied to the Reformers is very weakly linked and getting weaker with every new development in theology.
***So, what is the meaning of venerate?***
St. Thomas declares what idolatry is in the “Summa Theologica”, II-II:94, and explains the use of images in the Catholic Church (II-II:94:2, ad 1Um). He distinguishes between latria and dulia (II-II:103). The twenty-fifth session of the Council of Trent (Dec., 1543) repeats faithfully the principles of Nicaea II:
[The holy Synod commands] that images of Christ, the Virgin Mother of God, and other saints are to be held and kept especially in churches, that due honour and reverence (debitum honorem et venerationem) are to be paid to them, not that any divinity or power is thought to be in them for the sake of which they may be worshipped, or that anything can be asked of them, or that any trust may be put in images, as was done by the heathen who put their trust in their idols [Ps. cxxxiv, 15 sqq.], but because the honour shown to them is referred to the prototypes which they represent, so that by kissing, uncovering to, kneeling before images we adore Christ and honour the saints whose likeness they bear (Denzinger, no. 986).
***The Orthodox view was built on a synergistic model that believed in man’s will to change his life. Their touted saint is none other than Saint Cassian who had a great influence on the Orthodox view. On the other side was the Latin who branded (at least initially) Cassian as a heretic, favoring Augustine’s view of salvation as a gift from God. After all, it does state that in scripture although few actually believe that it is a GIFT; instead thinking they did something (had faith, was baptized, etc.). Few look upon the church/Church as the “chosen” nation of God. Instead most veiw it as the “chosing” nation of God.***
I guess that you’ve hung out with a different crowd than I have. All Catholics that I know or know of consider the Grace of God to be the foundation of one’s salvation. It is in the Catechism; it is in the Gospel and it is what we believe.
***No, just the Protestant interpretation of Paul,and the emphasis on Paul and OT over Gospels.***
You may mean the Protestant misinterpretation of Paul in order to support their novel theologies.
***An Apostolic Church eh!.. Which one?.. Peter, Paul, Apollos?***
I didn’t know that Apollos was one of the Apostles. Thank you for the education.
***When God subjected Jesus to hunger in the desert it was to test him in his reliance on God ***
Are you seriously stating that God (the Father) tested God (the Son)? Where do you people get your ideas from? It cannot be from Christian Scripture or the Church.
I would think that breaking a vow in a works based religion like Romanism would be a serious violation.
Are you sure you did not lose your grace of Justification and hence need to go to Confession and performs works of congruent merit for pennance?
Are you seriously asking in order to gain knowledge or understanding? I’m not going to get involved in a controversy here.
***So I understand the logic of the hand me downs.. but I don;t like the concept of it..***
It is what the Church of Jesus tells us.
We take the view that it doesn’t matter if we like it or not. We may not like the concept of worshipping God in the Eucharist once a week or more since it gets us out of our warm beds on Sundays, yet there it is.
We may take the view that fasting on Church-directed days is not likeable; we may take any view we wish. But if it does not come from the authority of Jesus, then it is not so. If it does, then it is so.
The individuals who wrote the NT, and those who translated it and chose the content of Scripture were all within what we call the Catholic Church.
We bring the Good News to the world, with varying degrees of acceptance, of course.
***I hope you know I’m sincere when I say that.***
I believe that you are. Your posts normally come across as very sincere.
***There’s no reason for any of us to go to Hell. Our faith and trust in Jesus and Jesus only is what will get us there. When we ask Him to come into our lives, He comes. It’s up to us to walk it out, of course, but He IS in our lives when we ask with faith and believe on Him as Lord and Saviour.***
Sounds very Catholic to me. Are you sure that you’re not hiding out in the back pews and taking notes?
***I have that assurance of eternal life with Him because I did that almost 39 years ago. My walk has been rocky at times, for sure, but He’s never let go of me.***
Scripture tells us that we have the hope of our faith; even Peter and Paul write of hope and faith in the Lord. Everyone’s path is different, some have a very tough road - Lord knows that mine isn’t the easiest either.
1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal. As unto little ones in Christ, 2 I gave you milk to drink, not meat: for you were not able as yet. But neither indeed are you now able: for you are yet carnal. 3 For, whereas there is among you envying and contention, are you not carnal and walk you not according to man? 4 For while one saith: I indeed am of Paul: and another: I am of Apollo: are you not men? What then is Apollo and what is Paul? 5 The ministers of him whom you have believed: and to every one as the Lord hath given. 6 I have planted, Apollo watered: but God gave the increase. 7 Therefore, neither he that planteth is any thing, nor he that watereth: but God that giveth the increase. 8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth, are one. And every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labour. 9 For we are God’s coadjutors.
***protestants are protesting nothing.. ***
The term Protestant was coined by the Reformers to name their position of protest against the Church. Read some history for proof.
***The so-called catholics are not “universal(catholic)” ***
Yes we are. We are open to all who would follow the teachings of Jesus and not substitute their own.
***Jesus instituted a family not an organization.***
Are you saying that the Apostles after Pentecost were disorganized?
***He taught in them but never advocated gathering like that..***
So when the Apostles went about their task of bishops over areas, instituting churches (written about extensively in Acts and the Epistles), they were actually going against the words of the Reformed God?
LOL. No, I’m not sitting in the back and taking notes. I do in my church though. I do sit in the back row and I take notes every Sunday. Mxxx
I could see it within the catholic or universal church but certainly not the Roman Catholic church. There were many churches at that time.
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.