Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
She was made by a heathen so she’s not one of my favored ladies. I love what she stands for but not much else. (Freedom)
Their robes are polyester now—no ironing.
The Saints who determined Bible Canon venerated Mary throughout their lives,all of them believed the Eucharist to be the literal Body of Christ as well.
This is all pagan according to you.
So, that means that you believe that Bible canon was revealed to the early pagans and it took over 1500 years for the prophet calvin to come along and lead us to what the scriptures really mean. Ridiculous!
Calvin is no different than Jim Jones,Joseph Smith or any other false prophet that lead others astray from the truth
Dear Sister,you need to come to grips that calvinism does not resemble early Christianity. Calvinism is heretical in the eyes of the Saints
DR E -””LOLOL. You're taking those words of Augustine's to mean that he was here instructing us to venerate relics!?!””
Nope,we can see that Augustine venerated Saints and Our Blessed Mother
Blessed Augustine's said this prayer to Our Blessed Mother
Prayer to Our Lady of Mercy - St. Augustine of Hippo
Blessed Virgin Mary,
who can worthily repay you with praise
and thanks for having rescued a fallen world
by your generous consent!
Receive our gratitude,
and by your prayers obtain the pardon of our sins.
Take our prayers into the sanctuary of heaven
and enable them to make our peace with God.
Holy Mary, help the miserable,
strengthen the discouraged,
comfort the sorrowful,
pray for your people,
plead for the clergy,
intercede for all women consecrated to God.
May all who venerate you
feel now your help and protection.
Be ready to help us when we pray,
and bring back to us the answers to our prayers.
Make it your continual concern
to pray for the people of God,
for you were blessed by God
and were made worthy to bear the Redeemer of the world,
who lives and reigns forever.
Sure, it's possible, but not definite. The totality of scripture clears that up for us.
More importantly, John 3:13 states "No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man." Either +John didn't know about Enoch or he didn't read it as the author of Hebrews did.
Verse 12 gives us the context:
John 3:12 : I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?
Verse 13 means that no one has the authority to speak of Heavenly things except for Christ. Only Christ has been in Heaven, known Heavenly ways, and come down to earth to tell us about them.
Jude is quoting from the Book of Enoch and Jude is scripture, FK. Or is it not scripture on Thursdays?
Just as Aruanan rightly pointed out, quoting from an extra-scriptural work in no way authenticates the entire work. I am sure the Fathers quoted from sources that they did not agree with in toto.
Why not? I don't follow. All souls are His because He created them and installed them.
So yes each soul has the *free will* to be born of woman and pass through this flesh age.
I'm sorry but I just don't see how what you're saying supports that idea. People just do not choose to be born. The implications are also disturbing. For example, can it be said that miscarriages are babies who chose not to be born?
Come on, FK, let's not be silly. :) Everything that has to do with us and God has to do with the "spirit," which has to do with how moral, virtuous, forgiving, merciful, etc. we are. Our biological functions (unless we willingly allow them to counter those moral qualities mentioned above) are irrelevant.
Don't look at me, you just saw me quote JMT in my last post. I am fully willing to wait for more information, but I hope you can understand where my questions were coming from. :)
You are born because the laws of nature (which we believe God instituted) expel the product. It happens in all mammals after a gestational period specific to each species, not just to humans.
The Bible doesn't say that. It says:
Isa 44:24 : "This is what the Lord says — your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the Lord, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself, ...
Jer 1:5 : 5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
I think that sounds very different from God just setting something in motion and then walking away. God is the creator of all life, even within time.
What best interest of yours? Who considered your best interests? The Reformed theology teaches that God chooses Tom but refuses Harry. It has nothing to do with you.
I was paraphrasing the Apostolic view that man decides his own destiny by making the very smart move to accept Christ (or not). After Christ having done what He did for us on the cross, the Apostolic view has man being sovereign of God and fully capable concerning matters of salvation. I was assuming that anything other than this view would be labeled "forced" by Apostolics.
Well, the standard pre-fab answer to this is that God is transcendental and therefore knows and sees everything as "present" (that "eternal [aoristic] present").
John 1:1 says 'IN the beginning', (that means Genesis 1:1), was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. This was and is the purpose of the Church to know preach and teach the WORD or as some call it the Gospel... good news. Moses penned Genesis without his own personal foreknowledge up until he came of age to write the rest of the Torah. So what Moses penned would have come directly from the Heavenly Father if we this day are to have that instruction of the WORD or at most what we are given to understand.
There is no such thing as free will if God being transcendental and knows and sees everything as "present". It is Written that we were created for the pleasure of the Heavenly Father and given what misery chaos and insanity this world over does not paint a loving image of the Heavenly Father to oversee.
The other answer is historic and factual: pagans, Jews and Gnostics believed in the pre-existence of the souls. The Church doesn't. This was one of those points of departure of Christianity with these groups. Now, some cults, such as LDS, spout pre-existence of the souls, but that just makes them members of the same non-Christian club mentioned above.
Moses pens not one word regarding the creation of the devil but yet the devil was there in the Garden and beguiled Eve with knowledge of good and evil.... So when was the devil created as Ezekiel and Isaiah describe of him, and when did he turn evil and decided that he would be god and rebelled. There is nothing in the Bible or in historical record that presents evidence of the devil rebelling and taking with him a third of the stars also know as the sons of God since the Garden of Eden. Paul's words *foundation of the world* (Ephesians 1:4)are actually a verb meaning to cast down - overthrow. And according to Genesis 1:2 this took place before this flesh age.
Solomon described two different bodies this flesh one and the spirit/soul body in the book of Ecclesiastes and he says there is no remembrance of the former things in the flesh body.
According to Paul not all in his time believed in the pre-existence of the souls... and Paul used their countering beliefs to get them at each other so he could leave. As far as what other cults believe regarding pre-existence of the souls I have no clue, I get my instruction from the WORD.
2 Peter is a 2nd century fraud in my opinion, but it was very useful to the early Church, and now it would be difficult to go back and toss it away. It took the Church a long time to accept is as "inspired." I can see why.
I would not call II Peter a fraud, as that to me would be like saying the Heavenly Father, Christ as well as allllll those holy prophets Peter refers to are frauds as well.
That being said, your particular references has some important, even essential 2nd century Christian material: one is the fact that the expected second coming "before this generation will taste death" had to be redefined to an unspecified time in the future.
Christ listed the signs that would need be prior to his return and in the midst he said to learn the parable of the fig tree.
It is well known that early Chritsians did expect the second coming of the Messiah within their lifetime as the New Testament suggests. Dispelling these beliefs and leaving the door open was crucial to the survival of the the Christan sect, so I can see why some in the Church found 2 Peter necessary.
Based upon my study a generation has not passed since Christ left this earth, that has not thought they were in that generation. That is part of the reason why so many cults have power over so many through deception, just as Christ warned would be.
The book was also necessary because of its reconciliatory tone with Paul. The Pauline and Petrine factions of the Church were still at odds with each other despite claims to the contrary in Acts. So the sect took on Pauline garments but remained Petrine inside. Likewise, 2 Pet is asking people to be patient, to live righteous lives and trust that God will spare the righteous, etc. He reinforces this appeal with threats and imagery of a catastrophic end of the world. All this was needed to keep the faith going despite some setbacks.
Strange that Christ said that Peter would be the rock upon which the Church would be build and yet even the few words that Peter penned get such a slight of hand.
But I certainly cannot find any evidence of "pre-existing" bodiless souls in 2 Pet 3.
The soul has a body, Christ Himself demonstrated that in His visible to that group could go through a wall... Both exist, just that the flesh eye unless given that sight cannot see that dimension. The flesh is given but for a very short time and as it is written to be absent from this flesh body is to be present with the Lord. Even that rich man could see Lazarus in Abraham's bosom across that proverbial gulf and none of them were in flesh bodies.
Why not? I don't follow. All souls are His because He created them and installed them.
The point is that the word used is soul not flesh bodies, and if alllll belong to the Heavenly Father then that means all is a specific number known already to the Heavenly Father.
So yes each soul has the *free will* to be born of woman and pass through this flesh age.
I'm sorry but I just don't see how what you're saying supports that idea. People just do not choose to be born. The implications are also disturbing. For example, can it be said that miscarriages are babies who chose not to be born?
The action of coming at conception is the choice. I have the exact opposite response to know that a miscarried child or even through the horrible act of abortion that soul made that choice which Christ said was required to have opportunity to see the Kingdom of God. It gives me comfort to know that the soul is NOT lost or gone forever even if the flesh dies before the birth.
Thank you for that information, FK. I thought the SBC may have a stand on this issue considering that some of these finds may be contrary to what the Bible teaches.
In all fairness, he should have included us Orthodox as well. I remember taking my older daughter few years back to a monastery and the igumaness (senior nun) showed us the new church lined with icons of different saints. Every icon ocntained a little glass bubble which she said were bones of these saints. To which my daughter said "how do you know that those are their bones?" The nun repsonded that they came with "authenticating documents."
I was never big on this and I personally do not venerate anyone's bones. I show respect for saints, especially those martyred ones, but I see not reason to venerate the body or the bones of the same.
But is is an early Christian practice as witnessed by +Polycarp, an Apostolic Father, at the very beginning of the 2nd century, and not something the Latin Church 'invented' as your article claims. It was practiced for 15 centuries before Trent ever made it official. Just as the Apocrypha were part of the scriptures before Luther decided to drop them.
The Church had services for the souls of the dead because the Church doctrine of the particular judgment and the intermediate state of the souls. It was not instituted by Trent. It poredates trent by about 1500 years! Professor Noble, like so many Protestants, is obsessed with "Romanism." He is dead wrong on more than one account. Some professor!
No, to follow there must be an expressed command and assent to follow it. That does not happen between God and satan, for example. God allows satan to do some things, but not others. In no case can it be said that satan is "obeying" God by choice. Many on your side always try to make it look like we think that God and satan are cooperating when nothing could be further from the truth.
God cannot Will evil,FK, or God would be in error and opposed with Himself,thus making God dualistic in His essence.
STF, even by your own standards, God willed to allow evil to exist. Was God in error for that? Did the serpent sneak into the Garden without God knowing and allowing it? Did God will the crucifixion, or was He overpowered by men?
FK,””I wouldn't begin to pretend to speak for God's motives, so that's off the table.””
Perhaps this might help? From Saint Aquinas ...
Well, if Aquinas is attempting to speak for God's motives then I'll take your word for it. I know that's not for me. I don't even disagree with much of what he says. God does not author evil, etc. We disagree on the sovereignty and power of men in all this. I think your side believes that if man is not sovereign or autonomous, THEN God authors evil. We don't see it that way at all.
Mow I know where all these silly conspiracy theories originate! Frankly, I think this Dr. Gillis is a bozo because only a bozo could say something like that.
First of all, His All Holiness is not the "pope" of the East. Being first among equals simply means that he gets to preside as the chair of all-Orthodox Synods every few centuries or so.
He has no power over other Orthodox Churches which are in communion with him because all Orthodox Churches profess one and the same faith: it's a communion of faith. If one bishop, even an Ecumenical Patriarch (which has happened numerous times in the past) becomes a heretic the rest of the Church goes on. The bishop is stricken from the diptychs and his name is not mentioned at the Divine Liturgy. That means he is no longer in communion of faith but rather professes a different faith.
The EP is just another bishop. He doesn't wear special vestments. His title (All Holiness) is honorary and does not imply any jurisdictional power over other patriarchs (Holinesses).
The current EP studied in Rome and his close ties with Pope Benedict XVI are based on the latter's patristic approach. The two Churches have renewed the dialogue concerning their theological differences. Any possible attempt at reunification would have to be preceded by a clear and acceptable (re)formulation of the role of the papacy in the Church or, better yet, a patristic understanding of it as it was in the first millennium when the Church was undivided.
That would bring us a step closer because then the Pope could call an Ecumenical Council (first true Ecumenical Council since the 8th century!). There is also a problem with what the Latins would do with their "ecumenical" councils since then (of which they have a total of over 20).
If by some miracle all this were somehow overcome, the Council would have to find mutually agreeable theological solutions to our few but deeply divisive (almost insurmountable) issues, such as the Immaculate Conception, the Purgatory, the filioque, etc.
If by some miracle the Council were to find solutions to these, they would have to be ratified by each particular Church and, in the East, by the lower clergy and the Laity (or, as we call them, the People of God).
The faux reunion of Florence broke down exactly in that last stage of ratification. The lower clergy and the People of God did not accept it and the Church remained theologically divided, but Apostolically still one Body.
So, I am not sure what this Dr. Gillis is talking about. Whatever it is, it has no bearing in reality.
And yet no one believed Him, not even the Apostles! Acts 1 tells us they did not consider Him to be equal to the Father but someone who would restore the Kingdom of Israel )Jewish messiah), and He also says the exact timing is known but to the Father.
Obviously this is not being "one." We know for sure that John's Gospel was written after the other Gospels and after all the other books of the NT were written. John's Gospel stresses something no other book of the NT stresses, Jesus' divinity, and even then no one except for John, at the end of the first century, states that Jesus said He and Father were one! No one else bothered to record that! How gullible can one be, FK?
Besides, Jesus leaves no doubt that "being one" is not the same as "equal." You yourself quote John 17:11 where Jesus is quoted as saying "Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name — the name you gave me — so that they may be one as we are one."
Are we "one" with Jesus and does that mean we are equal to Jesus? Of course not! being one is not the same as being equal. That much is abundantly clear. But Jesus specifically states on more than on occasion that the Father is greater then all and even greater that He (Jesus).
Phil 2:5-11 : 5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God [sic] exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow
This is how the original Greek text reads (my mephases):
Obviously, the punctuation marks are missing and it depends where you place then how you will read it. More importantly, your NIV version erroneously states "Who, being in very nature God" where there is no "nature" [Greek: physis] mentioned in the text. Paul actually says form (morphi) of God. In other words, an appearance of God.
The NIV you use is falsely creating the impression that Paul considered Jesus to be, by nature divine, but this is not what Paul wrote.
This is supported by the fact that Paul also says "therefore God [sic] exalted him to the highest place. If God has to exalt Him then Jesus is not God in Paul's eyes, but–as Paul calls Him—the anointed [ Greek: christos] Jesus.
This is very consistent wiht the early Christian writing, including the Gospels (not counting the end of the century Gospel of John), in that Jesus was considered a Jewish messiah, a human anointed by God who will restore the Kingdom of Israel (what the Jews called, and still do, the "Kingdom of God").
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
The word "lord" [Gr: kyrios] is a title given to God, kings and generally people above you in any ranking, whom you serve. What this chapter says is that Gods appointed Jesus to be above all humans and that He is God's faithful and anointed servant that all should respect because He is His special representative.
"If your religion does not make you holy it will damn you to hell."Charles Spurgeon
Heads up — Newsflash:
Catholics have no NEED of earthly relics either.We now return you to your regularly scheduled misstatement of RC thought and teaching, already in progress.
AMEN!!! That's some very fascinating stuff you found. Thanks for posting. Mary must have been quite a sight, what with having four different colors of hair and all. :)
Given that Muslims and Jews use the OT as well, we must be on the same sheet of music? Yet, two out of three OT readers reject Christ! If Christ is "all over" the OT, as you say, they sure missed Him!
It DOES teach faith in the correct God.
I guess then Christians, Muslims and Jews all believe the same thing...I don't think so.
Only somthing vague and incomplete would lead people to such different conclusions.
You can't throw out the OT because it's not the NT.
I never advocated that. I am just saying that its value is different from the Gospels. The OT puts things in perspective, how this whole religious thing developed, what the early (pre-Law) patriarchs believed, what the prophets wrote after the Law, how the Jews abandoned God on so many occasions, how they came back to Him after the Babylonian/Persian domination, how the Jews became messianic people, how they formed different messianic doctrines (Sadducees, Samaritans, Essenes, Pharisees, etc.) and political parties around them, etc. It tells us that Satan was not a "bad" angel, but a loyal servant of God in Judaism, the heavnely prosecutor general, the accuser, etc.
The OT also gives us examples of people realizing that repentance is the only way to God, and the repentant speak of God in terms as we know Christ, a loving, merciful God, so there is foreshadowing, announcing, that we can come to God but only in repenatnce, and not just by following the law, as the parable in the NT reminds us with the Pahrisee and the atx collector in the synagoue.
The Gospels reveal God that we can grasp and see. It is more than God who covered Himself with flesh; it's something completely unexpected, unprecedented: it is God actually becoming flesh, lowering Himself, out of love for mankind, to our level and suffering and dying for our sins.
The truths of the Gospels, as a narrative of Jesus' ministry, holds true withor without the OT. Otherwise, Christ's work is insufficient. The Gospels by themsleves are sufficient for Christianity, but the other books in the NT and those in the OT put it in perspective.
Thank you for clarifying that. If that's whay your side believes, then we are on the same sheet of music. :)
“The Gospels reveal God that we can grasp and see. It is more than God who covered Himself with flesh; it’s something completely unexpected, unprecedented: it is God actually becoming flesh, lowering Himself, out of love for mankind, to our level and suffering and dying for our sins.”
Pure, unadulterated Orthodoxy!
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.