We certainly believe in His second coming, but some believe he will arrive in style:
Posted on 05/16/2008 3:19:30 PM PDT by netmilsmom
Stemming from this comment
>>I think the RCC doctrines are a product of the enemy<<
Please tell us where we stand here. Examples welcome, but I'm not sure that actual names can be used when quoting another FReeper, so date and thread title may be better.
I’ve found the opposite to be true, but I can understand what you’re saying.
It was an attempt at a zen remark on our question.
Is this question in reaction to the on going discussion of whether or not Mormons are Christians?
You said: P.S. (I wasn’t saved by baptism. I was saved by putting my faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ when I was 30 years old—39 years ago.)
No actually you were saved when Jesus Christ made reparation for our sins by dying on the cross. No action of man can result in him or her being saved. Salvation comes from Grace not works (saying “I put faith in...” is an example of works, indicating that it was by some action on your part that you were saved). That Grace, freely offered through Christ’s sacrifice, was imparted by the Holy Spirit through baptism (and confirmation), and if you would come to the fullness of faith in Jesus Christ you could receive that grace every single day by receiving Him in the Eucharist.
It is my prayer that you, Marysecretary, come to understand this Truth and come to the indescribable joy of union with our Lord Jesus Christ in communion with His Church. Praise God for His many Blessings found in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church!!!
No it was from a discussion where a document from the 1800s was posted that had a problem with Catholics and Mary. That statement was made by a non-Catholic poster. Some of us were really taken aback.
Honestly, I never met, in person, a Protestant that thought Catholics were not Christians and I just wanted to know if my view was only narrow.
I don’t think so ktime. I’m sure there were other folks during those times who followed Christ who were not in the one true church but in the Body of Christ, the really one true church.
The Body of Christ consists of everyone who has heard the Gospel that God became Man and came to Earth to solve the problem of sin in the world, and believes it.
When I was young, Catholics were never allowed inside a protestant church (well, my friend did, and she was one of my bridesmaids. Wonder if she’ll go to hell for that—smile.) You didn’t marry an Italian Catholic either. That was really frowned upon by both religions.
Jesus ( Yah'shua ) was and still is a Jew
and He will return to rule and reign
on the throne of King David in Jerusalem.
Yes, and that's why I was interested in it. My ancestors in (what is now) Northern Ireland would probably have read this version.
The margin notes in the Geneva Bible are just a study guide. Nothing more. I've got a copy. I've read the notes. They are written by men, not God.
A "study guide" is different from a concordance. A concordance is simply a database, and it doesn't matter whether it was compiled by "godly men" or Hindu clerk-typists in Mumbai, as long as it's accurate. Anything other than simple cross-referencing of words or phrases is advice on how to understand the text: that is, commentary.
the notes stressed religious independence from the monarchy.
Which is to say, the notes have an agenda, which is exactly my point. The notes are an addition to the Scriptures.
Show me in scripture that says you need to follow the Roman Catholic tradition to be saved. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and YOU WILL BE SAVED.” Doesn’t sound like the Church had much to do with that.
Wonderful scriptures. Thank you.
It’s a surprising teaching to the average American Catholic, not a lie:
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt2art3.htm
460
The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:78 “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.”79 “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.”80 “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”81
See Psalms 82 and John 10:
Psalm 82 >>
King James Bible
1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
John 10:34-36
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’?
35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken—
36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
The footnotes are also crucial:
78: 2 Pet 1:4.
79: St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939.
80: St. Athanasius, De inc., 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.
81: St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57: 1-4.
St. Athanasius is the author of the sentence most likely to give offence.
Ah, you offer me a koan? I kick over your rice bowl!
As Jesus said, wide is the road leading to destruction; narrow is the way leading to life.
...there is no other way to return to God’s presence, I think you pretty much qualify as a Christian as far as I’m concerned.
Yes, there is no other way (John 14:6), but what would you say to the Mormon who says "all" are resurrected because of Jesus & therefore "all" are "saved?"
Oh, dear. That was something I never realized. Sounds like Mormons somewhat.
Actually, looking at it again, I suppose St. Thomas Aquinas’ passage with its repetition of Psalm 82 may be at least as provocative.
We certainly believe in His second coming, but some believe he will arrive in style:
Petronski is correct, and I will raise the statement. The Western Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) dealt with the OT and NT canon, and the “7 Deuterocanonicals” were included.
The Catholic Encylopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01199a.htm) states:
“At the Synod of Hippo (393), and again at the Synod of 397 at Carthage, a list of the books of Holy Scripture was drawn up. It is the Catholic canon (i.e. including the books classed by Protestants as “Apocrypha”). The latter synod, at the end of the enumeration, added, “But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon”. St. Augustine was one among the forty-four bishops who signed the proceedings.”
In addition, St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation, which would be finished after the close of the Council of Carthage also had the “exact canon” as we Catholics have today. Finally, St. Augustine’s book 2 of “Christian Instruction 397 AD) also lists the 46 Book OT canon that is in the Catholic Church.
In closing, the Catholic Church added nothing in 1546 AD at Trent, it just defended and further defined the canon that was part of the orthodox Apostolic Tradition.
Cheers
That's like saying Jesus was not anointed. "Christ" wasn't the last name for Jesus. He was "the Anointed One," and that's what the Greek "Christos" means.
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.