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.
And when a complaint was made that the footnotes had been removed (which most people do with footnote numbers) I reposted to INCLUDE the footnote numbers. AND I linked to the Vatican.va so that anyone with a computer could see the excerpt was straight from Rome.
The facts remain...
1) Netmilsmom has said my typing "Vatican.org" was NOT a typo, but intentional, and that I posted FROM "Vatican.org."
I would REALLY like Netmilsmom (or anyone) to show me how I could have posted ANYTHING from Vatican.org when that site DOES NOT EXIST.
2) Regardless of the footnotes, Netmilsmom labeled as a "lie" the actual words of the RCC catechism #460.
And on that, we agree.
All this ridiculous, combative reflexology simply underscores the legalistic nature of the RCC. God forbid we discuss the words of the catechism (for all to read in black and white.) Thus something must have been "doctored" because when read verbatim from the catechism the actual words the RCC is putting forth are as repellent to a lot of Catholics as they are to all Protestants.
Laugh all you want, to your detriment, perhaps. I pray not.
>>I was ignorant of them until I became a FReeper<<
I’m not really sure that the Religion forum on FR is the best way to find out how to act Christian!
As is yours and everyone else’s.
I don’t think anyone should be interested in my private interpretation of the scripture and I very rarely offer such.
I also normally ignore snide one liners. If you have a specific question, please pose it and I will answer in detail.
You said: Nothing was "doctored." Word for word from the RCC catechism.
And I replied: It WAS doctored: the footnote numbers were removed.
Your repost with the link and footnote numbers was admirable and I thank you for it.
Nonetheless, the claim "nothing was doctored" is false.
No and NEITHER DO YOU. What I do know, is what many mainstream Protestant denominations teach and they disagree with what YOU believe. This is not an opinion, this is a fact. MOST Protestants believe in infant baptism, MOST Protestants believe in some form of the Real Presence. I could go on but will not.
Why don't you go try to save THEIR souls?
Catholics have been doing exactly the same thing for nearly two thousand years. We didn't change ANYTHING, Protestants did.
Was the entire NT written in Greek, originally? Or was it written in more than one language?
My interpretation of Scripture is that of His Church, the one He founded, the Catholic Church.
>>1) Netmilsmom has said my typing “Vatican.org” was NOT a typo, but intentional, and that I posted FROM “Vatican.org.”
<<
No, YOU said you posted from Vatican.org, twice.
And Please show the post number where I said that you posted from Vatican.org. You said it, I didn’t.
>>2) Regardless of the footnotes, Netmilsmom labeled as a “lie” the actual words of the RCC catechism #460. <<
No, go back to post 140. I NEVER said the words, just the cut and past. If it had been lifted from Vatican.va as the correcting post was, you would have had numbers in it.
Other than you, who said that? LOL
I will also note that your post #140 truncated CCC460 without indicating such. There are four quotations in CCC460, you posted two of them, and gave no indication you had omitted the other two.
LOL. For the eighth time, nothing was "doctored." I removed the footnote numbers just like I remove the footnote numbers most of the times I excerpt from the Westminster Confession of Faith!
And when you complained, I inserted the footnotes. They're NUMBERS, not words. Anyone who reads the RCC catechism knows most sentences are footnoted (Not from Scripture, of course, but from men.)
Of course, I'm assuming you've read the catechism. Maybe that was the problem.
Your contention was that I excerpted from Vatican.org (rather than that being a typo) which you said must be an anti-catholic site.
Please show the world any sentence I could possible have taken, excerpted, doctored, stolen, referenced or used from Vatican.org.
Because Vatican.org DOES NOT EXIST.
Again, please tell us why you labeled the verbatim words of the RCC catechism $#460 as a "lie." With or without footnotes, the words stand as RCC teaching. The footnotes merely support the assertion made in 460.
This has been a fascinating exercise in spin, netmilsmom. I may write it up for later use.
And your contention was that through Paul, the Gospel was preached to the Gentiles. Luke was certainly a participant in that as Acts certainly shows.
But there is no scriptural evidence that he was not a Jew.
Many have long believed he was and his Gospel certainly emphasizes the positive attributes of Gentiles (the Good Samaritan).
I never said Vatican.org, you did....
To: Dr. Eckleburg
>>For the Son of man became man so that we might become God. 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<<
Unless you can provide a link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and not not the “Let Us Reason” website (which is all that came up on this quote) I would say it’s a lie.
169 posted on Friday, May 16, 2008 8:59:03 PM by netmilsmom (I am Ironmom. (but really made from Gold plated titanium))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Ah, yes, Jesus did found the one true church, THE BODY OF CHRIST.
>>1) Netmilsmom has said my typing “Vatican.org” was NOT a typo, but intentional, and that I posted FROM “Vatican.org.”<<
Post 552 “The verbatim excerpt I posted was “lifted” from Vatican.org.” (by Dr. E)
Post 533 “The bottom line, however, amidst all this deflection, is that you as a Catholic challenged the words which I posted which were verbatim from the catechism of the Catholic church, via Vatican.org.” (by Dr. E)<<
Really? When you finally posted the entirety of CCC460, you included four quotes, from 2 Pet 1:4, St. Irenaeus, St. Athanasius and St. Thomas Aquinas.
Would you like to amend your claim "...Not from Scripture, of course, but from men...." or let it stand?
Yes, I know they believe in infant baptism but not as salvific. I was baptized as an infant in the Episcopal church myself. When I became a believer, I was baptized again and immersed. I was an Episcopalian, Methodist, Baptist and now in a spirit-filled, charismatic church for the past 25 years. So, believe me, I DO know what some believe and what some omit!
I pray for the opportunity to witness to anyone who needs Christ, Catholic, Protestant or whatever else. I have led some to Christ, especially elderly people from our former music ministry. What a joy it is to be able to do that.
It then matches the LXX for proof texting. The expressions used by MatthewMy understanding is that it was breathed by the Holy Spirit in Koine Greek.
b'SHEM Yah'shua
and Paul show signs of a Hebrew mind-set however.
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.