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.
It has nothing to do with ‘acting’ Christian, mom. I already know how to do that. Trouble is with these forums is when someone tries to show folks error, they put up a wall and won’t even try to listen. Instead they throw flames atcha.
And btw, I did tell you that Vatican.org didn’t exist....Network Solutions actually told both of us.
No it doesn't. It's what someone has inferred, and slapped a "thus saith the Lord" thereon.
And it's not a particularly insightful inference, either.
>>Instead they throw flames atcha.<<
And they spit on Christ. Beat Him and hung him from a cross.
As a Christian, it doesn’t matter what “they” do. Does it?
Believe what you want.
Imagine a Jehovah’s Witness relentlessly following you around trying to show you your errors because they love you.
I could be a foreshadowing of the good news to be preached by Paul to the gentiles. Some believe that Yah'shua spent two days in the land of the SamaritansA very long and detailed study can be done on why samaritans were discussed.
b'SHEM Yah'shua
as a metaphor for two thousand years of preaching to the gentiles.
Do you not see how this is becoming ludicrous?
I didn't post 459 or 461, either. And when asked, I linked to Vatican.va for anyone to read the entire 460.
Apparently the complete sentences I posted from 460 must be interpreted by footnotes and church fathers and other sentences and paragraphs and cannot stand alone under any kind of Biblical scrutiny.
And as anyone can see, the excerpt I gave were quotes from Athanasius and Aquinas so the RCC must have thought they could stand on their own as some kind of factual statements or proofs.
Here's #460 of the RCC catechism (footnote numbers and all)...
"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
And when the excerpt from the RCC catechism was offered to Netmilsmom -- "For the Son of God 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" -- Netmilsmom responded that those words were a "lie" and that they must have been pulled from some anti-catholic website.
As we've seen, those words are a direct excerpt from the RCC catechism and they were referenced from Vatican.va, as I said, and they could not have come from Vatican.org because that site does not exist.
And they are a "lie."
Interesting use of quotations. Show me where she said that.
Then how could my typing "vatican.org" NOT have been a typo, as I said, if you knew the site didn't exist?
You've just proven my point.
You did not claim to do so.
You DID, in post 140, present part of CCC460 without indicating it was a truncation.
No it doesn't. It's what someone has inferred, and slapped a "thus saith the Lord" thereon.
And it's not a particularly insightful inference, either.
YHvH's larger plan of salvation, where His People are blinded for a time,
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
in order to bring His salvation the the gentile nations. NAsbU Romans 11:15 For if their ( His Chosen People ) rejection
And their ultimate salvation after a period of blindness is guaranteed by YHvH's covenant :
is the reconciliation of the world,
what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
NAsbU Romans 11:25 For I do not want you, brethren,
to be uninformed of this mystery--
so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--
that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until
the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;
26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
"THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION,
HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."
27 "THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."
28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake,
but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;
29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
Who cares what anybody thinks Catholics are? Not this Catholic.
Given this request, I thought you ladies might be interested in CTrent's post #498.
What CTrent posted is a very good apologetic, IMO, for the particular section of the catechism in question. It's consistent in that it respects church history, and indeed, shows how vital a role it plays in the Church and Her Magesterium. Also, CTrent cites a website for further reading on the topic of "theosis", an understanding thereof seems to be relevant for full understanding of paragraph 460. Also of note, even before CTrent posted his 498, apparently Petronski also posted an article about the topic of "theosis", which also apparently was ignored.
This would seem to be the issue to focus on, if one wishes to thoroughly rebuke Catholicism on this point, (para #460 of the Catechism, i.e., is "theosis" contrary to Scripture and why? Obviously to answer this question, one must know what theosis is, and therefore, reading is required if one does not), rather than focusing on footnotes and who put them where.
I was not describing my attitude.
Obviously, but I do not want anyone taking your words to heart as their reason for filing abuse reports and pinging the moderators for such conduct on “open” threads.
Petronski - Interesting use of quotations. Show me where she said that.
Let us all remember fondly Netmilsmom post #169 on this thread (as I underlined)...
>>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. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22For+the+Son+of+man+became+man+so+that+we+might+become+God.+The+only+begotten+Son+of+God%2C+wanting+to+make+us+sharers+in+his+divinity%2C+assumed+our+nature%2C+so+that+he%2C+made+man%2C+might+make+men+gods&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1 169 posted on 05/16/2008 5:59:03 PM PDT by netmilsmom To: Dr. Eckleburg
I provided a link (many many times) to Vatican.va. showing that sentence to be a part of the RCC catechism straight from Rome.
I offered evidence that I was not posting from vatican.org (a singular and corrected typo on my part) since we all know vatican.org DOES NOT EXIST.
As anyone can read for themselves, Netmilsmom labeled the exact words of the RCC a "lie."
On that, we agree.
>>Then how could my typing “vatican.org” NOT have been a typo, as I said, if you knew the site didn’t exist?<<
I didn’t know it at all until after you stated that you “lifted” verbatim from it.
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)
Hmmm. Let's look at that again:
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.
She did not state that, she stated that unless . . . That is a conditional.
Who is supposed to be fooled by post 838?
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.