Some body talking about me?
Posted on 05/26/2008 3:47:41 PM PDT by delacoert
Mormons agree with most of the creed, but the Trinitarian notion of the nature of God will always separate us from classical Christianity in important ways.
The current United Methodist hymnal contains two versions of the Apostles’ Creed. The “traditional version” omits “He descended into hell,” but includes a footnote explaining that these words are included in the “traditional use of this creed.” The “ecumenical version” states that “he descended to the dead” after he “was crucified, died, and was buried.”
The “traditional version” also uses the phrase “to judge the quick and the dead,” whereas the “ecumenical version” uses the phrase “the living and the dead.”
Both versions use “holy catholic church,” a phrase not used in the Canadian Creed and the Korean Creed, which are also included in the hymnal. Both of these statements refer simply to “the church.”
I’ve noticed all the versions of the Creed in our current Methodist hymnal. Of course, I grew up using the “Red” hymnal, and only recall the traditional one, and is the one I know by heart. I do like reading the different versions though (In the small, rural Methodist church I attended while living in Tennessee, we still used the Cokesbury hymnal. Remember that one?)
I couldn’t have said it better.
Some body talking about me?
I know the difference and I know the origin of the difference.
I've not really heard much at ALL about 'creed' until the Mormons tried to use it similar to a priest using Holy Water and a Cross against Dracula!
It is Joseph Smith's ultimate strawman agrument.
The ONLY thing they can find 'wrong' with 'The Creed' is the Trinitarian statement.
(I wonder if that's because it points out THEIR 'veiw' of the Godhead.)
You'd think they'd have NO problem with the 'creed' if they TRULY believed THIS from their OWN creed!!
#11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
AMEN!
You are going to have to settle for an imperfect one... ;^)
How come there is so LITTLE 'prophecy' escaping his lips?
Q?
Suggest is it, for you'll not find any DEFINITIVE descriptions of just WHAT is (was) abominable!
|
Galatians 1:7-10
7. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. 2 Corinthians 11:14-15
14. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve. Revelation 13:13-15
13. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, 14. And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
It appears that EXPERIENCES can be deceiving...
If one believes the Bible is correct, then, by that Standard, Mormonism fails the test.
If, however, you are convinced that the Bible is either in error, been corrupted or mis-interpreted, then you are free to believe whatever you wish.
|
|
Scientology is a newer religion than Mormonism...
|
|
|
Don't make fun of them,
they have a right to have
their moronic beliefs respected.
  |
|
Lemon ice; anyone?
>> The word “catholic” with a small-c exists to this day as an adjective:
1. broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal.
2. universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all.
3. pertaining to the whole Christian body or church.
It is not used only in connection with the RC church.
I was rasied Episcopalian and that was in how we said the Creed too. <<
It’s not a new assertion, but it still is a false one:
“Catholic” meant “universal,” as opposed to “particular.” That a community professed a belief in “one catholic” church was an explicit denial of the validity of all other churches outside the authority of that one, catholic church. This was in response to gnostics and other heretics asserting false doctrines or invalid morals, often basing their teachings on invalid analyses (i.e., numerology, mystical revelation, syncretism) of ancient scriptures. The Church Fathers did not so much assert valid analytical techniques, but relied simply on the authority of those who retained the traditional interpretations: only if they are in union with their bishop are they a true church. Hence, this creed became known as the Apostle’s Creed because it signified union with the apostles.
Because heretical groups began to assert their own bishops, and others began to assert their own networks of conformity, the Nicene Creed added to the Apostle’s Creed the term, “apostolic.” A true bishop was one appointed by an apostle as that apostle’s successor, or another true bishop.
>> It is not used only in connection with the RC church. <<
Only because 1400 years after it was first, the term was usurped. It had always meant that there was one church. Even when the Catholic Church split in the great schism, the two churches both claimed to be the Catholic church: one on an appeal to authority (”Roman,” referring to the see of the patriarch which both recognized as “first among equals”) and the other on an appeal simply to correctness (”Orthodox,” meaning “right doctrine”).
I think we’ll agree on this:
Mormonism isn’t so much an anti-creedal system of belief. Quite to the contrary: they’ve simply elevated their peculiar creeds to the level of scripture. D&C, anyone?
As a non-Mormon, non-Utahan, I don’t get it. They just look fat.
And frumpy, and ordinary. ... much like me and the rest of us I guess. ,-)
OK. so the point is that they’re not from Lipo-Land anymore?
I think I later gleaned that they were celebrities superimposed onto locals’ bodies. The strange one: Cameron Diaz looked better.
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.
