Posted on 03/14/2010 12:14:46 PM PDT by NYer
Facts: you would think they would carry more weight then the random use of all caps, but sadly not always the case
INDEED :-P
lol - Nicely played!
These guys are so delusional — the latest post says that St Paddy was a Baptist :-P
and why not - if you’re making up facts why stop with small ones? That whole “The Big Lie” kinda deal. But on a side note, did you ever read “How the Irish Saved Civilization”? It relates a lot of fascinating info on Patrick and his great Baptist counterpart St. Columba and their doings.
I like the book though I don’t completely agree with it — the Irish did retain civilisation while the rest of Western Europe was over-run by barbarians (with the exceptions of Rome, Sicily, the southern tip of ITaly and Venetia (all under Byzantine protection). Greece and the lower balkans were under the protection of the Byzantines as was the rest of the Middle East, so civilisation remained over there.
Cronos responded to a previous point.
First the point:
“EVERY BIBLICAL EXAMPLE of any devotion directed to any object or personage but God, is fiercely proscribed,”
Then Cronos’ response:
“Yup, like to the Ark or the Temple. And woe betide anyone who kneels before a Bible to pray or read.”
You make a very valid point here, one well supported, at least in the case of the Ark and Temple, in the Biblical record. But there is a fine line to be trod here, as Jeremiah pointed out: “Do not trust in these lying words, saying, ‘The temple, of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD are these.” (Jeremiah 7:4) Was Jeremiah saying the temple was not the house of the LORD? Hardly! Indeed, look what he was told to do in the verses immediately preceding these: “The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, ‘Stand in the gate of the LORD’s house, and proclaim there this word, and say, “Hear the word of the LORD, all you of Judah who enter in at these gates to worship the LORD!”’ Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: ‘Amend your ways and your doings, and I will cause you to dwell in this place ... ‘”
Many Catholics tend to err on the one side and many Protestants on the other. But there is something very important here that bears close examination and not merely virtual (LIKE THIS) shouting at each other, close observation of the language and usage of the Scriptures.
Thank you for posting your observation.
makes a lot of sense
I didn't know St Ambrose's history is written in the Bible. In what book may I find it.
I’m pointing out one thing — Baptists do not worship the Bible as a book, neither do Catholics worship statues. We both hold what is in the Bible as holy
I wrote, “I do reject the notion that the Roman Catholic Church is somehow the only legitimate expression of Christ’s Church.”
You responded, “Then, unknowingly, you reject Christ.”
There it is. You say that the Roman Catholic Church is the only legitimate expression of Christ’s Church. I appreciate that you don’t shy away from verbalizing what so many Roman Catholics refuse to admit: that the Roman Catholic faith considers Christians to be unsaved because they simply follow Christ as the Head of His Church.
Such arrogance is bewildering, big’ol_freeper. To say that I reject Christ because I follow Him undistracted by extra-biblical concepts about Mary et al. is something so twisted that I’d expect to hear it out of a Democrat’s mouth. I am so sorry that your faith in Christ alone is so weak that you feel faith in Him is not sufficient; I’m sorry to hear that you feel one is saved only through Christ ... PLUS something else: membership in the Church of Rome.
Just as Christ denounced the prevailing and intrenched branch of Judaism of His day, so He denounces the Roman Catholic Church of today. Your priests are modern day Pharisees, and what He said then is applicable now:
“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.”
The truth is, Christ *is* sufficient. It was *Jesus* who died on the cross, not your particular institution. I trust in my Savior, not in the Roman institution. I am a member of the Church that Christ founded, not the Roman institution. And may Christ increase, and Rome decrease.
Sola interpretura leads to errors because it’s a personal interpretation. Just as wmfights made his personal interpretation of a FACT without reading it completely, in the same way sola interpretura leads to the same error as the practisioners do not read the bible in it’s entirety as a community but are prone to individual errors, hence the rapid diversity in opinions
I must add on that I do believe that the Irish did a lot of good and were the candle-bearers of civilisation. In fact, the AngloSaxons held the Irish in high esteem as very civilised folks, but post the Norman invasions of Ireland, this perception changed, so that by the 1700s, the image of the Irish were as a barbaric, scarcely human people
I see wmfights' question relating to Catholic practice of infant baptism. Should not Ambrose have been baptized earlier? But the question still remains about church practice when he is baptized------>Bishop in such a short time.
in the same way sola interpretura leads to the same error as the practisioners do not read the bible in it’s entirety as a community but are prone to individual errors, hence the rapid diversity in opinions
The diversity in opinion can be attributed to any number of factors. But, the diversity is no less in the Catholic church membership or in the Magisterium itself when doctrines of such import as IC and infallibility were not arrived at until late in the game so to speak. What happened to those who passed before they had the chance to embrace IC? Isn't it necessary to do so for salvation?
The FOCUS vis a vis the Ark
was NOT to be on the box and the gold nor even the Cherubim.
The FOCUS WAS ON THE MANIFEST PRESENCE OF THE GLORY OF THE LIVING GOD VIBRANTLY 'RESTING' THERE--ON THE SHIKINAH GLORY OF THE ONE AND ONLY LIVING GOD.
Which word is so difficult in:
HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME?
Cronos wrote:
“I’m pointing out one thing — Baptists do not worship the Bible as a book, neither do Catholics worship statues. We both hold what is in the Bible as holy.”
No disagreement.
And I take you at your word that you didn’t intend to say anything more that the one thing you said. However, whether intentionally or not, I am suggesting that you put your finger on something very important that tends to divide, for example, Catholics and Baptists. In fact, it tends to get them shouting at each other pretty quickly. This thing, I would contend, needs careful and reasonable examination. But maybe that is too much to hope for in such a format as this.
No, wmfights said — and refer to the posts at the start that St. Ambrose was a pagan and became a bishop from pagan within a week. THAT (the bit about him being a pagan) was flawed interpretation
This first is unacceptable, as it is obviously a preface by the author - No one questions her belief in what she saw, nor her long devotion... Still, this comment seems to be in the form of a greeting, and comes before the meat of the prophetic content. The full quote in context demands such a position:
I write in obedience to you, my God, who command me to do so through his Excellency the Bishop of Leiria and through your Most Holy Mother and mine.
I will leave aside the fact that the one who "commanded her through the Bishop of Leiria" was in fact, the pope, not God. It is incidental to the main thrust of this conversation, but it shouldn't be forgotten.
“Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God” —> directed to God
While I will accept this, though tenuously, it is incidental -- It isn't a promise, but part of an apocalyptic description. A promise is made in the first person.
Throughout The Prophecy, Jehovah's prophets, speaking in the first person as Jehovah Himself, say: "I will do..."
These promises are the portion of a prophecy which are measurable against the deity and/or the prophet. In Jehovah's case, the only prophet to speak otherwise than for Jehovah in the first person, was Christ; But that is incidental, as when He says "I will," speaking of Himself, He is speaking as God.
Who is the "first person" speaking authoritative promises in this case? What creature in Heaven and earth would have such audacity?
WELL PUT, AS USUAL.
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.