| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/28/2010 11:54:24 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Per poster’s request |
Posted on 04/18/2010 9:49:35 PM PDT by Judith Anne
I seriously wonder about some FReepers, sometimes. Any other person accused of a crime would be defended by every FReeper as being innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. I've seen whole threads written by men who have been accused of child abuse by ex-wives out to deny them their visitation rights or to wrest more money out of them. These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.
Yet where are those FReepers when a PRIEST is accused? Where is the presumption of innocence? Suddenly, every accusation becomes a verdict, and not only the accused but his entire organization and all its adherents are held responsible.
I can only wonder what some of these so-called conservatives (who so faithfully defend the Constitution) would do, if THEY were the ones accused! It is a nightmare for any man -- all of you know how even the accusation stains the man forever, even if it is proven false!
Not only that, many here assert that the problems of 30, 40 and even 50 years ago must be tried in the media TODAY!
Remember the Duke rape case? There are more similarities than differences here. The priests are accused, nifonged, and instead of being defended, they are vilified!
What other man of you could stand under the weight of such an accusation trumpeted by the press, and come out whole? None! And such accusations made, LONG after the statute of limitations has passed, sometimes even after the accused is dead and buried for YEARS -- are YOU one of those who automatically, reflexively, spitefully, and gleefully act as judge, jury, and executioner?
Women! What if it were YOUR HUSBAND, YOUR BROTHER, YOUR FATHER, YOUR UNCLE, YOUR SON who was accused? Wouldn't you want the best defense possible? Wouldn't YOU believe in their innocence? Wouldn't YOU help protect your loved ones as much as possible? And yet, YOU JUDGE THE CHURCH FOR DOING WHAT YOU WOULD DO?
Shame! Vast shame! On all who have sinned against the innocent!
A complaint like that coming from a Catholic?
Would that be not as bad or worse than burning someone at the stake for heresy against the Catholic church doctrine?
Or threats of ex-communication, which effectively, in the church's eyes, damns someone to hell for ETERNITY?
Then why did the Catholic church canonize it?
And why do Catholics then consider the Gospels superior to Paul's letters?
And if the writings of Scripture are that likely to be subject to error, then why are the traditions of the Catholic church not considered to be so?
Yes, Christ gifted His church with Paul's great mind .
Give us this day our daily bread
It's not getting old, it's a phenomenon of scripture, we must read it constantly, every day if possible, to glean all the nourishment.
The Catholic Church developed the canon of the New Testament, a canon which is still accepted by all Christians. They determined which books went in and which didn't.
And why do Catholics then consider the Gospels superior to Paul's letters?
I think superior is probably the wrong term. I think it would be more accurate to say that Catholics do not show the preference for Pauline epistles that a minority of Protestants do.
And if the writings of Scripture are that likely to be subject to error,
Where have I EVER said that?
then why are the traditions of the Catholic church not considered to be so?
The Catholic Church has NEVER said this.
Thanks for the ruling and have a great day!
And my original response was that the WRITTEN Gospels appeared AFTER Paul was martyred and what was considered "common knowledge" was as likely to be wrong as it was right.
Are you asking a question here?
well that’s why we have America, thanks to the Puritans
No. I'm answering yours. But I just saw that I got the post number wrong. It should have been post 2,618 not 2,816.
mm: And if the writings of Scripture are that likely to be subject to error,
wb question: Where have I EVER said that?
mm answer: In post 2816 2,618 where you said...... "And my original response was that the WRITTEN Gospels appeared AFTER Paul was martyred and what was considered "common knowledge" was as likely to be wrong as it was right."
ROFLMAO - That is the speculation of a failed Catholic. The Catholic Church does not claim the authority to damn anyone or even to question ones Christianity. Excommunication is only an exile from active participation with the Church.
LOL
The Catholic Church acknowledges a "hierarchy of the truths of faith" of the Revealed Word. At the pinnacle of these are the Gospels which contain the words actually spoken by Christ and are perfectly summarized in the Beatitudes. Everything else in the Revealed Word was either in preparation for or in support of the Gospels.
Okay, I think I follow you here.
When I refer to Scripture I am referring to the Canon of Scripture, not just some gnostic writing.
This is why it was necessary for Christ to create a VISIBLE Church and to give the Church infallible authority. To suggest otherwise is to accept as valid the possibility that every word of the New Testament is wrong.
Who were the first Church fathers to start the rumblings on the nature of the Trinity that closely reflect what the Orthodox Church teaches today? I imagine the idea didn't just pop up during a meeting in the 4th century. I've read some of the Church fathers from the first or second centuries that sorta kinda hinted around at the idea, but it's not fully defined at the time. It seems it may have been a theory amongst some of the very first Christians, but just how did it become the winning theory in the 4th century?
I know the idea probably a pretty complex path to it's acceptance by consensus, but maybe you can give a brief outline of the history with a recommendation of where to look from here. :)
No it doesn't You haven't read Jesus own words then.
John 10:30 I and the Father are one.
John 14:5 Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"
6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."
8Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."
9Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.
Colossians 2: 6 Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, 7having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith, just as you were instructed, and overflowing with gratitude.
8See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
9For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
Well done! You are a little like Babe Ruth. You may strike out a lot, but when you get a hold of one you knock it out of the park. This substantiates what I have been saying about the Gospels being the center of the Revealed Word with all other texts serving a supportive role.
But we don't stop there. What follows the "thy will be done" is begging for bread, forgiveness and protection, and even asking God not to lead us into temptation! Does God lead people into temptation?!?
The KJV version of that verse is incorrect. The Greek sentence simply says that the "Lord is the spirit": ὁ δὲ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν; it doesn't say "that" Spirit. Just more mumbo-jumbo play on the words. It's like saying the challenge of politics and the politics of challenge. It mesmerizes the simple minds.
God disagrees with you...
So, Paul is God? Or did God just use Paul as a walking megaphone?
So there's 2 Holy Spirits
Ever heard of a plural whereby the verb to be changes from is to are? Such as one is and two are?
That make a total of 5 in the Catholic Trinity
No it doesn't. Just in the biblical Trinity where the Father (who is a spirit) sends his spirit, and then we have Christ and his spirit (cf Rom 8:9), another Pauline innovation.
I have plenty of just-under-the-skin-before-the-meat tissue I could donate! It really helps to "tenderize" the meat, you know. ;o)
How can the Son be co-eternal when Paul says the Son is the firstborn of the creatures? And how can a creature be of the same substance as the Father?
In fact, the Son specifically states "the Father is greater than I." And Paul specifically states that "the head of Christ is God."
This suggests more than just economic subordination. Of course, John was trying to "bridge" all this for obvious reason, given the context under which this Gospel was written and interpolated.
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.