Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Thanks for the info O.R. Maybe Peter was still ticked-off at Paul because he defied his authority in Jerusalem earlier and Paul wasn’t a big fan of Peter either??? Yeah, that’s the ticket!!! ;o)
Actually it's Christians that do...It was Paul who told us where folks were first called Christians...And it was under Paul's teaching...
No, Paulicians, by definition. That is by the Church of Jesus Christ, and not issued by the Pope of the LaZBoy recliner Throne of Theology in the Sacred Hall of Sunday Sports. Christians do not elevate any man beyond Christ.
You guys quote Paul's epistles in places as if they were facts of life...But where the epistles condemn you religion, you complain that they are not red letters...
Nope, we complain that you guys take them out of context. Paul is read more than any other NT author and only the Gospels are read more. But as St. Peter said, morons and fools misinterpret Paul, as they do all the other Scriptures. We have 2000 years of trying to contend with these morons and fools.
Would I get this if I became a Catholic???
A Christian, at any rate...
“Paul is responsible as bishop for a certain portion of the Church.”
What portion might that be?
Proverb of the day. New idea.
I always suspected, my friend, that the Calvinist version of perfection and the Christian one is notably different. This merely adds more evidence.
We know from Scripture that Moses, Elijah, the good thief and Enoch are with Jesus in heaven. We know that the human Jesus ascended into heaven. We also know that Moses and Elijah are there in their bodily form, as they appeared as such with Jesus in the Transfiguration passage.
St. Matthew (17:1-6), St. Mark (9:1-8), and St. Luke (9:28-36), (Lk 23:39-43), Hebrews 11:5
From this we can confidently surmise two things. That there are in heaven saints in their humanly form and that Jesus is the reason they are there. Enoch had pleased God with his faith.
Mary most likely lived past the writings of the New Testament for it is incredible to believe that she could have died without any mention by its authors, especially John with whom she resided after Jesus’ death. John does mention Mary in Revelation 12 as the woman clothed with the sun, crying out in agony with birth pangs. Now many claim that this is a contradiction by the Church who avows that Mary suffers no birth pangs when Jesus was born. However, she suffered greatly when Jesus died and was subject to the prince of death, but Jesus was snatched(rose again)and was taken to heaven. His death is the birth of the church, to be precise, when His side was pierced and water and blood flowed forth from His side.
At this time John was on the island of Patmos. Revelations (a vision) is unlike any other book in the NT so it is not unusual that he does not write about the live Mary, but of the Mary he saw in heaven. Most likely, she had died as John was very old himself then.
I am aware that most protestants reject that interpretation of that passage in Revelation, but remember, they also reject the Catholic interpretation of the Bread of Life discourse in the Gospel of John.
It is amazing that the resting place of Mary’s body is unclaimed by any city or church. Even Ephesus where she lived with John.
All this being said. Catholic exegesis has led the Church to proclaim that Mary upon her death or dormition as the Orthodox call it, was taken into heaven by her son Jesus. She certainly had pleased God, had she not?
Naaah -- I vote for Marcion as more significant and Arius as more important (I think Nestorius was misunderstood) --> you forget that under Arius the Germanics became followers of a heresy.
Marcion never had a 40 foot statue erected. Marcion, as well as Mohammed was one of his influences, but Calvin alone has redirected more individuals away from Christ than any other individual.
Are you saying that it is pretty good odds that on any given day that any particular psychologist will be on the business end of the couch?
I won't embarass him/her anymore.
ROTFLOL, AGAIN and AGAIN at the audacity of arrogance.
Please, I can only take so much
Excerpting is a fine science, isn't it?
See, your religion teaches that all you believe comes from a mixture of Scripture, Tradition, and doctrine. NOT from Scripture only. If you want to debate on Scripture, I'm good with that. But please do not tell me you have only Scripture as your basis of religion. It's just NOT true. There is no one who believes that, except you.
Surmise? you pray to someone you SURMISE is there bodily to intercede for you? You would be better off praying to Enoch of Elijah, then. We KNOW they are there, bodily.
HA! Perfect. ; )
I should note that my response to your query is a VERY limited, concise and succinct synopsis of thousands of years of Catholic study and theology.
I could not possible post here all the beautiful words written in support of the love Jesus has for his mother, but I have tried to show how the explicit in Scripture leads to an implicit understanding having been reached by the Church.
I just made a .txt file that I bring up and copy and paste from.
Negative; after he left the Church, his wandering feet found their way to Geneva, where, after one monumental failure, he returned to enslave the good burghers of Geneva and sucked the life out of them for more than two centuries after his death.
Impossible in this thread as the muck is definitely at nose level by now. LOL
But some of us don’t mind the muck. I don’t relish it, but then what’s a little much considering our first brothers and sisters in the faith faced lions, beheading and other gruesome and painful deaths defending it.
Thanks for your input.
The audacity of arrogance in posting that nonsense that you posted should make you red with embarrassment, not laughing.
Didn't I see you on Animal House with Dean Wormer?
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.