Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save
?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live
There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ
The burden of proof lies with the RC .. What proof do THEY have that the traditions they promote are FROM God?
Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, [as] the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do
How do you know if a tradition is a tradition of God or men? What is your measuring rod?
He can be found in His Holy Word. Come away from the Traditions of man Seek the face of YHvH.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
which cloud the face of YHvH.
{The Lord is called Mary's firstborn (Matt.1:25; Lk. 2:7), and the natural inference is that she had other children. The Gr. protokos is used only in Rom. 8:29; Col 1:15-18; Heb. 1:6; 11:28; 12:23; Rev. 1:5 of the first of many others. Had He been her only son, the word would have been monogenes, which occurs in Lk. 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; of human parentage of the "only son", "only daughter," and "only child"; and of the Lord Jesus as "the only begotten of the Father" (Jn. 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1 Jn. 4:9).}
***********************************************************************{Dake's Annotated Reference Bible. page 67, NT, Col. 4, D.}
It appears that
IF THE SELFSERVING BUREAUCRATIC MAGICSTERICAL POWER-MONGERS SAY IT
the hogs in the wallow suck it up like candy.
RnMomof7 wrote:
“The burden of proof lies with the RC .. What proof do THEY have that the traditions they promote are FROM God?”
This is, first, a very important point. The burden of proof does lie with Rome. Just as the Bereans did not accept without consulting the Holy Scriptures of the OT what Paul was teaching. When they found that his teaching about the Christ was in perfect agreement with the Law (read: Torah of Moses) and the Prophets, they welcomed him for who he was. There is much to learn in this incident.
Second, this is a very good question. The very best proof, indisputable among Christians, would be agreement with the plain meaning of the Scriptures. Since what Rome calls “apostolic tradition” is so often in conflict with the plain meaning of the Scriptures, they are simply not believed.
How does the church know she stayed a virgin?
The answer is they do not.. This "tradition" is passed down from people that believed sex would somehow soil her.. make her human.
What I think is most noteworthy of the claim by the Roman church that Mary was a perpetual virgin is that it just does not matter..
The state of Mary's sex life has nothing to do with our salvation . She is not our savior, her sins have no impact on our salvation . She was a real flesh and blood human woman, there is not one thing in the plan of salvation that demanded she remain a virgin ..
LOL! It’s nice we have your permission. (control and victim hood)
Quote away, smvoice. As I said, there are good arguments both ways. That is the problem. I, for one, am not going to presume to instruct the Holy Spirit on His choice of words. Word usage and context, both immediate and general, determine meaning, not simply what the dictionary entry says.
Coincidently, I too am both a firstborn son and a monogenes. Both are true. Deal with it.
Like I said . . .
It must be active enough because it bothers some. They want you to come down to their level of darkness.
God created animals, evil even hates that.
Two important traditions are apostolic succession and the infallibility Church councils certified by the pope. Of course these traditions are demonstrated in scripture fully verified by history. However, some Protestants assert that the biblical proof is not explicit enough and that historical evidence is inadmissible, even when the truth of said evidence is beyond question.
I could understand ruling out historical reports that were doubtful, but denying proven history amounts to denying truth. When such proven history concerns issues of Christian doctrine, the denial amounts to a rejection of true doctrine.
Thanks
I’ve worn out a Dakes or 3.
Great stuff.
Thanks.
PERFECT. It slices to bits the heresy teaching of the RCC about Mary.
“For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart”.
BUT Scripture is inspired and infallible..to have faith in the teachings of men is like Dorothy clicking her heels together to go back to Kansas
Catholics have to trust the word of men, no where supported in the scriptures.. the blind follow the blind and they all fall into the pit
Second, this is a very good question. The very best proof, indisputable among Christians, would be agreement with the plain meaning of the Scriptures. Since what Rome calls “apostolic tradition” is so often in conflict with the plain meaning of the Scriptures, they are simply not believed.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
WELL PUT.
THX.
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.