beyond question."
PRISSY-NESS
STRIKE ALERT!
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
mas cerveza por favor (noch einmal Pils bitte) asserted:
“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.”
Where is apostolic succession in the NT?
In which verse of the NT is the pope referred to who certified the Jerusalem council (that is, I assume, the council to which you are referring)?
Help me out here.
No! reread the rest of what Schaff wrote.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED:
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
“. . . beyond question.”
EXACTLY - TRULY LAUGHABLE!
Where is the good, Scriptural teaching that Mary was always a virgin?
At the same time it is recognized that through the centuries heretical assaults on the divinity/humanity of the one Christ have been made, indirectly, by those who would sow doubt about the virgin birth and the very possibility of Mary’s being and remaining virgin.
There's a big difference between the virgin birth and the perpetual virginity of Mary.
The virgin birth was fulfillment of prophecy. It was necessary and had to happen. Her perpetual virginity is not.
Which all gets back to a very old and wise question, WHY is anyone so obsessed with Mary’s perpetual virginity either way?
It's a matter of truth. Scripture is truth and there are enough passages to support that she had other children. Teaching otherwise is a lie, no matter how many *church fathers* believed otherwise. If it's not part of the canon, of the infallible Word of God that was given us in Scripture, it's suspect, no matter how many people believe it and how long ago they decided on it.
They think" saying "they have scriptural support ends the discussion
I believe it is because they are used to swallowing what they are told whole without searching the scriptures to see if they are true..
Dear metmom, before we begin this - sigh - are you willing to admit that maybe, maybe, Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, Martin Chemnitz etc. etc. were not heretical theologians, impious students of Holy Scripture or incompetent scholars of Hebrew and Greek?
I ask a serious question. I will await an answer.
Psalm69:8 I have become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother’s sons.
The "other" children of the Blessed Mother is THE CHURCH. Our Lord made His mother OUR mother on the Cross (see John 19:26-27).
Think that one through. The church. He became an a stranger to the CHURCH and an alien to the CHURCH?
The ones who He says do His will in Matthew and Mark thus becoming what He calls His brothers and sisters?
That interpretation of Psalms makes NO sense with the meaning of brothers and sisters being the church. It only makes sense with biological children.
I can see it now. Jesus is the oldest who knew no sin.
The other kids are fighting and Mary says in an exasperated voice, *Why can't you be more like Jesus?*
I'll bet that went over real well. It sure would explain their attitude in the Gospels.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
The burden of proof lies with those who propose novelty. For 1500 years, the Catholic Church authenticated its teaching by reference to its scripture in the context of history. No Christian ever thought to question this basic understanding of reality.
It was not until Northern Europe grew under the Church from a state of barbarism to an advanced, prosperous civilization with a moveable type press that it discarded history. The scholastic linear logic that had sufficed in simpler times became passe. Everybody "modern" was obviously much smarter than those old medieval simpletons. Suddenly, the long-established truths became mere playthings bandied about by the new sophisticates. Every blacksmith and merchant had become wiser than the Fathers and Doctors by reading Luther's new mistranslation.
The avant garde of the Sixteenth Century were putty in the hands of the liberal press, just as they are today.
Sure. But I’m still waiting for that Scripture that supports her perpetual virginity.
AMEN! AMEN! WELL PUT.
You are aware, are you not, that even if she didn’t have any other children, that is not indicative of her sex life? All it would mean is that she didn’t have any other children.
Other children would mean she was not a virgin for sure.
no other children proves nothing either way.
There’s a huge amount of territory between
incompetent and infallible.
Then there’s all the issues about
incompetent about what sorts of issues, details, historical facts?
Infallible about everything Biblical? Cue horse laugh.
So Christ commits incest?
Jesus placed his mother in the care of John ...he NEVER made her the mother of His bride..
1. Not only do we see "equal authority" of each Apostle throughout Scripture, we see nowhere where Peter is given any authority unique to him.
(To all the Apostles) (DOUAY-RHEIMS) MATHEW 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
**********************************************************
2. Peter was not given a new name at the time he was given the "keys". The name was given the very first time Jesus met him.
(DOUAY RHEIMS) JOHN 1:
41 He findeth first his brother Simon, and saith to him: We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
42 And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.
**********************************************************
3. The Catholic Church does not teach the Church was built on Peter but upon his confession of faith.
CATHOLIC CATECHISM
424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.
881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head." This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
***********************************************************
Who called [and presided at] the "Council of Jerusalem"?
But it is St. Peter who makes the winning argument. Since the council was local in Jerusalem, the bishop of Jerusalem presided, and he was St. James. This episode illustrates the model of Catholic episcopacy very well. It is conciliar in its nature and not dictatorial.
Hardly worthy of comment. The argument doesn't pass the most elementary sniff test.
Peter was one among other leaders at this "council" and was subordinate to James. There was no such thing as a hierarchy with a single "leader" during the life of Peter. (This development took several hundred years before the "Papacy" was invented".
Ahhhhhhh . . . OK. I can see that.
AYE AYE, SIR.
BTW, I’m willing for the critter to always be about me.
I wouldn’t want them to suffer withdrawals without that reflex posting.
Please do not respond to my posts any more if you are unable to make an argument.
Am smiling....you’re exatly right. I didn’t consider the “choice” they gave God...sheesh! So apparent too! But isn’t the selection of the next Pope rather like this...they put up those they determine worthy of the roll and then go thru the selction process....rather like drawing straws? What comes to mind is the blanket they toss outside the window once a Pope has been decided on. Guess I’ll have to look at that closer too.
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.