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
He found me! And I couldn’t be better.
kosta50 wrote:
“These are not coincidental discoveries or prophesies, boatbums. The NT was written so that it would appear the OT is a Christian prophesy, the way the Book of Mormon was written to “prove” that it is the third authentic scripture.”
So, I see that you know, grasp, understand, and can interpret the motives not only of FR posters of the 21st century A.D. but also writers of the first century A.D. What a marvel. I had no idea that agnosticism bestowed so many abilities. I am in awe of you, kosta50, simply in awe.
Don’t feel you have to respond. I’m sure you have far more important things to do, thoughts to think, motives to discern, judgments to render.
kosta:Archeology.
mm: Your opinion.
LOL! Do coins with King Ahaz's name on them count as my "opinion"?
Since you admit that you don't know what truth is, you can't say for sure what they found because you don't KNOW what's true.
The absolute truth, mm (the context was absolute truth). If I knew everything, only then I'd know the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
You'll have to provide better evidence than that if you expect us to believe you
You don't have to believe me. All you have to do is open the Bible and read in Isaiah 7 the name Ahaz. It's there. Whether he lived or not is a different story. His name is in the Bible. Just as Achilles' name is in Iliad. Their historicity, if any, at this point is irrelevant.
I don’t - they follow me around here looking for attention.
‘night!
No it doesn't. First, because you don't have to believe in something to be able to discern it, and secondly because you show now evidence for any of the claims mentioned above.
If you want any credibility in your statements about theology, Scripture, any spiritual matter, you need to know it
I agree. You should follow your own advice.
Or are you now telling us you're an expert in magic books or something you don't know?
Why don't you try me?
That was my original question, way back. I presume it's what God is believed to be. You should know.
LOL! Did you just make that up? That's funny. So, I aks you again: why should I believe you?
until then you are nothing but a troll roaming around posting w/o any knowledge
Or maybe you are?
Ah, yes, not an unexpected response. Your problem, though, is that thousands of people were alive who were eyewitnesses to the events that happened and were still alive when the books were written and circulated. Many were not even followers or believers in Jesus as Messiah. The Roman rulers and soldiers, the Jewish religious leaders, for example. Funny how those 200-300+ OT prophesies were fulfilled so precisely it was almost as if someone had a book/scroll with a check list on it and checked each one off as the individual writers all wrote down their own memories of the events not to mention, there were several people doing the writing in different places and different times. I can just hear the goings on. "No, don't say he was born in Nazareth, he had to be born in Bethlehem. No, not THAT Bethlehem, the smaller one, you know, Ephrahtah not Zebulon." "You idiot! His mother's lineage had to come through King David's son Nathan, not Solomon. Solomon's lineage had that jerk Jechoniah in it and, remember, God said his lineage had a curse on it." "Hey, go tell those soldiers over there to NOT rip up the coat and share it! It has to be gambled over remember? In ONE piece, got it?"
Nah, I'm just not seeing the whole feasibility thing. I think it takes more work to believe it is like you think than to believe that things happened like they did, like they were foretold to happen. And, don't forget, many things foretold in the Bible were yet to happen and we are even today seeing some of them beng fulfilled. Don't think you were the first person to come up with this idea though. Nice try. :o)
Isaih 7 is about King Ahaz who was worried about two Assyrian kings and the fate of the Kingdom of Judah. God tried to appease his fears and offered to give Ahaz a sign, anything he wanted, even the Moon!, just so Ahaz would believe that the sing is from God.
Ahaz refuses to ask for a sign because he doesn't want to test God. God then decides to give him a sign anyway. This is where he says the young woman is with a child. Keep in mind that this is taking place 700 years before Christ! Jesus).
The (verse 16) Isaiah says that before the boy is old enough to refuse evil and choose good (we are talking anywhere from age 7-14), the land of those two kings will be forsaken and the threat to Judah will be no more.
So, chronologically it cannot be about Jesus because that would mean that Jesus was born 700 years before his New Testament birth, ore that Ahaz lived to be more than 700 years old to find out that the sign was really from God.
They are not anonymous, single source writers describing "supernatural" events. In other words, there is substantially more evidence to accept that Luther did exist, if not all aspects of his life. In other words is not legendary by any stretch.
And GOD ALWAYS WAS
How do you know that?
and you speak about HIS Word
How do you know that too?
and yet you are lost and question the One whose Words you post. WEIRD!!
No I simply post the words I find in the Bible.
Historical books suggest otherwise. very few people witnessed anything at all. Luke and Mark were not eyewitnesses, and neither was Paul. I think the problem is in overinflated figures by the NY writers.
the individual writers all wrote down their own memories of the events
Mark and Luke and Paul were not eyewitnesses. Luke even admits that he compiled his Gospel from what he heard form others. Both Matthew (supposed an eyewitness) and Luke borrow form Mar (not an eyewitness) , especially Matthew, in some cases verbatim whole paragraphs (we clal that copying today).
Nah, I'm just not seeing the whole feasibility thing. I think it takes more work to believe it is like you think than to believe that things happened like they did, like they were foretold to happen
You are right, it;s much easier to just believe the story uncritically and ignore all the red flags. Who has time for that.
Don't think you were the first person to come up with this idea though.
I don't. It's worth repeating tough.
In truth, Bible-believing Protestants ARE (at least reasonably) united in faith alone. Among Bible-believing Protestants, those who practice infant baptism and those who do not ALL agree that any form of water baptism does NOT confer salvation. We are all united that concerning salvation it is faith alone, NOT water baptism. It is likewise with scripture interpretation. While there are differences on some issues, Bible-believing Protestants are united that scripture in fact teaches faith alone for salvation.
AMEN, FK!
The more I read of Reformation literature, the more I find unity among Protestants.
I would prefer they all be Calvinists, but that is tangential to the fact that Protestants agree with THE FIVE SOLAS OF THE REFORMATION...
Sola Scriptura
Soli Deo Gloria
Solo Christo
Sola Gratia
Sola Fide
Certainly you do. How does someone discern something he doesn't believe even exists?
Since they were true Christians, the writers of the NT were obviously Protestant Christians since they taught salvation by grace through faith.
Besides which, the !!!!TRADITIONS!!!! of man bureaucratic political power-mongering magicsterical managed RCC Alice in Wonderland School of Theology and Reality Mangling did not even exist until 300-400 years after Christ.
Yes, He does, which is another illustration of "brother" and "sister" used expansively by our Teacher Himself.
Of course not. With everything you said up to her I agree fully.
Grace, undeserved favorable treatment, is nullified when we try to EARN favorable treatment
We simply do what we are told. We are told to ask for grace ("Our Father") and we are told to do good works (Eph 2:10, amany similar). Works do not earn grace. The Sacraments of the Church are free for the asking. You don't earn them, either.
In a lot of gospel narratives the full picture is clear when all the four gospels are consulted together. The scene at the Crucifixion is one of them. The Confession of Peter is perhaps another.
Neither of these two groups of narratives are contradictory. People wrote down who they remembered. Since St. John remembered Mary the Mother of God at the Crucifixion, she was surely there. Since no one mentions Mary the Mother of God at the empty tomb, even though the group of the women is identified by names, she was surely not there.
In the case of St. Mark, the usual explanation of why the narrative about the confession of Peter is so short, — is that St. Mark was a disciple and a secretary of St. Peter, and his boss did not want to elevate himself. It surely does not contradict the fuller St. Mathew’s narrative.
Your confusion and doubt, OldReggie, is characteristic of the bookworm Protestant method, which is, at best, a forensic examination of written evidence, police-station style. A Catholic, in contrast, simply gets the story, knows the story and can explain it to others, because we get the story from the horse’s mouth, the Holy Mother Church and we trust her witness. The difference is between unprocessed information and knowledge.
However, I do not want to discourage your effort. I wish every Protestant applied that very analytical approach to the tenets of their faith and found out how the Protestant theological fantasies contradict the very letter of the scripture.
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.