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
I, too, would not take everything in the Protoevangalium literally. The idea that the Jerusalem Temple in 1c had virgins looks too hellenistic to me. However, that is not the same as to say that the Protoevangelium is entirely wrong on that. Women serving in some capacity is known in temple Judaism as is young women being dedicated to God.
Exodus 38:8, as well as 1 Samuel 2:22 mention "the women that waited at the door of the tabernacle".
The daughter of Jephte the Galaadite was dedicated to God ina virgin state unwittingly by her father, and that created a certain custom mentioned in Judges 11:39.
Luke 2:36 says that Prophetess Anna "departed not from the temple".
Philo of Alexandria in On the Contemplative Life describes an apparent Jewish Hellenized practice of chastity observed by men and women:
the women also share in this feast, the greater part of whom, though old, are virgins in respect of their purity (not indeed through necessity, as some of the priestesses among the Greeks are, who have been compelled to preserve their chastity more than they would have done of their own accord), but out of an admiration for and love of wisdom, with which they are desirous to pass their lives, on account of which they are indifferent to the pleasures of the body, desiring not a mortal but an immortal offspring...
Well god believes in fire and brimstone, and has used it in the past and says He will use it again. Even Peter said so:And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample to those that after should live ungodly;
Any book form 2c. that says something to that effect is evidence. It is not a direct scriptural evidence, or archeological material evidence, but evidence it is. Since the book survived and even an apostolic provenance was (incorrectly) attached to it shows that its material was bleievable to the people close in age and culture to the times when Mary lived.
You can see that Mary did not intend to have children from Luke 1:34, "How shall this be done, because I know not man?". A woman intending to have children with her future husband would not ask how children are made.
On that, I agree. It is over the top, and a Catholic Christian does not have to believe that. But the fact that Mary did not understand how was it possible for her to have a child (luke 1:34) is Bibilical evidence that for one reason or another she was under some vows.
They werre historical people. But it is possible for a historical person to also be a type, as for example, Moses is both a historical person and a type of Jesus. I haven't read Belteshaxxar's post you are referring to, but your either/or permise here is wrong.
attributing a type of Christ to Mary [...] is blasphemy
Of course it is, -- and no one is doing that. She is connected to the Economy of Salvation in her historical riole as His mother, which is in itself big enough.
Unbelievable denial of reality!!!! Even the nuns and monks would not make such an assumption...they KNOW better.
No, Protestants believe in fire and brimstone, God knows better.
Thank you, Lord for opening heavens for us and giving us the Community of Saints, our true family (Luke 8:21), in whose company we pray and praise Thee.
Howw is that "of course" given the speech of the Angel which we know verbatim?
Boy, there’s a number of references to it, past and future, so are you denying what the bible says now too?
They are of decisive value, because unlike 16c charlatans you listen to, they lived in the actual culture in which the scripture was written, and being Christians and unlike modern armchair theologians, often paid their lives for their faith.
I suppose it depends on the degree or importance of the separation(s). There are certainly many churches out there I would not attend, but which claim to be "protestant". However, I would be happy to attend virtually all, if not all, of the churches of the Protestants with whom I see you regularly conversing with here on FR. I think they represent a number of different denominations, so I think it means something that we are united "enough" that worshiping in each other's churches poses no particular problem. Under other circumstances I could easily see myself joining a number of them. I would readily agree that this unity is not of the same type as Catholicism, but imo it is meaningful unity nonetheless.
Dear Brother,I have often though that you could be someone who could convert to orthodox/catholic because you don’t seem closed minded in protestantism alone.
Thank you much for the sentiment. I like to think I wouldn't have any problem converting to any legitimate Christian faith, including yours, if I thought God was really leading me there. Indeed I had to do a bit of converting to wind up where I am now. :) God could certainly choose to alter that course at any time and if He does, then I shouldn't fight it. My faith now says that both of us are right now exactly where God wants us to be, and that we should both be thankful for it.
I really wish that some protestants would really take the time to read the Church fathers other than “Blessed Augustine alone” because I truly believe it would help you at least understand authentic historical faith was not many different beliefs.
I certainly agree with you and include myself as one being in need of further reading. I am sure there is much to be gained from reading those early Christians.
Hope all is well with you and your family?
Yes, very well, thank you. I hope all is well with you and yours also. May the Christmas season bring all of you great joy.
I will pray for you at Adoration today.
Thank you, I really appreciate that. I will pray for you as well.
Jesus is the Word, indeed. But the scripture is not Jesus. It is "a narration of the things that have been accomplished among" the Apostles so that we may "know the verity of those words in which [we have] been instructed." (Luke 1:1-4). That is what you confuse, and the scripture itself proves you wrong.
It weasn't about me. It was about the scoundrels iof the so-called Reformation.
Of course, I usually ignore empty accusations like this, but I thought I'd return the favor just once so that you don't think that you are presenting any kind of scriptural argument here.
Was the Bible that Luther received inerrant (without error)?
If no, then Luther's doctrine of "The Bible Alone" is self-refuting.
If yes, then the source of the Bible, the historical entity that wrote, preserved and canonized it, must have acted infallibly in doing so.
It's one or the other.
So the source of the Bible acted infallibly in writing, preserving and canonizing the Bible. If true, then the historical source of Scripture must have acted infallibly over the course of many centuries, because the Bible was written, canonized and preserved over the course of centuries. For the Bible to be free of error, every act of writing, preservation, and canonization would have to be free of error.
What could this error-free source be except the Church of Jesus Christ, the Universal or Catholic Church? The Church which Scripture calls "the pillar and foundation of truth"?
It happened right then! And it remains, of course. Is that how you draw your ‘own’ interpretation - one verse at a time?
And, furthermore, when are you interested in ‘verbatim’?
The RCC does not teach the annihilation of the soul. They following are excerpts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church at vatican.va.
The Catholic church clearly teaches the immortality of the soul and it’s eternal punishment in hell for dying in a state of sin.
If the soul ceased to be, there would be no eternal separation from God nor eternal torment. What is the threat for something that no longer exists. Nothingness can’t feel torment.
Every man his own pope, choosing what to believe and what not to believe.
YOPIOTCOTCC.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm#I
1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification592 or immediately,593—or immediate and everlasting damnation.594
1034 Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.612 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he “will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,”613 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!”614
1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.”615 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
Your pope is the one that showed hate - he didn't give them what THEY NEEDED. He showed NO LOVE in embracing their demonic religion. "LOVE" would point to THE TRUTH no matter what!
So your Christianity defines hate as love and love as hate. No Luke (or the equivalent Matthew) in your Bahble.
People place themselves in hell - no one else has that power.
Yet we have myriad Bahble Bleevers (t) judging themselves to salvation and Pope JPII to hell. By your words shall I judge you...
The image that you see in the mirror?
The image that God sees in my Spirit. The Holy Spirit that lives within me and will never leave nor forsake me. And you want to know more? I go straight HOME to be with HIM for eternity! That's what I called BLESSED!! Thank You, Jesus!
You wanna know the image that your postings convey? You wanna know what we see? It ain't anything close to the Christian ideal or the Christian Heaven. You may call it blessed. A Christian will call it different.
Would I do what?
| 2 Timothy | ||
| English: Douay-Rheims | Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000) | |
| 2 Timothy 3 |
||
| 14. | But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them; | συ δε μενε εν οις εμαθες και επιστωθης ειδως παρα τινος εμαθες |
| 15. | And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. | και οτι απο βρεφους τα ιερα γραμματα οιδας τα δυναμενα σε σοφισαι εις σωτηριαν δια πιστεως της εν χριστω ιησου |
| 16. | All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, | πασα γραφη θεοπνευστος και ωφελιμος προς διδασκαλιαν προς ελεγχον προς επανορθωσιν προς παιδειαν την εν δικαιοσυνη |
| 17. | That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work. | ινα αρτιος η ο του θεου ανθρωπος προς παν εργον αγαθον εξηρτισμενος |
As I commented before,
The man of God will be complete if he learns the Holy Tradition (2 Tim 3:14) as well as Holy Scripture (2 Tim 3:15) which two together are sufficient, just as the Catholic Church teaches.
[2Th. 2:14 - I believe you got the verse number wrong] either allows you to chose between the two, OR, the oral and the written are the same thing...
No, it does not do the latter. It says, like you say, follow the tradition, whether it is oral OR written. That part you got right. Now, it does not say that they two are the same and it does not say that you should choose. It says, follow both.
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.