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
By your own admission there is no historical proof, no Scriptural evidence, no writings from the early church fathers, no nothing to support the contention that Joseph was previously married and had children from that marriage, and yet here we see Catholics arguing for something that has no basis in a DESPERATE bid to somehow explain away the clear reading of Scripture that Jesus had siblings and still maintain the perpetual virginity of Mary.
All this demonstrates is that Catholics want to believe this to be true so badly that they will stoop to any kind of rationale and convoluted reasoning to bolster this unsupportable doctrine, even to the point of making things up.
Why do Catholics want the perpetual virginity to be true so bad? How does it diminish either Christ and His work on the earth, or Mary in the role she played in fulfilling prophecy that after His birth she honorably fulfilled her role as wife to Joseph? Why is Mary diminished in character by having had sex with Joseph and, in obedience to God's command to be fruitful and multiply, bearing him children of their own?
*sigh*
Another one for your list.
See post 5,097....
“Isn’t heaven going to be a sort of “communism” in that there will be like-mindedness, lack of comeptititon, ritualistic never-ending prayers, no unfulfilled desires, etc? “
Duh.
Post 5,079.
Too tired.....
Facts may indeed be facts, but there are no facts concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary. There's just hearsay and opinion, not even remotely supported by Scripture.
Then you're not looking. I've posted this a number of times.
Galatians 3 1O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. 2Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— 6just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"?
7Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
10For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." 11Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith." 12But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them." 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"— 14so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
And there are plenty of verses in Romans and Ephesians in addition which teach the same thing.
Why do Catholics take one out of context verse and focus on that to the exclusion of chapters of material that teach otherwise?
If you have a substantive argument, I am all ears, -- you, Belteshazzar of all often do, and I respond in kind, and thank you.
If, on the other hand, you evade direct and textual questions based on nothing but the text of the scripture, then I think you should expect the ridicule, and I have an abundance of it.
Matthew 5 38 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Does this standard apply to Catholics when it comes to the sinlessness of Mary, her perpetual virginity, her immaculate conception, and her assumption?
So, when Catholics evade the clear teaching of Scripture about Jesus siblings, then by your standard we can ridicule you back? And you should expect it?
ph
Well maybe there has been a little progress. At least some are admitting that Jesus really DID have a brother and that, lo and behold, the word used in the NT actually meant BROTHER after all! I still haven't seen an answer to my question about why, if Joseph had other kids, he failed to bring them along with him when he had to go to Nazareth to register his family for the census? If they were left with family instead then why couldn't Mary also have been left seeing as how she was so close to her delivery?
Has anyone ever stated how old James the less was? If he really was a stepbrother to Jesus he had to be older than him. So when was he born or how old was he when he died around 64 AD or so?
Re: If heaven will be communist -
I Corinthians 2:9-10
However, as it is written:
“What no eye has seen,
what no ear has heard,
and what no human mind has conceived”—
the things God has prepared for those who love him—
these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.
I have pondered that question myself for many years. I think I may know the answer, not saying I am 100% right, but I think it is because their magesterium has declared it as a dogma, a rule of faith, and mandated that all Catholics everywhere MUST accept it or face excommunication. Like we have seen in several different answers here on this thread, some believe all that they are told to and refuse to question the reasons. I believe it is because they know deep in their hearts that if the "Church" got even one thing wrong, then it puts all things on the table that they might be wrong about too. This is what happens when extra-Biblical doctrines are allowed equal footing with the Bible.
I am not really even sure why the "powers that be" came to such an admittedly unprovable statement concerning the perpetual virginity as well as the sinlessness of Mary. The Orthodox at least hold that it is not a rule of faith and they allow liberty to their members on believing it or not.
I need to get to sleep, too. I meant that Joseph and Mary had to leave Nazareth to go to Bethlehem for the census.
NOT remotely supported by unvulcanized Scripture.
NOT remotely supported by unvulcanized history.
I'm sure Greek IS a beautiful language and Hebrew as well. I appreciate the wonderful study guides, concordances and lexicons we have today so that every single word in the Bible can be looked up and the word in the original language is given along with the meaning and other uses of it.
It is curious that the word "sacrament" is not used anywhere in the English language translations but, as you said the word means mystery. I wonder why then that it did not get translated that way? There are many places where the word IS translated as mystery from the Greek "mysterion" and according to the Strong's concordance, it means a hidden thing or secret. It even has that meaning in the Hebrew OT.
So I'm not getting the sense that it is really like you say in that it implies the same thing as the Church's term "sacrament". For example, there is the "mystery of the Kingdom"; the mystery of Israel's salvation; the mystery of the Gospel being preached to all the world; the mystery of the hidden wisdom of God; the mystery that we will not all die but we will all be changed; the mystery of Christ in us; mystery of faith; mystery of Godliness; even a mystery of the seven stars and the mystery of iniquity and, finally, the mystery of the whore of Babylon. But I did not find anywhere a mystery of marriage, of baptism, of communion/Eucharist, of Holy Orders, of healing or of last rites that would justify your assertion of the sacraments being described in Scripture.
I'm fully aware that the Church developed these doctrines of the seven sacraments, but they were really not spelled out as such in Scripture.
Lying about what? If he wrote what he believed then he wasn't lying, FK. What he wrote is that the Spirit "will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears." That doesn't sound like God. He will glorify Jesus because he will take what Christ's, and that is the same as the Father's. That doesn't describe someone co-equal.
When I said this is non-Trinitarian I mean non-Trinitarian as Christianity defines it. Just because you mention Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit is itself not Trinitarian. If it were, then the Morons and some Protestant sects are "Trinitarian" and "Christian" too.
The concept of Trinity has to do with how we see the divine Hypostases, namely as one God, co-eternal, and co-equal. In John's presentation, the Spirit is subordinated to both the Father and the Son, who is himself subordinated to the Father. That is not orthodox Trinity no matter how you turn it around.
I think one can be aware of an idea or choice not normally coming from him.
Then, "normally," you cannot be deceived?
When I notice this happen I see it as a distinct possibility of leading.
FK, in retrospect, bad things are rationalized as being ordained by God for the "greater good," as part of his divine plan or some pedagogic lesson. But at the time this "greater good" is hidden even from believer's discernment because humans don't have the ability to know what the future brings. We are blind as to what will happen the next day. That's why believers have to have faith (trust) that whatever happens, even if it appears as "injustice," is really part of God's just plan and is all good.
Conversely, just because something seems right or righteous or even necessary, from our perspective, or even as "guidance" from above, may not be for the greater good. So when you say you see it as "distinct possibility of leading" it seems to be closer to your gut instinct being confused with "divine guidance" than a "distinct possibility" that you are being "led" from above.
So, then, hypothetically speaking, if you found yourself in the same situation as Lot did, you would offer your daughters?
Incidentally, Yates would fail this test in claiming her idea was from God because scripture strongly condemns what she did.
Not really. The Biblical story of a man who promises God that he will sacrifice to him the first living thing he sees when he returns home, sees his beloved daughter and sacrifices her to God and God doesn't stop him, is am example of such insanity.
I have heard Protestants tell me "God told me." If they believe God told them, are they going to tempt God (and doubt their faith) by checking the scriptures?!? It's not like Paul telling the Bereans, who then check the scriptures to see if this man Paul is right.
Imagine if Abraham said "I don't believe you! Prove to me that this is all for the glory of you!" In other words, you really don't trust the "indwelling Spirit" but rather have to check up on him? That's pretty gutsy—for a believer.
Actually, birthdays are a western custom. In the East, the patron namesake Saint is celebrated. Personal birthdays are considered vanity. But for some reason the Church decided to celebrate a date common to the birth of pagan gods. It wasn't a random choice.
Of course Christians should be thinking about Christ all the time, but I think reminders like Holy days are still good things. History has proved that we need all the reminding we can get.
So you think it's something we determine? Not God?
Yes, Protestants have some traditions, but one difference from the formal ones that are dogma is that they are not commanded of us by any higher earthly authority and our salvation has nothing to do with complying with them
Like Trinity?
Latin and Orthodox Churches almost always involve a tradition we believe is in violation of scripture, or is based on an interpretation of scripture with which we strongly disagree
Where do you find in scriptures such beliefs as "sola scirptura" or co-equal, co-eternal Trinity?
Instead of answering some went on a verbal shooting spree. If I rejected your answer it is because it wasn't an acceptable answer.
You state your "criteria" for believing are things people can see and detect yet you leave out those things that people everywhere and at all times have accepted
Like what? Appealing to numbers or antiquity, or what have you is no proof that something exists. More than one billion Muslims believe the Koran is true, and have since the 7th century. And all the Jews in the world deny the New Testament base don their faith which is much older than Christianity. What does that prove?
It is something which no medical tests have ever or could ever "detect", yet no sane person would aver that this "something" isn't real.
Really? So, then you are saying only "insane" people will doubt that this imaginary "something" is real?
So, then, in your book, being "objective" is to be subjective? How objective if you!
And, I presume, you have hard proof that this is just the way you described it?
But despite this "leading" people fail, so that is not a true statement.
But for some reason it does serve God's purpose for there to be many Christians out there with profound theological differences. Perhaps it stirs each of our searches for greater understanding.
Ah, and the circle is complete! If we can't explain the "bad" with the devil, we can always say it is God's hidden purpose!
Absolutely, there must be some parameters that define a Christian or else everyone and no one would be one
And those must be a priori axiomatically presumed. It's simple, FK: if we unquestionably presume pink unicorns exit on Jupiter, we can build a whole story based on them. It's called fiction!
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.