Posted on 09/02/2011 9:07:47 AM PDT by marshmallow
Well, that is what I recall having read. I can't find that particular statement, but I found an implication. And if that is not enough, just ask Jim himself.
|
To: Jim Robinson
Right wing Catholic here. To: jwalsh07
Welcome, Bro. 1,603 posted on Sunday, December 13, 2009 5:20:53 PM by Jim Robinson (Join the TEA Party Rebellion!! God save this great Republic!!)
|
Oh, wow, I’ll look for it from now on. Nice of you to point it out.
BTW, you’re making it personal. That’s against the rules.
(chuckle chuckle) ;)
I know it’s against the rules. Ping the RM. List me on your fast dial of automatic pings to the RM. I’ll apologize to the RM. Life will go on. And you will remain. The circle of life continues.
Many protestants coming into the church have said that the doctrines about Mary are the hardest to accept. I believe fear of those doctrines holds back many who would come into or back to the Church.
If one believes that Jesus is fully and completely God, the doctrine is Scripturally sound that Mary is the Mother of God. To believe that Jesus as God was separate in some way from Jesus as Man is to believe a heresy. They were truly one, just as your body and soul are truly one. And God the Son did need a mother and His mother gave birth to one Jesus, who was fully God and fully man.
You reject the Church’s claim to being the one true Church because you reject what you believe are unSciprtural doctrines which she holds as binding on believers. Scripture is your authority. So, I ask you, did God personally come to you and give you your Bible and tell you that it is His Word and then fully reveal to you all that it means? Well, yes you might say! Of course, the Holy Spirit has done this for me.
That is the same claim the Church makes. So do I trust all those who reject the orthodoxy of the Church? And if I do, which one of the many do I trust? Myself alone? Trust in oneself alone leads to thousands of differing churches and doctrines and beliefs. No man comes to belief on his own, if you are not one of those who followed Jesus, you have heard His Good News preached to you by a man. And you have formed your beliefs through the exegesis of men. To say otherwise is to be in denial.
“Lean not to your own understanding, but trust in the Lord.” Jesus said to Peter, “ Blessed are you, Simon for flesh and blood have not revealed this to you but my Father in heaven. You are rock and upon this rock I will build my church. I will give you the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.”
I agree that some Catholics fear being doubtful, but if they use those doubts to further their understanding, then those doubts will have served God’s purpose. Even Peter doubted and asked Jesus to help him in his unbelief.
Indeed.
Boatbums speaks well for me in that post, too.
BTW, One of our precious prayer thread sisters just lost just lost her father this morning.
And, she has been seriously ill for some time herself.
Please pray for her all y’all;
Sister ML
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
Nah, BTW,have you ever asked yourself if maybe you’re too thin-skinned for the open threads?
NONSENSE.
That origin of the “Mother of God” phrase is
verrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyy lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggg
past.
It is quite clear to the Proddys on FR . . . that NOW, the FUNCTION of the phrase is altogether different.
NOW it serves to shoehorn the Ishtar-Mary Goddess figure up into the Godhead as the Ferraro quotes make abundantly clear.
AS also do the relentless fierce posts of so many RC’s on FR make abundantly clear.
That the RC’s show NO insight into those realities does not speak well of their reality testing in such matters.
If there was not so much intense emotion attached to the CURRENT FUNCTION of shoehorning the Ishtar-Mary Goddess figure up into the Godhead, it would not be a great matter for RC’s to say—ahhh—I see—yeah, it would make more Biblical and sociological as well as theological sense to call her more accurately the Mother of Christ.
But nooooooooooooooooooooooo the SPECIAL LOFTINESS function that comes from attributing to the Ishtar-Mary Goddess figure “hypostatic union with the Godhead” is not about to be relinquished a micro-gram’s worth by the idolators.
As usual, Idols only INCREASE in their gilding and ever rising loftiness. They are never demoted by any of the RELIGION addicts faithful.
Too thin-skinned means you cannot take the conversations without resorting to complaining when it gets too heated for your comfort. Trust me, complaining to an RM is the last thing I would do. I would rather point out the irony and hypocricy of those deserving the ridicule heaped upon them. But that's me.
Okay. I was wrong. You aren’t upset, you just seem to be.My miStke. The last thing you would do, hmmmm? Are you sure?
Oh, come on Quix. The bigger the lie the easier it is to sell. Why limit yourself to Ishtar? Why not go with Inanna or Asarte or Shakti whom they were based upon or even Gaia and the Hittite goddess Shaushka. If you are going to blaspheme the mother of Christ you ought to go big or go home.
Sorry, I have nothing more to say to a baby looking for a fight.
RM, sorry, didn’t mean to make it personal.
Wasn’t it the grays who did Fatima?
Judith Anne, for your own peace of mind, I am giving you permission to ping the RM and ask for the number of times that I have mashed the abuse button. Please. I beg you. And then I want you to never forget what the number is. Because you are going to feel really silly when you find out. Ironic, isn’t it?/
Once again, I don’t want to play your silly game.
Yes, that's apparent by your posts...
Um, because Paul was Saul then and not a Christian, but a Jew who was a Roman citizen who was persecuting Jews.
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.