During our conversations here, I've noticed that. You ought to be tremblin' in your boots right about now...
Yeah, yeah, you've convinced us that you are an Internet tough guy.
Posted on 09/02/2011 9:07:47 AM PDT by marshmallow
Minneapolis, Minnesota (CNN) –Prior to 2006, few people even knew that then-Minnesota state legislator Keith Ellison was a Muslim. Because of his English name, he said, no one thought to ask.
But five years ago, when he ran for a seat in the United States House of Representatives - a race he would go on to win - word of his religious affiliation began to spread.
“When I started running for Congress it actually took me by surprise that so many people were fascinated with me being the first Muslim in Congress,” said Ellison, a Democrat now serving his third term in the House.
“But someone said to me, ‘Look Keith, think of a person of Japanese origin running for Congress six years after Pearl Harbor–this might be a news story.’”
Though Ellison's status as the first Muslim elected to Congress is widely known, fewer are aware that he was born into a Catholic family in Detroit and was brought up attending Catholic schools.
But he said he was never comfortable with that faith.
“I just felt it was ritual and dogma,” Ellison said. “Of course, that’s not the reality of Catholicism, but it’s the reality I lived. So I just kind of lost interest and stopped going to Mass unless I was required to.”
It wasn’t until he was a student at Wayne State University in Detroit when Ellison began, “looking for other things.”
(Excerpt) Read more at religion.blogs.cnn.com ...
"SEDAGIVE? SE-DA-GIVE????"
I think part of the reason catholics get stuck is becuase they believe in purgatory....which is to believe that the shed blood of Jesus Christ was not sufficient to cleanse us of our sins. .......
...To believe in a purgatory would mean that God made a terrible and horrible mistake and put his Son through needless and unnecessary pain and suffering because the spilled innocent blood of Jesus Christ was not adequate.
Additionally..To believe in purgatory is to believe that many verses in the Holy Bible are wrong...like the Hebrews 10:12 .....”But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for all sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.”
So you see by believing in a falsehood this leaves them open to NOT believing other scriptures...or twisting them to suite what they want to believe...not as God would have them.
Whose teachings....The Popes and Vatican?... Well of course I choose not to abide by their teachings and it matters not if I have communion with them. They adhere to traditions of men,.... which Jesus warned us about such men,....and tey then teach others that very thing. So of course I don't adhere to their teacings.
But to Gods teachings....absolutely I pay attention and hear Him. He is very good at letting me clearly when or if our "fellowship" is at risk by something I might say or do. He is faithful that way. This you should know as well.
I think that the words which Jesus had for the Pharisees certainly are applicable for ANY religious church leaders.
Churchianity is alive and well in the US.
Thanks for your thoughtfulness AND for the recommendation. Mel Brooks is a genius.
Any ordained minister who does not ask early and often for divine protection against phariseeism and every sort of spiritual pride is a fool.
In the trial liturgies of the Episcopal Church, they tried to revive an “ancient” custom. The Bishop would ask,”is he worthy?”. The people were supposed to respond, “He is worthy!”. Everybody choked on it.
I suggested to a friend on the commission that they could keep the question if the people were allowed to respond,”No, but he’s the best we could find.”
My idea didn’t catch on either.
I am not saying that Jesus' death on the cross did not result in our redemption, I am only pointing out that His blood was not a cleansing, but an atonement or payment for our sins.
He has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. - Colossians 1:13-14
You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. - 1 Peter 1:18-19
That's what you get for thinkin'... We have no problem at all with authority...It's just that we know where the real authority is...And it ain't from anywhere within your religion...
Oh, it's there alright...Just as the rest of the scripture teaches us...There is no baptism without repentance...No remission of sins without repentance...
I appreciate your understanding of this, but I have a completely different one from you regarding this.
I do not believe that Paul was given a different gospel, I believe wholeheartedly it was the same.
The point I think as to why Paul stresses that he was not given the gospel by men is to show that Paul was given the gospel in the same way as the other Apostles and illustrates what God had often done in the OT, i.e. used the most unlikely of men as one of His greatest messengers.
Consider that Saul was a persecutor of Christians, one who was feared, who stood approvingly as Stephen was killed for the faith. Now, all of a sudden, this man who was their persecutor claimed to be a follower, in fact was preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. Many were suspicious of him and rightly so.
Paul has to convince them that he has had a change of heart, one that came through a revelation from Jesus. It is important that those who feared him now know that he was sent by Jesus, just as the others had been sent albeit after the resurrection and not before. Peter and the original Apostles accept Paul and accept that he has received the true gospel from Jesus and because they believed in Paul, so did the others. Paul needed their approval.
Now, I see a correlation between Judas and Paul. Judas was one of the twelve who was chosen by Jesus and walked with him and in the end betrayed Him. Even being with Jesus was not enough for Judas to trust in Him and Judas did what he did because of that lack of trust.
Saul, on the other hand is first heard of as one who is persecuting Christians, persecuting Christ as we learn from the conversion story. “Saul, why do you persecute me?” And yet Jesus uses Paul as one of His greatest evangelists.
It is a striking contrast when one thinks of it.
So, why wasn’t Paul chosen as the 12th Apostle. The Apostles filled the place of Judas before Paul’s conversion because they believed it was what they were supposed to do.
Scripture says Peter declared that Judas had to be replaced and they did so before the Holy Spirit came to them in Pentecost, in other words very soon after Christ’s ascension.
On the other hand, we know that what happened after Pentecost was Stephen’s death and Peter and John’s arrest and the community beginning to establish a way of life. All before Saul’s conversion. In other words, we aren’t sure how much time has passed, before Saul’s conversion, but it was some time after they had chosen Matthias.
So, why is this important? Because we see four theological developments in the early church. One, the beginning of Apostolic succession, and two, that Jesus has called men to serve Him and preach His gospel after His ascension. Third, the man that Jesus called had to have the approval of the leaders of the church, and four, the gospel had to be the same for unity in the church.
I maintain that Paul was not given a different gospel. He never makes this claim, only the claim that he has been commissioned to bring the gospel to the Gentiles. He is given revelations from Jesus, I do not dispute that, but the revelations he is given he brings before the leaders, namely Peter, James and John for approval, lest he be teaching wrongly. He tells us this himself, it is not speculation on my part.
In Romans, Paul says this....
16 For I am not ashamed at all of this Good News; it is God’s power saving those who believe, first the Jews, and then the Greeks. 17 This Good News shows us the saving justice of God; a justice that saves exclusively by faith, as the Scripture says: The upright one shall live by faith.
So the good news, the Gospel is first to the Jews and then the Greeks who were the Gentiles.
And in Ephesians this....
11 Remember that you were pagans even in your flesh and the Jews, who call themselves Circumcised (because of a sur gical circumcision), called you Un circumcised. 12 At that time you were with out Christ, you did not belong to the community of Israel; the covenants of God and his promises were not for you; you had no hope and were without God in this world. 13 But now, in Christ Jesus and by his blood, you who were once far off have come near.
14 For Christ is our peace, he who has made the two peoples one, 15 destroying in his own flesh the wall—the hatred—which separated us. He abolished the Law with its commands and precepts. He made peace in uniting the two peoples in him, creating out of the two one New Man. 16 He destroyed hatred and reconciled us both to God through the cross, making the two one body.
And in Galatians....
26 Now, in Christ Jesus, all of you are sons and daughters of God through faith. 27 All of you who were given to Christ through baptism, have put on Christ. 28 Here there is no longer any difference between Jew or Greek, or between slave or freed, or between man and woman: but all of you are one in Christ Jesus. 29 And because you belong to Christ, you are of Abra ham’s race and you are to inherit God’s promise.
Paul preached the one gospel of Jesus Christ. To the Gentiles, he had to speak differently as they were not of the Judaic covenant and did not have the same knowledge and understanding of God that the Jews did. And his letters were to people who already believed, written as letters of instruction and encouragement and even admonishment.
I have no need for "waffling". Why do you need to refuse to accept plausible explanations for what you say are errors? Is it because you NEED to accuse the Scriptures of fallibility so you can transfer its true contents to an "infallible" Magesterium to illuminate the Scriptures for you? Are you aware that the Holy Spirit is in us to reveal the truths of Scripture to us? Here is another explanation that, to me, sounds entirely "plausible". Try this on for size. From http://www.errancy.com/what-did-the-sign-on-jesus-cross-say/:
Modern standards for direct quotation do not apply:
What has to be the case for a statement to be true depends on the statement's meaning. Meaning is determined by more than just the words used; this is why "the door's over there" can be an instruction to leave rather than just information about the location of the door. (Among the factors that affect meaning are context and convention.) You can't always tell what would have to be the case for a statement to be true just by looking at the words that it contains.
Literary conventions about precision in direct quotation have varied over time. Although now we'd say that "Friends, Romans, countrymen, listen up!" is a misquotation, by other standards (e.g. by biblical standards) it would be fine because it accurately captures the meaning. The same quotation can thus be either accurate or inaccurate depending on what conventions are in play.
If we read the biblical verses above bearing in mind that they were written before there was a literary convention that direct quotations should be word-perfect, they don't make any claims about the precise wording of the sign over Jesus. All they make claims about is the meaning of the sign. All four descriptions of the sign agree about its meaning, even if they use slightly different words to express it. This is enough for us to judge that the gospels agree as to what the sign said; the minor differences aren't a problem for inerrancy.
The sign said ‘This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews’:
Quotations don't have to be complete to be accurate. To quote Shakespeare accurately, it isn't necessary to quote an entire play, a couple of lines will do. Similarly, to quote the sign over Jesus accurately, it isn't necessary to quote the whole thing. Each of the authors of the gospels gives us part of the text on the sign. By combining their quotations, we can see that the whole thing read "This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews".
There were three inscriptions in three languages, each worded differently:
John tells us that the sign over Jesus was written in three languages: "Many of the Jews read this inscription, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek." [John 19:20] In each language, the wording of the sign was slightly different.
Matthew gives the wording of the sign in one language; Mark and Luke give it in a second language (with Mark omitting "This is", but accurately preserving the sign's substance); John gives it in a third. All four accounts thus accurately describe the wording of the sign, despite the differences between them.
Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
You see any baptism in there??? Of course you don't...
The key here is the mathematical operand "and". That is why you guys are usually so far off base when it comes to doctrine. If you pick and choose one thing that apparently differs from another, why then you wind up with another denomination.
But Jesus (remember Him?) neatly wraps it all up in:
John 3: 5Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.d
You are correct in that water baptism alone does not save, yet both water and Spirit are required. And in answer to your other post, the Church recognizes as valid all Christian baptisms intended to baptize "In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", as long as the person in question is Trinitarian in belief.
I guess that leaves you the odd man out, yet again.
The same little study will reveal that Repentance is always present when the Holy Spirit indwells the believer...
A comprehensive study will show the opposite. Try moving away from the 13 verses that you guy hold dear and read the Gospels.
WOW! I'm glad to hear you believe the Gospel. I "threw" it out there because on this very thread we have had a person say exactly that. Anyone who believes that God requires someone to "earn" it or do something to "keep" it once they have been born again are still saying the same thing because either way they are admitting that one must do something to receive salvation. God says we are saved by his grace acquired by our faith alone. Not by works, remember?
Anticipating God again? Or merely gainsaying Him? How do you know what God will Judge? Or have you moved over to the non Judgement camp of those who claim to be Christian?
Neither, not anticipating nor gainsaying God, rather it is believing in what he has said. Anyone who denies the truth of the Gospel is the one who is gainsaying God because it is saying they do not believe what God said. Like this, for example:
1 John 5:10-11
Whoever believes in the Son of God accepts this testimony. Whoever does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because they have not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
He that believeth not but is still baptized is damned.
Scripture does not say that, you said that. It is not there.
Those who believed were baptized. Those who did not were not.
During our conversations here, I've noticed that. You ought to be tremblin' in your boots right about now...
Yeah, yeah, you've convinced us that you are an Internet tough guy.
Sorry, the Vatican doesn't deal in Pradas of any colour. The only ones that come into the Vatican are laity and tourists.
If you actually read Acts and Paul's Epistles, you would seee that Paul's mission was evangelization. Not all clergy do all things all the time; there are people who concentrate on a particular aspect of Christian service.
Not to say that Paul did not baptize; it is just that he had others concentrate on that and he concentrated on administration and evangelization.
So, you say Jesus' words overrule any of Paul's? Okay, so how about when Jesus said,
"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. John 3:18
After all these attempts to explain it, you still post this?
So you see by believing in a falsehood this leaves them open to NOT believing other scriptures...or twisting them to suite what they want to believe...not as God would have them.
Purgatory is Scripturally sound and derived. You must have seen the proofs; they have been posted on FR repeatedly.
If water baptism were so critical for salvation I can’t imagine Paul being glad that he didn’t baptize people. On the contrary, I’d have expected him to spend all his time doing that.
If one actually reads where Paul says this, he does not say that baptism is wrong or unnecessary or doesn’t regenerate.
He is concerned in this epistle about divisions in the church and that some are identifying themselves by the men who has preached the good news to them.
Paul immediately tells us afterwards that he is not called to baptize, he doesn’t see it as his mission and he does not want others to claim to be his followers.
It is why single verses of Scripture can seem to say something which they do not and how Scripture can be used to advance a one’s personal opinion rather than convey the lessons Scripture intends. It is why all of Scripture must be read in light of the whole rather than one verse to the exclusion of others. It is why Peter denounces private interpretation.
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.