Posted on 09/02/2011 9:07:47 AM PDT by marshmallow
So you have no facts; nor figures; nor dates to prove your statement that the Catholic Church killed more Jews than Hitler. I suspected as much.
Perhaps it would help to define *snippet*.
Just how much Scripture constitutes a snippet? Part of a verse? One? Half a chapter?
It always floors me when I find myself arguing in favor of core doctrines (the Trinity, Heaven & Hell, etc) against Catholics. I had thought that a belief in the Trinity was something I shared in common with them.
If we agree with them that the sky is blue, they'll reverse and argue it's green just to spite us. I guess it just goes to show how anti-Protestant your garden variety Catholic really is.
Mark, when you say “You might be surprised as to the gulf and just how much the Church has changed the meaning of the OT for Christians” are you talking about the Roman Catholic Church changing the meaning of the OT? Examples would be nice.
This same time line says the Babylonian Captivity was "422 BCE".
14 x your figure for a "generation" 67.21 == 940.94, as you said.
941-422 = 519.
So EITHER "the Anointed" appeared in the first quarter of the 6th century of the Common Era
OR one of the figures is wrong.
Try this: 422/14 = 30.14 which is less than half of three score and ten, but that puts us at 1 AD.
There's a problem.
A “snippet” is defined as any part of Scripture that begins to make someone “uncomfortable” in his comfort zone. It could be as small as “Study” or as large as an entire Book regarding the mystery committed to Paul. :)
For some it doesn’t matter what a “snippet” constitutes. If it doesn’t conform to their dogma it’s “taken out of context” or they may use the least credible source other then scripture.
Sorry but you guys don't get to invent your own dictionary for the unCatholics...We know what co-redeemer means...
Of course you mean 'your' church'...
I don't have a church. I understand that you do, but those who belong to Christ belong to His Church.
Matthew 10: 1* Then he summoned his twelve disciples* and gave them authority over unclean spirits to drive them out and to cure every disease and every illness.
Do all of your popes drive out unclean spirits and cure every disease and illness???
You don't belong to the Church.
5b Jesus sent out these twelve* after instructing them thus, “Do not go into pagan territory or enter a Samaritan town.
What are you doing here on a public forum in 'pagan territory'???
Some of us have passed on from the practice run to the real one in Matthew 28.
Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
How did you get into your church??? Are you Jewish??? Were you one of the lost sheep??? What made you a sheep before you became lost???
The Good Lord invited me to be grafted in. Your Scriptural knowledge appears as good as it ever did.
7As you go, make this proclamation: ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’d
So your religion is the kingdom of heaven??? You Catholics own Lions and Cobras that your kids play with and keep as pets??? And your little cats snuggle up with the canaries???
Well some of us engage the snakes.
Whatever town or village you enter, look for a worthy person in it, and stay there until you leave.
Quite an odd thing...Jesus himself preached to the 'unworthy'...
Take it up with Jesus. He said it. Just be sure to mention it in context. He may not be as forgiving as I.
Jesus gave teaching authority to the Church, and not to every Tom, Dick and Luther at their own whims.
According to what you posted here as proof??? Why didn't you post 1 Chronicles chapter 1-6??? There's just as much evidence there that yours is the church that Jesus founded...
The entire NT is proof. I just posted certain excerpts. You have been presented with the proofs many times. If you would not accept them all those times, why would you accept them now?
But the funniest thing is that you condemn a belief and then post the scripture that proves and justifies that belief and call it the defense of your position...WoW...
We have seen the alternate realities that you have posted here over the years. Once again, you are on top of your game - congratulations.
Just who was your "socially disadvantaged"
servant this time last year ?
I can see it's nap time for me. Later.
No he didn't and he was a Catholic...
And if men can, then we, being human, can?
The falsehood can be either intentional or unintentional, but it can be false anyway.
So how are we to know we are right? We may be in error unintentionally as we try to make sense of Scripture.
Come to think of it, how do we know the Council spoke truly when they siad it seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us. Acts doesn't say ,"(And they were right!)"
Alex is right, Mark, you have been playing this worn-out tune for several years. I have personally responded to them at least four times if not more. You have been repeatedly proven wrong about this specific topic yet here you are, again, saying what you have always said. Do you not care what Scripture says about the nature of our Almighty God? Do you only worship the god in your mirror?
Alex is wrong and so are you. Nothing in Matthew, Mark or Luke proves the Trinitarian formula. Nothing. The baptismal formula which is a much later addition to Matthew does not prove the Trinity, much less outline what it is.
Likewise, Mark and Luke don't. They write of a subordinational Jesus - don't you realize that Nicea was such a pivotal point in Church history? Origen was excommunicated over the decisions there, and he was dead.
The council of Nicea did not fabricate the doctrine of the Trinity but they spelled out what was always believed by the church and compiled it into an easily recitable "creed".
You must mean what the bishops of the Church decided fit the best with what they understood of Christianity. I never said that they fabricated it. You may be on the verge of understanding here.
The doctrine is expressed in many, many places within the Bible, I as well as others have listed them for you numerous times.
Or not. The point is that if one begins with the Trinitarian formula, then one can pick verses which can be understood to fit the formula. If one approaches the NT with the mindset of a strictly subordinational theologian, then there is no way that it is possible to convince them of Trinitarian theology. My point is that there was a body of extraScriptural work that the Church kept which influenced their theology and their decisions as to things like the Creed and the Canon of Scripture.
Making up stuff as usual...
If I recall correctly, you were a principal instructor.
Making up stuff as usual...
If I recall correctly, you were a principal instructor.
Less than what it takes to establish context. They much teach it in the antiCatholic classes that so many have gotten A+ in.
I said nothing about the Roman Catholic Church. Try rephrasing again, if you please.
Can you explain what you mean by this question?
No he didn't and he was a Catholic...
Really? Neither Jim Jones, nor Obama was ever Catholic. Why are you posting falsehoods?
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.