Read James and John, that’s how you will know that the church is basically the same.
Posted on 10/29/2011 3:31:02 PM PDT by RnMomof7
Does Jesus have blood in heaven MD?
I know what I’m talking about Madam/Sir. If you’re foolish enough to ignore the new testament then do it at your own peril.
I wasn’t saying that there was a continuous link from John the Baptist to the current Baptists or even the Baptists or anabaptists that preceeded Luther in Germany, what I know for certain is that the current Baptist faith is in line with the original Christian churches, not roman catholic constructs.
We have a difference over the meaning of that phrase. I think it refers to status. I THINK you take it to refer to individual differences.
St Peter (was this statement infallible?) says it about Cornelius on the occasion of his conversion, right? And the matter at hand, Luke's rhetorical 'thrust' at this point in Praxeis, is the incorporation of Gentiles, qua Gentiles, into the Church. I think Peter is saying that, Jewish fisherman or Gentile military district commander, all are welcome. Nothing more.
I DO think that star differs from star in glory, and, by the grace of God I am not envious that a man like Dominic is a greater man than I. I look forward to the realization of my being filled with all the grace (and happiness and holiness) I can contain. I do not think that that means there are not greater vessels who will shine more brightly than I will.
Well, lets look at the wording.
“Christ is "from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made His footstool
“Till” generally means some time in the future doesn’t it? At least it would indicate that it’s not immedieate?
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life." (John 5:24)
Notice the words has. Would that to you indicate future or present?
Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 1 Corinthians 6:11 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
till = not immediate
hath, are = has already happened and is already present.
Did that help?
>>If there were an instant transformation there would be no need to admonish the reader to hold fast,
After your mother gave you a bath did she ever caution you to not do anything that would again make you dirty? Were you clean when she told you that?
How it went from that too having to do receptive masses etc and other rituals I don't know. Those are not traditions of GOD or Jesus Christ for Jesus Christ alone is our Priest we need to come too. He alone intercedes before the Father for us. Such other acts are tradiitions of man.
It's so sad GOD gave the perfect and very simple plan for mans salvation and man wasted not much time turning it into a traditional Old Testament boondoggle of rules and regulations equal to that of the Sanhedrin's ran Temples. Anyone who pulls out writings of ones beyond the Apostles and says Pope so and so said you must do this and pope so and so said and it must not be questioned but obeyed that type of teachings I hold suspect.
Then it was not invented by a pope. I rest your case. :-)
Anyway: Nope. See Maccabees. Origen MAY have contributed to its formalization but the idea is far older than he.
And Origen was no Pope.
There's a good article in this month's "First Things". I don't think they put stuff on line until the next issue comes out,but keep an eye out for it.
BTW we consider that Tertullian was a heretic in later life, but that doesn't mean we do not read his Apology. Don't make more of heresy than there is to be made.
We disagree about what “once” means,because for us everything in eternity is Once and also Always.
Also, we Catholics have this thing, you may have heard of it, where we claim to eat, substantially and really, the Body of Christ and to drink, ditto, his Blood. Not what USED to be body and blood but what, loosely speaking, is currently His Body and Blood.
So, yeah, Jesus in heaven has both body and blood. I have next to no idea how that can be.
***The origins of the reformation movement was plain old fashioned greed.****
Aboulutly TRUE!
“When a coin rings in the collection box, a soul is released from Purgetory!”-Tetzel
And the fuse for REFORMATION was lit.
OK Mad Dawg, (did you graduate from UGA as I did), I don’t know the Popes name, got me there. I’m sure within 15 minutes I could find out who it was.
The fact is, it was a latter construct of the RCC and for a purely for profit scheme. Not that there’s anything wrong with profit, but it looks a little non-Christian when your population is dying of starvation.
Jesus entered heaven in His Glorified Body..not a human body... scripture says nothing about a glorified body requiring blood for life ... That blood was shed on a cross for us
...what I know for certain is that the current Baptist faith is in line with the original Christian churches, not roman catholic constructs.And how do you "know" that?
Which is true??
A. Catechism [183, 1129, 1815, 2002] Salvation is attained by cooperating with grace through faith, good works, and participation in the sacraments.
B. Word of God [Ephesians 2:8-10] Salvation is attained by grace through faith apart from works. Good works are the result, not the cause, of salvation.
Did Christ save anyone at the cross or just make them savable ?
I just reject the word of man. Psalm 118:9 I do not reject the WORD of G-d.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Psalm 118:8
It is better to take refuge in YHvH
Than to trust in man.
It is better to take refuge in YHvH
Than to trust in princes.
Read Paul’s letters to the Churches. Read James and John, that’s how you will know that the church is basically the same. Again, I never said that there was no interruption in the doctrine, when the RCC has a monopoly they’re loath to give it up, but Luther put an end to that, along with faithful Baptist churches in Germany.
And yes, my degrees are in Political Science and History, double major.
***So that King James version just came down from Heaven all bound in leather and missing 7 books?****
The KJV originally had those seven books. they were considered spurious and removed by American bible publishers. Even Jerome wanted to remove them from his Latin translation but the Pope said “NO”.
You can still get the KJV Apocrypha in a separate printing.
*****
...what I know for certain is that the current Baptist faith is in line with the original Christian churches, not roman catholic constructs.
And how do you “know” that?
*****
. . . and which Baptist church? There are many different flavors of Baptist to choose from. Which of the dozens or hundreds are you?
An “indulgence” is the idea that by contributing some money to the Roman Catholic Church, you could “indulge” in a certain sin and not have to worry about the punishment for that sin.
Even Low Church C of E C.S.Lewis understood the notion better than that.
You can get indulgences without money changing hands. You can get an indulgence for reading your Bible. You can even get an indulgence for quitting smoking --- I've quit so many times that I can probably finesse purgation altogether.
(That's a joke.)
you could “indulge” in a certain sin and not have to worry about the punishment for that sin.
NOPE, nope, and nope! Not at all. Sorry.
Check out the etymology of the word. The idea of indulging oneself, permitting oneself to enjoy something, whether or not to do so is sinful, is late -- 17th century.
An "indulgent" grandparent is one who yields to the desires of the grandchild, which may go against his own desires.
Indulgences are only considered effective for the truly contrite and penitent person, even the indulgences Tetzel sold.
The underlying notion of indulgences is that the grantor is being kind in offering redemption NOT from all the punishment of sin but from the so-called "temporal" (as opposed to "eternal") punishment of sin. We hold that only Christ has and can remit the eternal punishment of sin.
This is one reason we Catholics get frustrated here. I do not know where you learned what you said, but whoever taught it did not fairly represent what we teach.
Do the scriptures say anywhere that a glorified body does NOT have glorified blood -- 'for the blood is the life'?
Are you saying Jesus was utterly bled out on the Cross? Got a citation?
Read James and John, that’s how you will know that the church is basically the same.
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.