Posted on 10/19/2013 8:50:26 PM PDT by jodyel
Neither Jerome nor the Vulgate were inspired, infallible, nor verbally perfect. Here's one place.
He says that we must be born again, first of the womb, and second time of "water and spirit".
Yes, I am, with frequent Mormon quotes, etc. But we haven't been properly introduced, and I, frankly, don't make distinctions between one heretic and another. So she isn't? Elsie, what are you?
It does. Catholic religion is what the Scripture teaches. Reject the Church and you rejected Christ.
I argue from text. When you give me a post that does some theoretization like that, my reaction is to ignore it, whether it explains a "classical" problem or a romantic problem or a rococo problem.
In the case on hand, both Peter in Acts 10 and the eunuch in Acts 8 deemed water necessary for the baptism. They did not consult any Protestant charlatan, they just sought water so that to have a baptism. Deal with it.
Previously, I gave you the scriptural example of St. Peter drawing analogy between the waters of the Flood and the Holy Baptism. You dismiss it because it does not fit one Protestant theory or another. I don't care what template is broken by the Holy Scripture for you. I am Catholic: I read the Scripture for what it says and don't mind explaining it to you if you have an interest in it. If you instead want to give me theories, that won't work -- I am not interested in Protestant mumbo-jumbo. If I ignore a post or two from you, that would be the reason. Be well.
That Nicodemus asked about the womb and Jesus instead spoke of water signifying to you a womb. Note again that everyone but the Protestants (Acts 8:36, 10:47, 1 Peter 3:21) understood the new birth of baptism correctly and baptize in water, because, surprise! -- when Jesus said "water" He meant "water".
He said "it becometh us to fulfill all justice". The explanation that the Church gives is twofold: Jesus gave us an example to be baptized and that He sanctified the waters of our baptism by bathing in them first.
Yes, I agree. The Vulgate is sufficient for us, the Church teaches, but one always must refer to the original Greek. Note however that the original Greek is somewhat of an abstraction as the extant copies are incomplete and differ a bit. It is logical to assume that St. Jerome, who worked prior to the Muslim occupation of Palestine, had access to the codices now lost.
The Roman Catholic church ecclesiastical community is not God, although it does appear that many try to make it so...to have it enter into the temple and show itself as being God.
Perhaps his copy was one of those filled with erasures and irregularities and corruption sort of like the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus or Alexandrian. But that is not what my Bibles are translated from, which is from better representatives of what God has promised to preserve without losing parts of it. The Catholic scholar Desiderius Erasmus rejected those types from his candidates for what became known as the Textus Receptus, of which I have a Scrivener version. Also, the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine/Majority Textform is freely available, representing some about 5,000 copies that were not chucked into the burn barrel by the St. Catherine's monks. Maybe Jerome got one of those. What other parts of your Greek Bible were synthesized by Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, or Constantin Tischendorf, still missing parts?
Ah, just a rhetorical question. I'm tired of quibbling with you when I can spend my time preparing to teach willing real fellow-disciples. No more with you on this issue. Sayonara --
So you have resorted to the theory that God was unable to preserve His word for us now also ey?
Works mean wages due.
Crediting to someone's account is a gift, not earnings.
Romans 4:1-12 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”
Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
Romans 4:20-25 No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.” But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
I can’t think of a single verse the Catholic church takes in context to support its doctrines.
What God requires, Christ provides.
We CANNOT do it ourselves and God knows that. That’s why He does it for us.
It is HE who works in us to will and TO DO according to HIS good pleasure.
How awesome God is!
He knows we can’t be righteous enough on our own, so He forgives us of our sin and says, here, take my righteousness and gives it to us as a gift, so we can stand before Him.
Baptized IN water, not baptized WITH water
So why don't Catholics follow Jesus' example and get dunked as an adult?
Tell me. Did Jesus need to get baptized to get to heaven?
Except that He doesn't. You quoted the ONE erroneous translation that misquoted Jesus' words. He NEVER said we must be "born again of water and the Spirit". The words are NOT there in the Greek. It is amusing, though, that you are contradicting some of the other Catholics on this forum, who also insist with the same vehemence, that Jesus said "born from above" and not "born again". That would mean Jesus said "born from above of water and the Spirit". Some also declare that Jesus NEVER alluded to a flesh birth at all in his message to Nicodemas. All this Catholic unity is amazing, isn't it? :o)
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.