Posted on 10/19/2013 8:50:26 PM PDT by jodyel
But John was already baptizing.
It is ALSO logical to assume that St. Jerome, who worked prior to the Muslim occupation of Palestine, had NO access to the codices now lost.
Choose whichever one floats yer boat.
What MUST we do...
No, the Church is not God. She is founded and sustained by God.
We simply don’t know what texts existed at the time of St. Jerome, and of course nothing can be argued from what we don’t know, while Textus Receptus and its derivatives are what we consider the Greek Original.
It was nice talking to you.
Evidentially so: not a single codex survived in complete form; scholars disagree on whether some passages, such as the Adulteress Pericope, are genuine.
The Church, however, the pillar and ground of truth, is doing just fine, by Divine design.
Not necessarily, -- for example, the Good thief on the cross defending Jesus from slander did not earn anything; nor did St. Joseph of Arimathea for his tomb, not St. Simon the Sirene for carrying the Cross; nor Abraham for crossing the desert. These were works of love, faith and self-denial and they contribute to our salvation.
Indeed, the Church teaches that works for wage do not bring any supurnatural reward (Matthew 6 in several places)
When the facilities allow for it full immersion is preferable. Interesting how Protestant heretics at the same time argue that baptism does not save, then get persnickety over the method.
At the same time, this episode suggests that the water was brought in, i.e was not a full immersion baptism:
[47]...Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? [48] And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 10)
Observe that the house was "by the sea side", yet the water that was used was of the kind that could be given or forbidden by the master of the house, i.e. household water in some vessel.
unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God (John 3:3)
Nicodemus is perplexed and Jesus explains:
unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (Verse 5, "again" omitted)Note that neither water nor spirit are womb, of which Nicodemus inquired. Water and spirit are that second birth, baptism.
Metmom asked something similar.
St. John the Baptist's was not the Christian baptism that remits sin, it was merely a sign of penance. Ritual ablutions indeed were nothing new to the Jews even before St. John; it is not like Jesus taught us how to bathe.
By giving us an example of Himself being baptized, and God making the appearance, the Lord showed that baptism that He gives is the baptism that brings us into the sonship of God.
Note, too, that Jesus has no sin, and certainly had no lack of faith in His Father nor His own divinity, so His baptism is not for His own need, and not a sign of conversion, but for our edification, so that we know that baptism saves.
Well, since manuscripts were destroyed in great number by the Muslim — the Alexandria library was entirely destroyed, for example,— no, that is not logical, that would be quite improbable.
Then it follows that to reject some portion or group from among the ekklesia in whole or in part, is not exactly the same as rejecting Christ --- for they are not one and the same.
I've seen enough to be able to determine that the [Roman] Catholic church ecclesiastical community, has pattern and practice, teachings and dogmas not precisely as what was originally founded.
Singular "papacy" over all --- not in the original charter --- not by practice, not by scripture, not by history.
The "hyper" portion of the hyer-dulia afforded to no one but Mary --- is yet another "development", and was not taught for many centuries. Asking Mary to inhabit one's soul "heart", teaching that "Mary" has "sovereignty... over all hearts"
4) Implore Mary to lend you her heart so that you may receive her Son with her dispositions. Remind her that her Son's glory requires that he should not come into a heart so sullied and fickle as your own, which could not fail to diminish his glory and might cause him to leave. Tell her that if she will take up her abode in you to receive her Son -which she can do because of the sovereignty she has over all hearts - he will be received by her in a perfect manner without danger of being affronted or being forced to depart.
is absolutely not Gospel as Paul and others preached, but some other "thing".
Salvation [in part?] by works, or some sense of "fusing" works to grace, by which one can then "merit grace"? Utter nonsense. One cannot merit grace, not work to earn it, or it be no longer grace.
But you have the temerity to speak of heretics?
I'm not ashamed of not consenting to papacy and "Marianism".
About other "groups" I don't know. Rejecting the Catholic Church is rejecting Christ Whose Church she is.
The Church continues to teach today, because the Holy Ghost speaks through her, then and today and in the ages of ages. The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Catohlic Church; all your heresies will perish as many others have already perished. Instead of clinging to your heretical fantasies, come and learn, and be saved.
Your assertions are merely that. Assertions. They may be pleasing to many, but do not stand up all that well under critical scrutiny.
All my heresies shall perish? Of what heresies am I guilty of? (don't confuse myself with others --- show your work).
Here, let me help in this work or "inquiry" as it may be...is it;
Not agreeing with singular papacy? (or that there be be "papacy" at all). Not agreeing with Monfort, whom the Latin church ecclesiastical community has declared to be a "saint"? Perhaps the Lord accepts Montfort, that would be ok with me -- but I don't need accept Montfort's teachings.
I'm acquainted with the Lord. For reasons beyond my own understanding, it pleased himself to draw me towards Himself, and He has shown me personally and most directly that He will do so more completely, ultimately, beyond that which I have proper words to describe...
You say;
Do you really think the spirit of the Lord not be able to speak, beyond the limited understanding of yourself and others -- even those within [Roman] Catholic church ecclesiastical community?
It does seem to me that He has spoken often enough there (to various individuals) --- but there are other influences too, which are mistaken as being Him, drowning out even His own voice within that community at times, adding things not of Him, at others.
Then again, that condition is much the default condition outside of the narrower confines of the RCC, too. So -- it's not just "you guys" who can get a bit fouled up. If that's an consolation...
What blasphemy.
Christ dwells in our hearts through faith. Our bodies are the Temple of the Holy Spirit. We can grieve Him, but Jesus said *Never will I leave you, never will I forsake you."
This nonsense about Christ leaving our hearts because of some sin we committed is right from the pit.
This simple FACT has to be ignored by those who would usurp the very word of God with their traditions!
My little brother had this scary imaginary "monster" when he was about three or four. He called it the "Geen Gongee". We'd ask him, "What's a Geen Gongee?", and he would answer, "A Gonch.". So, we'd ask, "What's Gonch?", and he'd say, "A Geen Gongee!". We even asked him where a Geen Gongee lives, and he answered, "In a Gonch house!".
Sometimes, these "conversations" we have here remind me of that time. ;o)
Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. In a loud voice they were saying:
“Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!”
Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, saying:
“To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!”
The four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped. (Revelation 5:11-14)
And, Jesus was baptized with John's baptism and not the RC "right" formula of, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". Ooops!
Yet, YOU were the one who added the word "again" - claiming Jerome said it so it was okay. Here's your comment along with the usual snide aside we've come to expect:
Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. [4] Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother' s womb, and be born again? [5] Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3)
Have you forgotten that THAT was the point being argued? Jesus had to have been speaking of born of water - meaning the "flesh gives birth to flesh" - as a physical human birth, since He said so the very next verse, and NOT your erroneous insistence that He said "born again of water". If this is your way a conceding you were wrong, I accept.
In the Jewish religion, mikvahs are used symbolically for MANY purposes. Jesus going through John the Baptist's baptism was for His being set apart for His ministry beginning. Of course it wasn't to cleanse Him from sin, nor was it to bring Him "into the sonship of God", since He WAS the Son of God. The Christian ordinance of baptism was not even known about when that event happened.
Adjust your view outside of a pigeonhole idea of a word (i.e., baptism) and you'll be able to understand the concept and purpose of what baptism is really about.
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.