Posted on 12/22/2013 1:46:25 PM PST by piusv
Does this ekklesia mean something different than outlined in Deut 4:10 ? I don't think so, as He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Does that mean it is a different ekklesia than the one in Deut 4:10 ?
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Yes, it does, because future tense is used.
No it was to make a point of referring to *THIS* thread and calling us Catholics “in quotes”. Then he plays dumb by saying he just doesn’t follow why I responded the way I did in that thread. Uh-huh.
It’s funny how despite the fact that the three of us have very different opinions on this matter, we didn’t once call his “Catholic-ness” into question.
Yes, let the “gentle readers judge for themselves”, indeed.
Indeed, I call your catholicity into question and you did not call mine. Makes sense.
You can’t conclude speculations with another speculation.
That is not a full quote of his sermon, verbatim. There’s no telling how much of it was white-washed. just like all his other sermons.
You still have an obligation to present the entire thought, not an unfinished fragment of it.
Read about the entire homily here:
when the Jews convert en masse to “messianics” ... cannot say for sure what their “church” will look like ... but it is not reasonable to expect them to become Anglicans. Or Greek Orthodox or Roman Catholic. Just as if the schism is reconciled with the Greeks to expect that the Orthodox will become RC.
but as said by
annalex:
“the Torah is fulfilled in the Gospel of Grace, and can only be understood through it, and the circumcision and the kashrut are of no relevance ...”
They’ll have that issue to confront.
They should convert to the Catholic Church, of which the Orthodox are a separated part. That modern messianic Jewish communities of Christian faith convert some Jews is very nice, but that does not end the journey for the Jews who join them, or for the Protestants as a whole.
This is the Church that is waiting for them:
Yes, it does, because future tense is used.
Mazol Tav Happy Eisegesis !
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
I inserted the future tense in Matthew 16:18?
How can you read a homily “in whole” when it’s a bunch of excerpts with interjections by Zenit?
Discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal.
when the Greeks are no longer separated ... they will still be Greek Orthodox ... will still have their bishops. Cultural differences are great. The church was not always Roman.
likewise for the Jews.
How does it make sense annalex? Please do enlighten us why it makes sense for you to call our catholicity into question. Considering we think your view does not agree with Tradition, we could easily call yours into question as well, but we don't.
Actually, the OP does quote the entire passage that you do in a previous post. It hasn’t left anything significant out. You just don’t like the conclusions it comes to. In fact it goes into detail why what Francis said is NOT the same thing as what JPII said (even though Francis brings JPII into his homily).
So I would appreciate it if you would stop making it seem like I posted something that leaves out important parts of the homily.
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.