Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
Wonderful! Either Huxley is bad for the digestion.
That would be in St. Scofield's Inspired Margin Notes:
Mat 3:16 -
Jesus
For the first time the Trinity, foreshadowed in many ways in the Old Testament, is fully manifested. The Spirit descends upon the Son, and at the same moment the Father's voice is heard from heaven.
:)
The truth of the trinity appears, but the actual word "trinity" does not.
The truth of the rapture appears (we can argue about the timing), but in English the word doesn't appear. In the Latin, it does.
And one the Protestants on this thread actually used the photograph of the Lutheran church with a statue of a man kneeling/praying to statues as an example of Catholic idolatry!!!
The spin just doesn't stop, does it?
And what of the 'graven image' of Katherine in the same church, dressed up as a nun (again)?
"What do you think of the flowers in front of the tomb"
They look pretty good and well taken care of. At night, Heinze Luther,( friends call him Heinzy) the great, great, great, great, grandson of Martin and Katharina von Bora, under their will, has to leave flowers, preferably yellow if in season, on their graves and any statutes or memorials to them in Bavaria, in order to collect the small stipend left in trust. At least that's the rumor.
Y'all are doing the spinning. Not us. The man isn't praying to statues there. His statue is a stand alone. He is just praying.
I see a statues, resembling people, and one of them is kneeling and praying, it seems to toher statues.
More denial, more spin.
I realize that in Byzantine art there is a little problem with depth perception, but that statue of a man praying is at least 5 feet in front of the other statues and is facing East to their North. He isn't praying to statues. He is praying.
He established His Church and said He would remain with it for all time and that the gates of Hell would not prevail upon it; He sent the Holy Spirit upon it to teach it all truth; He told Saul that Saul was persecuting HIM:...Scripture calls the Church the Pillar and Ground of Truth and Jesus says He who hears you hears me..and, it turns out, all of that was a pack of lies.
Apparently,He failed. His word went forth and returned void.
Worse, it didn't return void, did it?
For if you're correct, His Church mislead billions of Christians and they all went to Hell until the 16th century.
But, then that would make Jesus Satan.
I forget in Scripture where Jesus establishes His Church and teaches it will lie and lead Christians into Hell until more than Fifteen Centuries after His Resurrection when a violent, vow-breaking, Jew-hating, drunk will be raised up...
In any event, it is an interesting thesis
But why have statues at all? Aren't these idols?
If statues in a Catholic or Orthodox church are idols, then they are also idols in a Protestant church -- YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
My church doesn't.
Neither do some Catholic churches (all have Crucifixes though). The point is that if Martin Luther had thought these were "graven images" or idols, they would have been removed; there would have been no debate, they would have been gone as soon as he brought it up (read the history of 16th Century Germany, thousands of people were killed and buildings destroyed by Protestants who listened to this "janitor.")
Crikey!
Let me make this perfectly clear. Not one member of the Invisible Church of Christ (i.e., the body of True Believers in Jesus Christ) will ever spend a day in Hell. The institution known as the Roman Catholic Church does have members of the Body of Christ in it, but the institution known as the Roman Catholic Church is not the Body of Christ.
And Baptists (in spirit and in truth) have been around since Pentecost and many of those who call themselves Baptists are also members of the Church of Christ.
So get off your high horse. Salvation resides in Christ and not in some building in Rome.
If one could only prove that Harry Potter really did exist.
Not even the Baptists agree on the origin of this sect. Historically, one can trace it back to a Puritan "heresy" (heresy of a heresy?) in the early 17th century England.
The other one, claiming the Baptist church was the 'first' church (established on "this rock") can be credited to and Arkansas Baptist pastor, J. M. Carroll's, and his booklet The Trail of Blood, 1931, promoting what is known as the "Landmarkist" origin of the Baptist church.
As proof, of the unbroken "lineage" of this church he lists as members of the Baptist "family," are you ready for this, Montanists, Novatianists, Donatists, Paulicians, Albigensians, Catharists, Waldenses, and Anabaptists.
Carroll's history is suspect. If he accepts those groups for one doctrine, then he gets to accept them for all their doctrines.
One thing about Carroll, though, that I think is worthy of note.
His intent was to show that one could trace the faith backward through history no matter what name those believers went by.
There is some merit to that notion.
It is the claim that Christianity can be identified by Christian teaching. The debate then becomes a discussion of the authoritative source of Christian teaching.
We say it is the words of the Apostles, founders of the Church, who were repeating the instruction they'd received from our Lord Jesus Himself.
I have trouble believing that anyone can disagree with that.
1 Thes 4:18 says nothing like that. It says "So, then, console/comfort one another with these words."
Typo. It is the verse prior.
Either way there is no word "rapture."
There is a rapiemur
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.