Oh, but several already exist!
>
I think this last one is probably the most relevant.
Posted on 03/24/2008 3:36:37 PM PDT by annalex
Myself included in this case. You misspoke and I understood your misstatement to be accurate.
My apologies for taking your words at face value.
Traditions of Men. Sola Cauvin
...
2Pe 3:1 Beloved, I now write this second letter to you, in which I stir up your pure mind by reminder
2Pe 3:2 to remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of the Lord and Savior by us, the apostles.
You wrote:
“I will ignore your blatant denial of my own experience (and the fact that you are implicitly calling me a liar).”
Deny it, take it to heart, I’m not worried in either case. Again, my past experiences with you - and you’re free to deny those all you like - don’t show you to be very knowledgeable about the Catholic faith.
“Dei Verbum is of no use because it can be interpreted any way the reader wishes to interpret it (just as Protestants interpret the Bible).”
Clearly untrue. It can be interpreted in one of several ways perhaps, but not in “any way the reader wishes”.
“Inerrantists insist it teaches total inerrancy; anti-inerrantists insist it teaches partial inerrancy (”those truths for the sake of our salvation”). Anti-inerrantists invoke Dei Verbum the same as inerrantists do.”
Interesting, but irrelevant. Remember your point was this: “Well, considering that almost every Catholic FReeper who comments on these issues loudly endorses evolution, denies total Biblical inerrancy, or else never says a word on these subjects I think I can be forgiven for not knowing this.”
So far you haven’t demonstrated any of that. None of it.
I'm supposed to take this seriously...from a bible code/ufologist?
As I explained to the RM, the picture I posted was of "rubber" belonging to people spouting the same things you do.
Here’s what immediately comes to mind:
(KJV) Luke 22:24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.
25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
(Message paraphrase) Luke 22:24-26 Within minutes they were bickering over who of them would end up the greatest. But Jesus intervened: “Kings like to throw their weight around and people in authority like to give themselves fancy titles. It’s not going to be that way with you. Let the senior among you become like the junior; let the leader act the part of the servant.
********************
Then there’s the Nicolaitan heresy-
Nico- to rule over
laity- the common people
Jesus said in the Revelation that He hates it.
**********************
There are other examples, but I just thought of these two.
Any division which sets one class of believer above another is heresy. Even Paul and Banabas were separated unto apostleship- not placed in rulership over the Body, but rather constrained by love and enslaved to the service of God, as it were.
Typical Protestant fudge on the issue of the Deuterocanon.
Of course. What it means is that one has to live out the commandments in obedience of the Gospel, just like Christ told the rich young man. What it does not mean is that a proclamation of faith makes one saved forever regardless of his works.
That wasn't the point of my post you responded to: apostasy was.
Do you not understand the difference, or are you just avoiding?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.
Much appreciate a vivid
example
of how the RC edifice’s nutty cult magicsterical rationalizes and justifies
such outrageous things as
rubber Bibles,
rubber histories,
rubber logic,
The Inquisition . . .
etc.
etc.
etc.
Were the assertion to be an accurate one,
seems solidly logical to me . . . that a long list of
DIFFERENT pictures of Nikes could have been picked . . . even DIFFERENT
pics of Nikes on NON-successful suiciders.
But who am I to suggest that reality and accuracy-in-posting should intrude on a nutty-cult-RC-edifice thread! LOL.
Ever heard of something called an Elder?
Oh, but several already exist!
>
I think this last one is probably the most relevant.
And that would get across the point of where mixing religion and ufo preoccupation lead, how?
spouting the same things you do.
= = =
Reality check here . . . seems to me that the above is more of a clueless perspective . . . evidently from folks who really pay absolutely no attention to any UFO data, AT ALL.
So, they must concoct fantasies to deride folks with. Fascinating. Of course, all in the name of brotherly love.
Which—if that were the focus—even though misguided and 180 degrees wrong . . . I’d still think some of the caring would show through.
But, I guess I shouldn’t be too tough on folks who have a
TERRIBLY HORRIBLE TIME
DISTINGUISHING
BETWEEN
SAME
VS
DIFFERENT.
They have a dreadfully difficult time distinguishing between the first century and the 2nd; between the 1st century and the 3rd; between the 2nd century and the 3rd and 4th etc. etc.
They have an absolutely horrible time distinguishing between Scripture and arrogant pontifications of political power mongers—tending to call it all more or less equal, or the same.
They have an absolutely off the wall horrible time distinguishing between their nutty little cult overblown and The Church of Christ Universal.
They have an unimaginably difficult time distinguishing between a humble Godly mother and her 30 years of behind the scenes 15 minutes of fame. . . vs
the Magnificent Magical Earth-Mother Mighty Mary acclaimed in idol worship the world over.
Clearly, distinguishing between the Hale Bop idiocies and serious UFO research is at least a galactic cluster or 3 beyond their skill levels.
Ah well. The truth will out in due course.
But they sure have my sympathies. Such horrid troubles distinguishing between DIFFERENT VS SAME can be a REAL handicap.
Interesting, Dr. E. On the vast web . . . it appears that one is supposed to believe that there are no other examples available of folks mixing religion and UFO issues. Actually, the opposite is true!
There’s pleny of religion and UFO folk around who had nothing to do with successful suicide.
One is left with the conclusion yet again, that the suicide aspect was selected for a specific purpose . . . mysterious as that may be.
Let us quote a bit above what you quote:
Paul testifies that the Church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets,” (Eph. 2:20). If the doctrine of the apostles and prophets is the foundation of the Church, the former must have had its certainty before the latter began to exist. Nor is there any room for the cavil, that though the Church derives her first beginning from thence, it still remains doubtful what writings are to be attributed to the apostles and prophets, until her Judgment is interposed. For if the Christian Church was founded at first on the writings of the prophets, and the preaching of the apostles, that doctrine, wheresoever it may be found, was certainly ascertained and sanctioned antecedently to the Church, since, but for this, the Church herself never could have existed. Nothings therefore can be more absurd than the fiction, that the power of judging Scripture is in the Church, and that on her nod its certainty depends.So, the Church is built on the foundation of prophets and apostles and for that reason she authenticates the scripture. Very well. That is the Catholic teaching. Conveniently, you posted in 58 form 1 Corinthians 2:10-12; you might have added the stronger lagnuage St. Paul employs later, "But we have the mind of Christ". With this scriptural foundation in mind, we are equipped to answer the question, who is that royal, Christ-minded "we", who "have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God; that we may know the things that are given us from God"? You, "doctor"? Mr. Calvin? Rev. Huckster?
St. Paul gives a direct answer:
the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined. 15 But the spiritual man judgeth all things; and he himself is judged of no man. [...] 1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal. As unto little ones in Christ. 2 I gave you milk to drink, not meat; for you were not able as yet. But neither indeed are you now able; for you are yet carnal.Christianity consists of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, who speaks the mind of Christ, and it consists of "the little ones in Christ", the laity. So how is it then that Mr. Calvin proceeds in his book "Scripture bears upon the face of it as clear evidence of its truth, as white and black do of their colour"? Who made that man an apostle? This, "doctor" is ugly, lying arrogance that permeates the Institutes, in all its rabid empty froth.(Ibid)
I should probably give this thread a rest and get to pottery . . . at least attend to other priorities! LOL.
But your examples are interesting . . .
Evidently being Roman is much more important than being Christian. Sigh.
And in your statement we see the fundamental error of Rome: the confusion of the law and the Gospel.
The rich young ruler was under the mistaken impression that he had fulfilled the law. What we see Christ doing in this passage is taking the law and cranking it up to the nth degree, to the point where the rich young ruler realized he could not keep the law.
The Apostles got it clear when they asked Christ who then can be saved. Christ answered with the obvious: With god all things are possible. We can't save ourselves, only God can.
to 179
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.