Posted on 04/27/2008 3:36:18 AM PDT by markomalley
You have made it abundantly clear that you hold the Church in disdain. I will now shake the sand from my sandals and walk on. Enjoy your echo chamber.
May God bless you.
AMEN to all your Godly posts on this thread.
Our justification by Christ on the cross has been graciously accomplished by God for His glory.
Our sanctification takes a life-time, and parts of it are certainly easier than others. "Letting go and letting God" is not in our nature to do, but mercifully, He provides the way.
How can I have disdain for that of which I am a member, by the grace of God alone?
My membership in Christ's church is my greatest possession, won not by me but by Christ on the cross and graciously given to me by God for His glory.
May God bless you.
Thank you. He has, and continues to do so every day of my life. I hope the same for you.
I remember a wedding Mass a couple years back when, at the end of the Lord's Prayer, the Protestants in attendance started to say that bit and smiled inside when the sound of it trailed off to nothing.
**smile**
You have remarkable gifts to know they "smiled inside".
Interesting that you equate the Jews' sacrifices with your understanding of the Lord's Supper. You are correct to compare them. Both are incomplete understandings of the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
It is not the physical or material that saves; it is the spiritual.
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." -- Hebrews 10:6-14"In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
We are to "remember" His sacrifice; not to repeat it.
Well there you go some of them surely are defective..
He throws all of them under the bus..
I throw most of them under the bus including the RCC..
He's on the right track.. I'll give him that..
Maybe he will see the truth in John ch 10.. maybe not..
Whether a Rottwieler, a Spitz or a WeinerDog.. I don't know..
He is for sure barking up the WRONG Tree..
But many Protestant Beagles are following imaginary rabbits as well..
My dog whistle don't work(probably), not that I can hear it..
nice haiku
LOL... O’Toole would make a good Pope.. (Pope Innocent the NOT)..
That’s a typo. I smiled inside. I’m sure they were confused.
The Vulgate (or Latin) contained other errors. For instance, from the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32) the specially published Name of God, The Rock was lost in translation:
First, in context (emphasis mine:)
tsuwr po`al tamiym derek mishpat 'el 'emuwnah `evel tsaddiyq yashar
Dei perfecta sunt opera et omnes viae eius iudicia Deus fidelis et absque ulla iniquitate iustus et rectus
For more on God is The Rock: Research Project
To God be the glory!
ping
And thank you so much for your encouragements, dear sister in Christ!
It was a doxology added in where it did not belong.
Then there was no need for the cross.
Perhaps you should send him an email to nudge him in the right direction...
It is not the physical or material that saves; it is the spiritual.Or for Christ to become man at all for that matter.
Then there was no need for the cross.
Amen. Great post, and further shows why the OT in the KJV is based on the correct Jewish text and not on the Greek.
~~~"What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church?... Our instructions come from "the porch of Solomon"... Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus...!~~~
So said Tertullian in his "Prescription against Heretics (VII)." Tertullian's question, what does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?, dramatically expresses one of the perennial issues in Christian thoughta problem which cannot be escaped by any Biblical interpreter, theologian, or apologist. We all operate on the basis of some answer to that question, whether we give it explicit and thoughtful attention or not. It is not a matter of whether we will answer the question, but only of how well we will do so.
What does Tertullian's question ask? It inquires into the proper relation between Athens, the prime example of secular learning, and Jerusalem, the symbol of Christian commitment and thought. How does the proclamation of the Church relate to the teaching of the philosophical Academy? In one way or another, this question has constantly been before the mind of the church. How should faith and philosophy interact? Which has controlling authority over the other? How should the believer respond to alleged conflicts between revealed truth and extrabiblical instruction (in history, science, or what have you)? What is the proper relation between reason and revelation, between secular opinion and faith, between what is taught outside the church and what is preached inside?
This issue is particularly acute for the Christian apologist. When a believer offers a reasoned defense of the Christian hope that is within him (in obedience to 1 Peter 3:15), it is more often than not set forth in the face of some conflicting perspective. As we evangelize unbelievers in our culture, they rarely hold to the authority of the Bible and submit to it from the outset. The very reason most of our friends and neighbors need an evangelistic witness is that they hold a different outlook on life, a different philosophy, a different authority for their thinking. How, then, does the apologist respond to the conflicting viewpoints and sources of truth given adherence by those to whom he witnesses? What should he think "Athens" has to do with "Jerusalem" just here?...
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.