Posted on 05/02/2008 2:09:51 PM PDT by Augustinian monk
ἐλπίς
elpis
el-pece'
Fromἔλπω elpō which is a primary word (to anticipate, usually with pleasure); expectation (abstract or concrete) or confidence: - faith, hope.
There...Cleared that up...
Are you sure you figured out why Jesus died???
Yep, I sure have. He's a good one. Thanks for the link.
As far as getting back to the basics, I read a chapter in both the OT and NT each morning. (and occasionally listen to Swindoll in the evening.) Does that qualify? ;)
It sure does. That sounds like a great practice. God Bless you.
“I just quoted a pile of verses that in fact state that they did not know of their salvation - they had faith and hope in their salvation.”
Your interpretation of the verses.
And as for “Catholic letters” try, “catholic letters”. Big difference.
“but it’s close enough to the end of the first century to disprove your point.”
Uh, no it doesn’t disprove my point. You’re painting a facade that doesn’t hold up in Scripture. Nowhere in scripture is the word “catholic” or “Catholic” for that matter used.
Since you've reposted this, I will again point out that this post is false. By restating it, you bear false witness against us.
The Catechism does not confirm this falsehood.
This appears to virtually mandate that the Holy Spirit must go through the men of the Church in order to reach the believer.
This appears to virtually mandate that the Holy Spirit must go through the men of the Church in order to reach the believer.
You misunderstand or misstate the paragraph you quoted. There's no such mandate in that quote. Point out the words that you think state it.
Well then, I guess you reject the Trinity.
Technically the word “trinity” isn’t there either but I certainly don’t reject the ample evidence of it in scripture.
I do however reject the notion that the first century church bore any resemblance to any of the churches in existance today and that includes the Catholic church. There were no Catholics in the first century, only Christians. No denominations, just believers.
It didn't become necessary to refer to the Church as Catholic until the rebellious started heading for the hills.
No denominations, just believers.
The denominations were started later. See, for example, Martin, Cauvin, Zwingli, et al.
The Catholic Church is not a denomination. It is His Church, which He founded.
Catholics are Christian, they believe the entirety of the Faith taught us by Our Lord and the Apostoles He appointed and the successors to them.
The Church has had almost 2k years to grow. A body of around 1,000,000,000 members is bound to look different from body of at most a few tens of thousands of members. But it may not be reasonable to rely on appearances.
"Who, looking at an acorn, would know that it had an oak in it? And acorn bears little resemblance to an oak after all.The Church has had almost 2k years to grow. A body of around 1,000,000,000 members is bound to look different from body of at most a few tens of thousands of members. But it may not be reasonable to rely on appearances."
An argument was made suggesting that it doesn't LOOK like the Church. I addressed that argument.
I'm a Catholic. Of course I think the Catholic Church is "The" Church (speaking loosely). You're not a Catholic, of course you don't agree. Your post merely restates your disagreement. That disagreement lies at the heart of many of these conversations. Restating that there IS a disagreement doesn't move the argument along.
That's how it looks to me, anyway.
Then what did Christ mean about calling them living rather than brought back to life?
All I was stating was that even though an oak tree does not look like an acorn, it still has acorn DNA in it.
If the Catholic church still has the ‘DNA’ of the church Christ built, then why didn’t you realize that my statement could reiterate that point?
The Catholic church is not measured based on looks, but theological merit.
Just as the relation of the acorn and oak tree can be found in the DNA.
The fact that the Catholic Church claims to be “The” church is arrogance. The fact that because other Christians are not acceptable because we members won’t kowtow to the Pope is arrogance. The fact that the Catholic Church bears no resemblance to the first century church or the beliefs and practices they espoused and observed is damning in and of it’s self.
Don’t toss Calvin or the others at me, I don’t care what they say. I can read and understand much and what the Catholic church is today is nothing I want a part of.
I do however reject the notion that the first century church bore any resemblance to any of the churches in existance today and that includes the Catholic church.How nice. Objective evidence falls to your opinion, at least in your mind. For those who have eyes and can read there is the historical record - some of it at http://newadvent.org/fathers/
Nowhere in scripture is the word “catholic” or “Catholic” for that matter used.Duh. Christ founded ONE Church not many. One flock, one shepherd. Catholic means UNIVERSAL.
"For those who have eyes and can read there is the historical record" [excerpt]
LOL, the Holy Writ wasn’t written during the public ministry of Our Lord nor by Him. The same men that wrote the Holy Writ wrote many of the First Century reports of the Universal Church as it grew. The earliest Catechism is http://newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm — written about 70 years after the Crucifiction and Resurrection of Our Lord.
“Duh. Christ founded ONE Church not many.”
Right, one flock, one shepherd. Believers and Jesus.
I’m well aware of what “catholic” means thank you very much. I’d have thought you would have picked that up in my post.
I’d say more but I’m tired of this discussion.
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.