Posted on 05/02/2008 2:09:51 PM PDT by Augustinian monk
If the original inspired Greek texts were not preserved by the Godhead, then the ‘Holy Writ’ may have become profane.
I stand by my statement.
I have more faith in something inspired and preserved by God than something written and preserved by man.
“Right, one flock, one shepherd. Believers and Jesus.”
Close, Our Lord also appointed Apostles and priests. You are tired, well get rest.
What organized group collected, sifted, sorted and numbered the Holy Writ?
“Right, one flock, one shepherd. Believers and Jesus.”
"Close, Our Lord also appointed Apostles and priests. You are tired, well get rest."
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
1st Peter 1:1-2
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
1st Peter 2:5
"What organized group collected, sifted, sorted and numbered the Holy Writ?"
“Thats the difference between God preserving something and man preserving something...”
And yet you deny that God has preserved His Universal Church with the same Universal Truth always taught? As opposed to the cacophony of heresies masquerading as churches in the Prot world?
"And yet you deny that God has preserved His Universal Church with the same Universal Truth always taught? As opposed to the cacophony of heresies masquerading as churches in the Prot world?"
And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
John 6:65-66
Tell me about yours. What denomination is it?
"Tell me about yours. What denomination is it?"
I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
John 15:5
Not so...The oak tree produces more little acorns...Your oak tree grows bananas...Thanks God, there are still oak trees that produce acorns...
The fact that the Catholic Church claims to be “The” church is arrogance. opinion that the Catholic Church ...." is an arrogant opinion.
I'd answer some who hold it are arrogant and some hold it because they are arrogant. But it is possible to think the Mount Sinai was the mountain on which the law was given, not for any reward or becasue of any intrinsic merit but because of God's grace. In fact, I've read that one Talmudic account for the choice of Sinai was precisely BECAUSE it was NOT a very special mountain. An undistinguished and homely mountain would be less likely to distract from the splendor of the Torah.
The fact that because other Christians are not acceptable because we members won’t kowtow to the Pope is arrogance.
If this opinion is held by anyone, he does not understand Catholic teaching.
If I may make a general observation: If you come to a religion thread on a forum given to the discussion of divergent opinions, you can expect to find people who hold opinions you find arrogant. The people themselves may or may not be arrogant, and as it is not impossible that I am mistaken, so it is not impossible that you also might possibly be mistaken.
But neither of us will find out if we focus on what we take as arrogance in our disputants or the opinions they put forth, or rest our arguments on the seeming arrogance of the "facts" of those who disagree with us.
AN argument was made that the Catholic Church cannot be "the" Church because it looks so different from the primitive Church.
My response was not intended to address every possible argument against my side's self-concept. It was intended to address one and only one particular argument.
My argument was, expressed in a comparison, that the fact of apparent change over a couple of millenia is no argument of essential change.
In response if have gotten two, "But there was TOO an essential change."
I KNOW you think that. That's why we're here doing this.
Am I to understand in the restatement without further support of one of your side's basic contentions that you all acknowledge that the argument from change of appearance is bankrupt? I certainly have seen no defense of it.
Your side brought up the appearance argument. Your side seems to be abandoning it.
Jesus Christ did not found a church...Jesus founded disciples who became (because they were disciples) the church(es)...
No one joined the church...They were added as they became believers...
Churches already existed when people started turning to Jesus...And men started creating their own churhes just as quickly...The Roman, pagan church as well, was very alive and well at the time...
Constantine combined a large religious group with the pagan church and it turned out to be your religion...That's NOT the church that Jesus founded...
You claim your church fathers are direct descendents of the Apostles...Maybe some were...Maybe not...Maybe they were some of the ones that were run out of the church by Paul and others...Your claim of being the one, true church is meaningless...The fact that you can produce a (broken) lineage back to Apostles is meaningless as well...No one knows how accurate that lineage record is...
The reason your church lasted so long and was/is as powerful as it was is due to it's alliance with pagan and secular gov'ts....
I’ve noticed that Protestants don’t usually depict Jesus at all. Catholic representations go all the way back to Apostolic times with the icons and the Chi Rho inscriptions.
***No matter where you go, you will always find someone who is ‘in the flesh.’ I’ve seen the same women at one church always getting into ‘holy laughter.’***
An old saying is that the only thing more repulsive than those who attack the government are those who attack the government. I find much Protestant ‘praise’ to be either forced or dull.
***Yes, and I agree with your list and your conclusion. The emphasis is on the physical rather than the spiritual, and on people rather than on God.***
Jesus left His Church and a list of instructions. We must follow them all and not cherry-picked verse.
***“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.***
Y’all just don’t get it. It’s not my interpretation - it’s the interpretation of the Church of Jesus Christ. I am not my own Pope.
It was capitalized, by the way.
***But an Oak Tree still has Acorn DNA in it.***
There are many Protestant denominations and entities that have no Christian DNA in them.
***The fact that the Catholic Church claims to be “The” church is arrogance.***
Nope, it’s historical and spiritual fact, despite all the whining and hysteria.
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.