Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
Why do you continue to quote Ignatius when it is known that many of those works are forgeries???
Christianity was failing until Paul gave it that shot in the arm. Favourite claims? I told you that Peter was the first man to convert a Gentile. Let us examine Scripture.
Acts 10 is the story of Cornelius and his conversion and it is a strong demonstration of the authority of Peter as the first man to lead the Church after Jesus Ascended.
You're getting funny now...Every time I said THAT Antioch is in what was known at the time to be Syria...
But I'm glad you finally got it worked out that so many of us have known for ages...
We're all fallen and have our weaknesses, and that includes members of the clergy. Some have weaknesses to sin, that are far more morally repugnant and damaging than others. Biblically speaking, these are abominations.
Sexual depravity subjected upon minors by Church authority figures ranks right up there, as far as being morally repugnant and damaging, no matter the denomination of the Church such an indiviual unfortunately represents.
I know of no instance, personally, wherein an individual in such a position within a "Protestant" Church, was protected by the denomination and allowed to remain in that position, after being made aware. If there in fact is such an instance, it was and is wrong, plainly and simply, and any attempt to shield that person, no matter the justification, made that Church party to the sin.
There is no justification to conceal such a thing, especially a monetary justification, of all things. We in the south have a pejorative for certain churches, that preach a gospel of prosperity and have those grand, big box shopping malls ... money church.
Money is useful and necessary, but it can be a false god.
Related to that is the problem that if you don't get something right away, you blame your failure of understanding on us.
...And the ones that do not never mean that the lay people are priests in the same way that your ordained priests are, unless you're the exception to the rule...
Nice change of subject.
Now I can imagine somebody hauling out the "rubber dictionary" charge or denying that you changed the subject. Fine.
But the real deal is that on the one hand you say we are very different, and then on the other you pretend that you can understand what we teach and think as though it were just a slight difference in message and thought from what you teach and think.
Clue: Ask yourselves (a) What is the difference between ALL believers and EACH believer? (If you think there is NO difference, then you must be a Protestant and/or unfamiliar with the subtleties of the English Language)(if this is the first time you have asked yourselves this question, ask yourselves WHY the geniuses on your side never raised it before.)
(b)why have my frequent references to I COR 12 in this thread been IGNORED by your side?
The instigators of this thread don't know the difference between a discussion about names and a discussion about essences. Similarly, some, maybe many, on your side do not know the difference between a disagreement about how to say something and a disagreement about what that something is. An earlier group of Anti-Catholics prided themselves on their ignorance, and called themselves "know-nothings." Now there's a kind of ham-handed populist approach to theology, based on the fallacy that if God is simple, understanding Him must be easy.
Based on this aw shucks know nothingism, you all just spin further and further away from saying anything we recognize as accurate about ourselves.
Your response is the same as silence. If you don't understand the language used Scripture means nothing, everything, and anything.
Hahahaha...You post a footnote that some determined Catholic stuck between the scriptures in one of your bibles and that is supposed to be authorative??? You're not talking to another gullible Catholic...
Yes, and as He tells us -- "only Christ."
But the Reformed Christ is unrecognizable as compared to the Christian Christ, at least as described in Reformed writings. Jesus wants all men to be saved. The Reformed Christ dismissed the bulk of His creation to hell for His pleasure. Jesus wants men to love Him and each other and pleads, teaches and directs them to do it of their own will. The Reformed Christ hijacks certain men's souls and programs their every actions. Jesus died for all men's sins. The Reformed Christ only died for certain men's sins. Jesus told us how to act. The Reformed Christ makes us act. Repent of praying to Mary and statues of saints and calling your priests "another Christ."
If you repent of mischaracterizing the two meanings of prayer, and adopt the practices of the Apostles as taught by Christ, you will certainly cease posting things like this.
No one has actually established that the author was indeed a priest. The author was wrong and neither I nor the Catholic Church endorse his statements.
Its really a stretch that you would believe nothing the Vatican says as true, but take a dubious post by a single alleged Catholic Priest to be as from the Burning Bush. You are getting even more desperate in your efforts to undermine the moral authorith of the Church.
While you are doing the internet research for your next smear look up the Nazi Immorality Trials and the campaign among the Nazi's and their willing accomplices in the German press and the German Protestant Church to intentionally and similarly undermine the moral authority of the Catholic Church so as to remove it as an obstacle to their national socialist agenda. Your facilitating the effort today makes you either a co-conspirator or simply a useful idiot.
It appears not. Now he's confusing the way station in mid Turkey with the ancient seaport and Eastern powerhouse of Antioch. At least he's not publically calling himself God.
Why would I know? Ask MarkOMalley, the Roman Catholic who posted the link.
Or ask "Catholic Dossier" the site Mark linked to. Maybe they pulled it.
The fact is you told us Father Baker's article was inaccurate as to RCC beliefs, suspicious that the link itself was fake.
I can imagine the surprise when you realized a Roman Catholic had posted the thread and that the link, Father Baker, and all the "another Christ" claptrap was actual RCC doctrine.
On the latter we agree.
This pattern repeats daily around here. When an RC is in obvious, clearly-observed error, do they say "excuse me?" Do they reconsider their statements? Do they revise their remarks according to the truth?
No. They keep repeating the error in defiance of the printed page and our own lying eyes.
It would be funny if it didn't take away time better spent almost anywhere else.
Again, if you find fault with Father Baker's RCC catechism lesson, talk to the Roman Catholic Mark OMalley about the Roman Catholic article he posted from a Roman Catholic website written by a Roman Catholic priest.
"'Another Christ'...in both his professional and private life."
So being an intellectual is the key to understanding, eh??? I just don't git what God says...
I take the other approach...Some of you super-duper intellectuals have educated yourselves right out of the simplicity that is Christ Jesus...
Perhaps you've educated yourself out of the idea that all understanding comes from God, NOT your own massive intellect...
No problem here...I'll keep studying the scriptures while you study philosophers and those that study about the scriptures as opposed to those who study the scriptures themselves...I think you call them Theologians...
No, He commands us to pray to God who is manifest as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. They are one in the same (hint; think of the shamrock).
Repent of praying to Mary and statues of saints and calling your priests "another Christ."&
You have been corrected on this at least a dozen times yet you intentionally persist is stating it. You are either not too bright (doubtful) or malicious (probable). Catholics offer intercessory prayers to saints just as we ask our living brothers and sisters to pray for us and each other. We do not pray to statues, but to the saint or entity they represent. Lastly, for the umteenth time pray does NOT mean worship. I suggest you invest in a cheap dictionary or locate one of the free ones on line. It will save you from continuing to look the dunce or evil.
Authoritative? Didn’t say that.
Merely explanatory.
But I lost sight for a moment of Matthew 7:6.
No, He commands us to pray to God who is manifest as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. They are one in the same (hint; think of the shamrock).
Repent of praying to Mary and statues of saints and calling your priests "another Christ."&
You have been corrected on this at least a dozen times yet you intentionally persist is stating it. You are either not too bright (doubtful) or malicious (probable). Catholics offer intercessory prayers to saints just as we ask our living brothers and sisters to pray for us and each other. We do not pray to statues, but to the saint or entity they represent. Lastly, for the umteenth time pray does NOT mean worship. I suggest you invest in a cheap dictionary or locate one of the free ones on line. It will save you from continuing to look the dunce or evil.
The article in fact no longer appears at the original source.
Its really a stretch that you would believe nothing the Vatican says as true, but take a dubious post by a single alleged Catholic Priest to be as from the Burning Bush. You are getting even more desperate in your efforts to undermine the moral authorith of the Church.
Well you're right there, that I would'nt believe much truth comes out of the vatican, but that doesn't matter...The question is; what does the vatican actually teach...
But you guys that call us liars for repeating what your priests claim just slither on away when we try to get you to tell us what your vatican does actually teach...
Let's see. Who was the main force behind the current one world authority? Wasn't it Wilson's League of Nations? Whose secret police served as the model for the one-world Communist East German secret police force? Wasn't it Calvin? Whose theology of an infinitely cruel God (except to the elite) served as an influence to Calvin? Wasn't it Mohammed? No, you say?
http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Jihad-Islamic-Holy-Non-Muslims/dp/1591026024/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252939915&sr=8-1 says that: From now on destiny and divine omniscience are conjoined. Believers can live in perfect peace because they know that everything was written in advance. The very formula "It was wriitten" could only come from a religion of the book. Yet the Hebrew Bible and the Gospels never use such a formula. Thanks to it, the idea of predestination that was already haunting philosophical and Christian thinking received confirmation, forcibly established itself, and came to include double predestination (in Calvin), which, whether we want it or not, transforms the biblical God into destiny, Anamke, etc. And this derives from Muslim thinking.
John Calvin, Islamofascist. Does have certain ring to it. We know that he flogged people in Geneva for drinking; he just never outlawed pork. I wonder if he thought of prayer mats...
If you're trying out a new tagline here, I vote yes.
The most fake thing is your scholarly ethics. Even in this simplest level of peer review you are found woefully lacking. Nugget mining and selective publication of only corroborative information really paints you personally in a bad light and actually aids your antitheses in that you would resort to those tactics to prove your case. It suggests that even you do not believe your argument.
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.