Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?
I consider myself to be Catholic being a part of the universal church of Christ. Why should one sect be able to use a universal concept to identify themselves in a caucus thread while other Christian denominations need to use specific qualifiers to identify themselves in a caucus thread?
Yes, but sacrifices were for different purposes. Sacrifices for atonement for sin involved blood. These include the burnt offering, the sin offering, and the guilt offering. Peace offerings, OTOH, also involved blood, but their purpose was for such things as asking God for a blessing, or giving thanks to God for a blessing granted, or sometimes to seal a vow. With peace offerings the sacrifice was less because the worshiper (plus his family) got to eat most of the meat, and the priest's portion was less.
Grain offerings were usually in conjunction with an animal sacrifice (separate offering) but their purpose was to identify the person as having dedication to God, and could represent the fruits of obedience. But grain offerings did not atone for sin, and neither did freewill offerings or wave offerings.
I wish you would just come out and say what you really mean. . . .
On the contrary, I said it APPEARED to belong to a Catholic. However, since his beliefs are clearly at odds with Church teaching, it's just as likely that he's an anti-Catholic trying to portray Catholics incorrectly.
There are hundreds of variations of this picture with Mary standing on the entire planet earth with lightrays beaming from her arms. If the papacy doesn't agree with this, tell it to the thousands of Roman Catholics who believe it.
The Church has been very clear on this. For two thousand years the Church has been working to correct error, some refuse to accept this and think they know better and many of these are called PROTESTANTS.
They sure didn't learn this error in a Christian church.
No, they didn't they learned it from people who hold to the heretical belief that Church teachings are irrelevant.
Maybe it’s me but I still don’t understand why people want to go around, looking to be offended. But if that’s someone’s thing, hey, more power to him/her. Crusing the internet for pictures to be offended by, seems like a total waste of time to me. But ya know, who am I? It’s not like I’m a mod or something.
I’ve seen more “offensive” Mary pictures here on FR than I have in all my travels on two continents for 49 years. Takes some work to be offended, I guess.
Adding them to heated threads seems like something that a person would do to fan flames. Maybe not you, Dear Sister in Christ Alamo-Girl, but maybe someone else might. Afterall it was Dan Rather that popped a memo onto 60 minutes to slander, true or not, that was the intent.
But here’s the facts
1. An artist took a picture of a gravestone.
2. It’s in Nicaragua and has nothing to do with a Catholic FReepers on this thread
3. He called the statue “Mary” in the title of his photo
4. There is no proof of who it is
5. Alamo Girl is offended
6. The person in the grave who commissioned the stone doesn’t care at all (but I bet would be offended by this as would the artist)
7. I’m pretty offended that the picture is used to show how evil Catholics are and no one gives me a second glance.
Proverbs 18:19 says, “A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city, and contentions are like the bars of a citadel.”
So anyone who is looking to be offended, I can do nothing about that. You (plural) choose it. Perhaps spending some time in prayer and less looking for pictures on the internet would do a soul well.
Col 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:
Oh, you like the Catholic version where Jesus didn't quite suffer enough for you...It's up to you to do the rest of the suffering; to finish paying the price...
Well good luck on ya...I don't have much confidence in you making it tho...
I have posted from numerous Catholic websites where Mary is asked for salvation and is expected to give it...I'm thinking an honest Catholic on FR would no longer have to ask for evidence...
No, you may have posted from websites that purport to be owned by individual Catholics, but I have yet to see one that is actually sanctioned by the Church or even an individual diocese or parish. Get back to me if you can find one of these.
Sure his name is Jesus...
Is there any Jesus in your Christ...I have yet to see which Christ it is you refer to...
You weren't given anything...You usurped it...
What does Calvin do? Why does the OPC worship Machen as a God/Saint/other?
I agree totally. I never meant to imply that this view somehow validates those who deny divinity of Christ. Their view on God IS contradictory. The Theist or the Muslim, for example, end up with a god who has no interest in human acts other than, perhaps, by punishing the wrong ones. The Jews end up with god who communicates primarily through rules. All these are better than Atheism, but they are sorely lacking in understanding.
What I meant to say was that through human insight alone it is possible to form a more nearly correct concept of God Who is also a person. For example, a Jew might reflect on God appearing to Abraham as three angels and generally being a friend to him. He will not identify this with Christ but he will possibly see that God in one sense or another is a person. He won't become a Trinitarian, but maybe something akin to a modalist.
How wonderfully Ecklesburgian to actually blaspheme within an accusation of blasphemy.
Blasphemy (Greek blaptein, "to injure", and pheme, "reputation") signifies etymologically gross irreverence towards any person or thing worthy of exalted esteem.
I went through this before, I think within the year. The word translated "What is behind" appears, I think 4 or 5 times in the NT. Every other time, the KJV (and this is why I now have to look at Tyndale as well) translates it with a sense of "what is lacking." Only in this instance do they use this "what is behind" stuff.
What the Protestant "Analogy of Faith" means on the ground is that some guys in robes get to decide what the MAIN meaning of the MAIN scriptures are. Then they appear to mistranslate this passage because the plain sense of the Greek does not comport with what they think the main meanings are.
In my view, this is incredibly dishonest. Though I don't think it stands up to candid and careful analysis, I can see the good reasons for a Sola Scripture line of thought. And ditto for Sola Fide. But to cry Sola Scriptura while monkeying around with the translation in what certainly APPEARS to be an effort to make it comport with Sola Fide, that is very wrong.
It is also strangely indicative of the nastiness of this thread to say that I object for theological reasons. The FACT is that I encountered this text before I even thought of swimming the Tiber, back when I was greatly under the influence of neo-orthodoxy.
Even then, even the most Calvin-besotted of my faculty, we all agreed the text said what it truly says, and none of this "what is behind". We agreed and we wondered.
It appears, Mr. Iscool, that you maintain that no one (or maybe it's just no Catholic) could or would come to the text in humility to see what the text said. You charge, or insinuate, that my objection is because of my theology.
Of course, this knocks all of Sola Scriptura in a cocked hat OR, at the very best, makes it circular. "We are right to determine what the Scriptures say because we are right about what they say."
SOome very ill-advised words are currently being used to charge us with thinking we control God. But here you are demonstrating that you think your side can control the Word of God. You are saying you know what it MUST mean before you translate it, because you know what the rest of it means. And this is no over-the-top rhetoric.
Put it another way: (1)Translate the word according to its common meaning, and you have a challenge, a mystery, right there in the Bible.
(2)Use another, peculiar, incomprehensible, and rare meaning of the word, and the Bible says just what you think it SHOULD say, all tidy and easy to understand.
You chose the God that fits in a box.
I'll choose the one that fits in a manger, who fits in my heart only by breaking it.
What all of this means is “REPENT and join the Orthodox Presbyterian Cult”
You wrote:
“Just a Queen right?”
A queen, but not just a queen. Queen Elizabeth II is just a queen.
You wrote:
“What does a mediator do?”
What do think a mediator does?
What all of this means is “REPENT and join the Orthodox Presbyterian Cult”
That’s pure conjecture.
You could repent and join a Reformed Baptist Church instead.
Why would ANYONE willingly walk away from the Church and embrace heresy.
Saint Paul warned that one day some would come preaching a different Gospel, that has been happening in earnest for the past five centuries.
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.