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?
At the time in the Holy Land, Aramaic was the common language of the people, Hebrew was the language of the priesthood and ancient documents, Latin was the language of the conquerors, but Greek was the Lingua Franca of the entire world and would remain that way for the next 400 years, when Latin succeeded it; French replaced Latin in the 1600s and English replaced French in the 1800s.
Of course Greek was chosen since it was the language that most people on earth knew, at least as a second language.
Uhhhh
I’m Pentecostal . . .
I suspect . . . merely suspect . . .
That quite a LOT of Vatican associates as well as quite a lot of Prottys, hereon,
would assert that
I have for years and years hereon . . . and continue to
fairly vigorously
PROTEST a lot of Vatican related stuff hereon
. . . with quite a lot of energy, actually.
My quarrel is with “God chose greek (sic)”
If true, there should be a scripture reference saying so, right?
That doesn't make empathy or understanding in themselves passions. You use "passionate" as a synonym for "strong" or "overwhelming". It is indeed the modern usage.
But, look, no one is saying that we should moderate our empathy or not be too understanding. When we talk of controlling the passions, this doesn't apply to controlling virtues. Here's that word again.
"9 For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building. 10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. 11 For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— 13 each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. - 1 Cor 3
6So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, 7for we walk by faith, not by sight. 8Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 9So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him. 10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil. - 2 Cor 5
There is no condemnation for the one who believes (John 3), but there are rewards (or not) for our service here. What do they consist of? Beats me.
I miss the occasional post to me amidst all the fun as well, so no offense taken at all.
My poijt is that in order to show that Jesus is part of the Triune God, it is necessary to show it, not to show that he is not a David or Moses or Elijah.
Everlasting meant to the people of the time to be forever - that is, within time. God exists out of time and therefore does not come into contention here. Therefore, if Jesus existed from the beginning of Time to the end of Time, it is still not proof of His Divinity.
The very contention that Jesus is the (a) son of God is strong evidence that He was Created by God the Father. All the sons of God identified before or since were identified as creations of God.
Your objective are wanting, and rejecting John is untenable, and the Scriptures in their totality provide abundant warrant for the doctrine of the Trinity as against other postulations.
Okay. Stop. I do not reject John; you are missing my point entirely. My point is that without the Gospel of John, the Trinity is not defensible as a doctrine. The rest of the Bible is weak in describing the Trinity. Therefore we MUST include John. Does that make more sense?
But that alone is insufficient, rather, it was because the Scriptures best warrant the doctrine of the Trinity that is has so universally “stuck”, the exceptions usually being among those who look to a supreme teaching magisterium such as the WTS or LDS, etc.
How many Protestants are there who believe in subordinationalism at the best, and a Duality or Oneness at the worst? A large minority or possibly a majority. How many people here on this board think of God the Father as the stern overseer of all Creation, Jesus as his representative here on earth, and the Holy Spirit as either a force of their will or else as a messenger boy that is sent by God or Jesus?
Original data found here:
http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/multiplefaiths/multiplefaiths.pdf
I haven’t read it yet, but it looks like it could be interesting.
What a fantastic collection of stats.
Thanks tons.
Will ponder and respond after I get home.
Bless you.
They do not worship St. Paul; they worship a vision of Saint Paul seen through Calvin's kaleidoscope.
You're right, and I hope/think everyone in the conversation knows what is being talked about.
How can one explain the motivational reasons one would scour the inter-net to find anti-Catholic factoids and lies and yet not once visit or quote from the Vatican's website, it's Catechism (that is available on line) or any of its other doctrinal encyclicals unless that motivation is hateful and malicious. That then begs the question about the sincerity of ones professed Christian beliefs.
I wonder what sort of rationalizing there will be about such . . .
other than the usual . . .
‘poorly taught’
‘CINO’s’
etc. etc.
Sure beats me too, since there is only one reward in Heaven. Perhaps this is referring to not rewards, but the lessening of the transition between sinful being on earth and pure being in Heaven.
Excellent point, I stand corrected.
Perhaps it is ingested in the Calvinist parody of the Eucharist along with whatever it is that they eat or drink or smoke or whatever...
That is my site, by God’s grace (and i need it), and if you have been following the thread, it is no secret that i oppose Romanism for Scriptural reasons. However, the sources are sources, from various places, including CBS, and Catholic ones, etc,. and outside the Barna ones, who changed their whole site so the old links don’t work (their working on it they said) you should be able to go to them. I collect all kinds of stats, as that page attests (send those you find), and i have never found any that contradicted the general trend shown here.
BTW, the 8 got clipped of the beginning where it says,
2% of Mainline Churches, 77% of Catholics and 53% of Evangelical Churches affirmed, “There is MORE than one true way to interpret the teachings of my religion.”
That's the entire point. When your will is to do someone else's will that is called consent.
If ONLY Christ could keep the whole law PERFECTLY then Mary could not keep it perfectly so she had sin just like all men
The Catechism does teach that Mary was free from all sin:
508 From among the descendants of Eve, God chose the Virgin Mary to be the mother of his Son. "Full of grace", Mary is "the most excellent fruit of redemption" (SC 103): from the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life.Paragraph 2. "Concieved by the Power of the Holy Spirit and Born of the Virgin Mary"
On the other hand Mary was not a priest, and if she was as you say "sinless " then she had no "original sin" to "wash away"
I am simply bringing you an analogy. The Church does not teach believer's baptism and the Church does not teach that Mary was baptised in any rutualistic way. However, her consent of faith is fully analogous to believer's baptism as I understand what it means: a conscious decision for Christ.
But once on this topic, the purpose of baptism is not limited to remission of sin. It is also an entry into the family of Christ, His Church.
Thank you, very much. Since it is yours, I can easily go to the author if I have a question! PS, did you write the paragraph I posted above? If you’re not sure what I mean, I can post it again.
I can offer up only my prayers for your continued clear-headed postulations on things of God. :o)
If I had any money, I would have an iPhone!!!
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.