Posted on 04/30/2010 8:03:48 AM PDT by Quix
.
|
7 “When you pray, don’t babble on and on as people of other religions do. They think their prayers are answered merely by repeating their words again and again. 8 Don’t be like them, for your Father knows exactly what you need even before you ask him! 9 Pray like this: Our Father in heaven, --New Living Translation 7And when you pray, do not heap up phrases (multiply words, repeating the same ones over and over) as the Gentiles do, for they think they will be heard for their much speaking. [I Kings 18:25-29.] 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him. 9Pray, therefore, like this: 15But if you do not forgive others their trespasses [their [j]reckless and willful sins, [k]leaving them, letting them go, and [l]giving up resentment], neither will your Father forgive you your trespasses. --Amplified Pray with Simplicity 5"And when you come before God, don't turn that into a theatrical production either. All these people making a regular show out of their prayers, hoping for stardom! Do you think God sits in a box seat? 6"Here's what I want you to do: Find a quiet, secluded place so you won't be tempted to role-play before God. Just be there as simply and honestly as you can manage. The focus will shift from you to God, and you will begin to sense his grace. 7-13"The world is full of so-called prayer warriors who are prayer-ignorant. They're full of formulas and programs and advice, peddling techniques for getting what you want from God. Don't fall for that nonsense. This is your Father you are dealing with, and he knows better than you what you need. With a God like this loving you, you can pray very simply. Like this: 16-18"When you practice some appetite-denying discipline to better concentrate on God, don't make a production out of it. It might turn you into a small-time celebrity but it won't make you a saint. If you 'go into training' inwardly, act normal outwardly. Shampoo and comb your hair, brush your teeth, wash your face. God doesn't require attention-getting devices. He won't overlook what you are doing; he'll reward you well. |
Mark Kirby: O Mother of Good Counsel, I am all thine, Most Holy Mary, There is no part of my life that is not open to thee, I want to be completely transparent with thee, Praying in this way, I can be at rest, |
.
.
.
Certainly . . . I suppose it’s a bit much in the direction of perseveration . . .
however,
AS I began everyone I came to symbolized or stated clearly a signficant issue tempting to some individuals . . . so I just went with it. The varieties of human experience and personality are somewhat endless . . . and our designed-in NEED to worship takes on endless foci. So, I thought the long list was representative of the human condition and human risks toward idolatry that you pointed out so artfully.
Thank YOU!
No, not really.
But at least it’s out in plain sight for all to see.
Throughout Scriptures, His people suffered such things for their own sakes, i.e. a "wake up call."
And the cause in Scripture (e.g. Song of Moses) always comes back to failing to keep the One and Only Great Commandment, i.e. Matt 22 which I paraphrase as loving God surpassingly above all else.
Maranatha, Jesus!!!
YUP.
THAT’S THE WAY IT IS IN RIVER CITY . . . AND PLANET EARTH.
Oops, that should be “last generation” not “last generation of Christians.”
No, not really.
But at least it’s out in plain sight for all to see.
= =
INDEED.
And because they can't figure out what the scripture says, they figure no one else can either...
There is only ONE God: I AM.
He came in the form of a Jew and He will rule and reign for a thousand years as a Jewish King on the throne of David in Jerusalem.
I'm sure that you'll let us know when this happens. In the meantime, we'll be getting on with the worship of the Lord God Almighty.
I AM is one I AM WHO I AM is given to Moses YHvH is the ONE which appears over 7000 times in His Word. HaVaYah Here is a profitable study of the many NAMES of G-d. Yah'shua is known by many as Jesus in This might be a profitable study of YHvH's salvation:Interesting The L-rd G-d has given us his many names.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
the Hebrew it means YHvH be my salvation
Gen. 49:18; Exod. 14:13; 15:2; 1 Sam. 2:1; 2 Sam. 22:47; 1 Chr. 16:23; 2 Chr. 6:41; 20:17; Ps. 3:8; 14:7; 18:2, 46; 21:1; 24:5; 27:1; 35:9; 37:39; 38:22; 40:16; 68:19; 85:7; 88:1; 95:1; 96:2; 98:2; 106:4; 116:13; 118:14f; 119:41, 166, 174; 140:7; 149:4; Isa. 12:2; 25:9; 33:2, 6; 45:8, 17; 49:8; 52:10; 56:1; 61:10; 62:11; Jer. 3:23; Lam. 3:26; Jon. 2:9; Mic. 7:7; Hab. 3:8, 18
Somewhere on the forum I recall a missionary pointing out the same thing happening in the Philippines where some have merged Catholic beliefs with Buddhism and perhaps other beliefs. Again, I suspect someone dropped the evangelical ball.
Protestant evangelizing has also spawned false religions when it didn't follow through, showing the converts the absolutely necessity of not corrupting the words of God. Scientology, New Age beliefs and LDS come to mind. And some of the majors even now have gone off the deep end calling bad good and good bad.
You're so far out, they're going to have to send the dogs out looking for you...
The scripture was there first...As far as the Gospels are concerned, when Jesus spoke, it was scripture...It just hadn't been written down yet...
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
The second Jesus' lips moved, it was scripture...
The same with the Apostle Paul...Paul spoke the scripture as he was instructed by Jesus...And during the course of his ministry, Paul committed to papyrus the Scripture he had been teaching and preaching...SCRIPTURE...
Apparently, I’m responding to one of his minions now.
.
Wait! God spoke through a Democrat?
Well if he can do THAT, he can certainly speak through us.
No. that assumes the preachers were capable and desirous of knowing what the Vatican said.
uhhhhh
only when He’s SUUUUUPPPPER DESPERATE!
LOL.
The problem with Scripture-only is that you are missing the primary teachings of Christ. Jesus taught orally, and so did the early Church. Paul is the first of the NT writings that we know of, only an early draft of Matthew might have preceded it.
Are you saying that the words of Jesus aren't in the Scriptures? Can you supply any documentation of Jesus' words that don't appear in the Scriptures? I think not!
Me: "Not being a member of the "Reformed churches" that you refer to, we stick to what is revealed by God through the writings of Christ's inspired writers of the Bible."
While missing the teachings of the Lord himself.
See my words above!
Me: "The assembly I affiliate with follows the lead of the Apostles as they taught everything that Jesus told them to. We do not add nor subtract from what is written, period."
Negative. You do not follow the Didache, for instance. I will assume that you do not have the Deutercanonicals in your Bibles either.
Negative to you're negative! We read and study the Didache and the other Apocrypha writings, along with the whole host of psuedeopigrapha writings, and most assuredly do not base any of our teachings on them. They do contain some worthwhile things, but overall, nothing to add to what the Scriptures have to say: but they do contradict much of what the Scriptures have to tell us.
Me: "Thanks for the suggestion. That's exactly what we did, and we don't only read it two times, but as often as we are led by the spirit to do."
I'd suggest putting aside the Jack Daniels and reading it sober. Paul clearly outlines the growing hierarchy of the Church under himself; and so does the rest of the NT.
You're sarcasm is out of order: it only reveals to me the attitude you seem to have against Christians who beleive and practice what is taught in the Scriptures inspired by God Himself. Yes, Paul does tell us how the church should be set up, which the RCC doesn't listen to very well. Compare what Paul says about the leadership versus what the RCC has set up!
Me: "And, pray tell, just what are those "heresies" you think we favour? I'd like to know what they are!"
The first is subordinationalism, as expressly outlined in the letters of Dickenson that you have copiously posted. After seeing that, I simply will write off whatever it is that a failed Catholic has fallen into, as so many have.
Really, you think that I'm in "subjectation to control" and or have "reliance on others" to say what I say in the articles posted on my web site? Ridiculous to the extreme. My writings are my writing, not led or controled by anyone else, especially a "hierarchy" of the assembly of Christians that I'm affiliated with.
I challenge you to rebuke any of the articles I wrote. If you do a good job, maybe I'd even post your rebuke on my web site so that others may see how a RCC member responds. All I ask is that you prove your accusations from the Word of God as found written in the books of the Bible. However, I don't hold out any hope that you would be capable of doing so. On the other hand, if you would like to try, let me give you one to make your attempt. Try THIS ONE if you can. Good luck.
I use hermeneutics in my exposition of Scripture. I translate from the Greek manuscripts into our English language. If you have an "authoritative hermeneutic" outline, I'd appreciate it if you could post it for all of us who study the Scriptures. Then one could not find fault with our methods.
Thanks in advance...
1) The Catholic church has never taught the bible in a direct systematic verse by verse chapter by chapter way ..there is NO official Commentary on scripture other than the ones they need to prove their doctrine..so maybe a hundred verses or so ..thats it..
2)If the catholic priests, catholic teachers and catholic theologians have no interest in the teachings of the magistrum I would say they are their own popes and the Vatican is useless ...and so Catholics will never know what the official position of scripture the church holds
You mean like this work?
“The Writing of the Holy Apostle Thomas Concerning the Childhood of the Lord. or The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
1. I Thomas the Israelite have deemed it necessary to make known to all the brethren of the heathen the great things which our Lord Jesus Christ did in His childhood, when He dwelt in the body in the city of Nazareth, going in the fifth year of His age.
2. On one of the days, there being a rainstorm, He went out of the house where His mother was, and played on the ground where the waters were flowing. And He made pools, and brought in the waters, and the pools were filled with water. Then He says: It is my will that you become clear and excellent waters. And they became so directly. And a certain boy, the son of Annas the scribe, came past, and with a willow branch which he was carrying threw down the pools, and the water flowed out. And Jesus turning, said to him: O impious and wicked, how have the pools wronged thee, that thou hast emptied them? Thou shall not go on thy way, and thou shalt be dried up like the branch which thou art carrying. And as he went along, in a short time he fell down and died. And when the children that were playing with him saw this, they wondered, and went away and told the father of the dead boy. And he ran and found his child dead, and he went away and reproached Joseph.”
Some just weren't satisfied with what was actually in the Scriptures.
To (2) I did not say NO priests, teachers of theologians had the ability or desire to follow the Magisterium.
What prompted this little eddy in the stream was
I heard some terrible hermeneutics in my days as a catholic . And so have I. I cringe sometimes.Neither of you said, and I am confident MarkBsnr did not mean that he had heard NOTHING but terrible hermeneutics.
This little clashing of blades has little substantive to it.
(Didn't Herman Utick play shortstop of the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1953? Okay, maybe not.)
What I am trying to say is that "sola scriptura", in the (possibly overly) strict sense of relying on Scripture alone is kind of a red herring.
I would think that the wild diversity teachings about dispensationalisms and adventisms of various sorts would be sufficient to show that. But if it isn't, before I get to a more substantive effort, I note that the Jehovah's Witnesses prefer their own translation,while others think that the line determined by the two points of Textus Receptus and the Authorized Version is itself inspired by God -- a teaching I do not think one will find in Scripture.
The Witnesses' "New World" translation, in one example, looks at the lack of a definite article before θεος in the last clause of John 1:1 (και θεος ην ο λογος) and concludes that it means, "the word was a god." So THEIR interpretive principles support their Arianism.
The KJV translation of τα υστερηματα Col 1:24 suggest to me that the notion that Paul could suggest that something was somehow lacking in the sufferings of Christ was just unacceptable to the translators.
In general, we will come across apparent contradictions in Scripture. How we resolve them will sooner or later involve principles of interpretation which are extraneous to Scripture. That is a first attempt at a general statement of what I am arguing
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.