Priests are a gift from the Heart of Christ, Pope Benedict says

CNA ^ | 6/13/2010

[Alamo-Girl]

Fascinating. Thanks for the ping!

[RnMomof7]

The Church calls Paul's writings Scripture. And therefore it is. The Chronicler's writings are also Scripture. Do you think that 1 Chronicles 25 is any less important than Romans 6?

ALL scripture is inspired by God.. but is there a DIFFERENCE..you bet.. 1 Chronicles is old testament and as is every book in the OT is written to reveal the coming messiah.. the OT was fulfilled in Christ and the NT is for the church church .. The OT is about the LAW the NT is about Grace.. so Romans teaches us the truth about our sinfulness and Gods grace. It is the doctrine of the NT church.. it is written for the church

We read the OT THROUGH the new..seeing the prophetic word fulfilled..

as I said before, those people that have a hard time with PAUL want to build their own god
Negative. It is the Paulians who wish to build their own Paulian god. Scripture is clear; Paulianity is not Christianity.

If a man does not have the God of Paul and Peter, and john , and Jude.. he has a false god.. one that lets him be his own god..

[RnMomof7]

Amen from one mom to another !!

[small voice in the wilderness]

the Purgatory is functionally explained in 1 Cor 3:8-15.

This is the judgement of BELIEVERS WORKS, where rewards will be given, NOT SALVATION, or a ticket out of "purgatory". (Gal. 6:8; Col. 3:24; Rom. 14:2; 2 Cor. 5:10).This judgement is in heaven (1 Cor. 9:24-27; Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10).

This judgement deals with the BELIEVER as a servant.

[kosta50]

Understandable hellenism...Dismas was promised to be with Christ we understand that he was to be in His Kingdom, whatever the toponymy, and whatever detours Christ Himself was to take on His way

My point was that there are serious problems with Luke 23:43, to wit:

(1) the thief asked Jesus to remember him in his kingdom (heaven is never mentioned); Jesus replied the thief will be with him this day (Gr. semeron, i.e. what happened today) in the paradise (en ton paradeison), not in heaven as you implied, as if claiming paradise is his kingdom.
(2) The concept of paradise does not exist in Judaism, the word paradise does not exist in biblical Hebrew or ancient Aramaic, ergo a dying Jesus, a Jew, must have been speaking to a dying thief, also a Jew, in Greek rather than in Jewish vernacular (Aramaic), about something that both of them, as Jews, would not have believed, and a concept that both, especially the thief, would not have understood.
(3) Therefore, the whole conversation, so crucial to Christianity, so often quoted especially by Evangelicals, never took place.

No less problematic is the claim that Jesus would "this day" be in paradise when the Church unanimously teaches that Jesus descended to hell for three days to free the souls of the Old Testament righteous. Never mind the whole idea that Jesus would go to paradise instead to heaven.

The important point for us to understand though is that his good works (vv. 40, 41) preceded his conversion (v.42).

That is certainly orthodox hermeneutics expected to be heard in a Sunday homily, and reflects the Church's approach to scriptures as principled examples of what Christianity is all about.

It is the teaching or the message, or the lesson God would supposedly want us to take home with us. But then Gospels, as eyewitness accounts, are not eyewitness accounts, but moral tales not unlike the suras and hadiths or rabbinical exegesis, such as for example Gen 2:16, where God supposedly gives Adam six Noahide laws in one sentence!

[aruanan]

All men are our concern. Jesus is not of the Calvinist persuasion. He does not say: or any sort of variation on that theme. All men. All men are willed to be saved; all men are worthy of saving; it is our duty to God to attempt to save them.

I don't recall that I said anything about Calvinist or non-Calvinist teaching, just that Paul accepted a view that we are all God's offspring and, therefore, all each other's brothers (especially considering our original parents).

[small voice in the wilderness]

lol! One day “we” cling bitterly to our Bibles and our sola. And the next day “we” post with abandonment, using air facts as our guide. It’s very confusing, as I sit here, Bible in hand, just as I do day after day. Go figure..

[Titanites]

He didn't "start his own church.

Schwertley disagrees. It's the pride of his bio:

Schwertley was a founding member of the Westminister Presbyterian Church in the United States in January 2006, the only indigenous Presbyterian denomination in the United States that has full subscription to the original Westminster Standards.

Schwertley's even bragging that they're better than other Presbyterians.

Another bit of news is the scandal surrounding Schwertley, including accusations of breaking numerous commandments. More can be found here and here.

But I'm sure his Catholic bashing book is considered to be at the top of the list in Presbyterian circles.

Looks like it's time to add another noodle to the chart of Presbyterian denominations.

[Natural Law]

"I do confess, it was a shock when I discovered that my profs and classmates had voted me into the WHO'S WHO for that senior year of our PhD program."

I do confess that I don't believe a single word of it. It smells of the academic equivalent of faux Navy Seals stories contrite draft dodgers and REMFs tell to impress each other.

[Titanites]

I do confess that I don't believe a single word of it.

Me neither. Who's Who is typically just a money making scheme to sell books. All you have to do is submit your name to get in, with the hopes you'll buy one of the books to stoke your ego.

[kosta50]

If the context determines the meaning as you exhort, then the context permits no such Arian twisting of Jesus Christ into a created being. (hos estin) prototokos pases ktiseos, "Who is the firstborn over all creation" is a statement of position, not of origin

The context does not permit? This is typical Protestant gibberish. If something doesn't fit the a priori conclusion, then it must be changed to fit so as to preserve the artificial inerrency of the Bible.

New editions of Protestant Bibles are very good at "harmonizing" the scriptures to fit the established doctrine. Examples can be found in the Beatitudes, Acts 22, John 3, and numeorus othe rplaces, where such "harmonzing" takes place.

In Col 1:15, the firstborn of all creatures (or creation) implies Christ is not only made, but first to be made. It also implies that he is not divine, which is obvious from the part you left out in your snippet, namely "he is the image [icon] of the invisible God (os estin eikon tou Theou tou aoratou).

So as such, he is both literally and oridnally first among creation. This is a far cry from the Trinitarian co-equal, co-eternal, divine, invisible, uncreated Logos.

Christ is not only depicted as a creature, not God but an image of God, and, being the first among the created, legally the inheritor of all of God's creation. That is much closer to the Jewish concept of the messiah then the Christian divine concept of one.

Arians considered Jesus a lesser God. Judaism considers the anointed one to be a mortal human being most favored by God (and thus first among the creation). So, if anything, Paul was imply speaking as a Jew. No Arianism is to be found here.

[The Comedian]

The Church is a Church of sinners, and absolutely we have our share.

Some would offer that it's a cult of nothing but sin and sinners, of blasphemy and pedophilia, but I probably wouldn't go that far.

I don't compare myself with these three at all.

Actually, when you claim Obama is a "Protestant" and basically state that Protestantism is the reason he's ruining America, you paint a big red circle on yourself.

When you asserted the destruction of America at the hands of Obama was due to his (incorrectly ascribed) "Protestantism", you opened this "guilt by association" challenge for inclusion in the debate.

If one doesn't want to be seen as guilty, one should stop constructing self-incriminating arguments and then issuing them, ventriloquist-like, from a straw man.

I might ask you about your self comparison with Ted Haggard or Jimmy Swaggart, but I really don't care.

Evangelicals, or what you term "Protestants" do not assert any moral, theological, or ethic superiority due to any hierarchical management structure, nor in fact to any human construct or tradition whatsoever, so attempting to decry the actual Christian church en toto by decrying two of its members has no logical basis or effect. It is basically saying "Nuh uh, you are". But, when one has come to a battle of wits unarmed, one swings whatever one has access to, I suppose.

Catholics invest all of their theological validity tokens in the group authority of the Romanist priesthood. That Romanist priesthood accepts and continues to embrace Pelosi, Biden, Kennedy, and a host of other reprobate communist child murder-supporting servants of Lucifer, thereby negating any validity they may have held up to that point.

You've summarily lost the argument by your own submitted standard of failure.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[Quix]

True.

However, the punctuation test was HEAVY on punctuation. Uncommonly so.

Our teacher seemed to have a thing for insuring that we could use particularly the ‘ fluidly. And I think he liked punctuation in tests that was fittingly minimal as it normally is in English.

[Quix]

Which is it? Can you guys make up your collective minds and decide which we're really guilty of? Some consistency would be nice.

NOW, NOW.

You should know by now from abundant relentless evidence hereon . . .

CONSISTENCY IS ANATHEMA TO THE CATECHISM.

DUPLICITOUS, DOUBLE STANDARD, IRRATIONAL INCONSISTENCY IS ACTUALLY A STATION OF THE WHITE HANKY. . . . a very hallowed !!!!TRADITION!!!! of the faithful.

[Quix]

INDEED.

[Quix]

It wouldn’t matter he wasn’t saved. He never heard The Gospel until he started going to church with us. As these threads so clearly illustrate and so many EO & RC posters argue your churches preach a different gospel. Your church always adds a “but”, “and”, or “maybe” on the end of The Gospel.

My wife experienced the same thing as her Father. She started going to church with me and heard The Gospel. She then believed, was saved and became a Born Again Christian. Prior to her conversion she thought of herself as a good person, a RC, but had no idea whether she was going to heaven or not. Today she would tell you she knows she was condemned until she heard The Gospel and believed.

---

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

THX.

[kosta50]

I think my comment and your statement "I expect nothing different, however, this by no means implies I accept your opinions as truth" compliment each other perfectly.

If you read what I write then you would know that quoting John on this particualr issue is a clear miss for obvious reasons. John's Gospel aims at hellenizing Jesus into a Platonic God, so that verse doesn't come as a surprise, especially taken in the context of the times and where Christainity was.

Matthew 16 fairs no better. They were all Jews and as Jews they would have believed that the "son of God" is a humamn being, not God. You will just have to learn more about Judaism, especially first century Judaism, to understand exactly what I am saying.

I also highly recommend that you read Jewish exegesis of Isaiah. None of the verse you allude to refers to some future divine messiah. Not even his name.

All the best to you.

[Quix]

THANKS FOR YOUR KIND REPLY AND THE BEAUTIFUL SCRIPTURES.

AMEN AMEN!

[Quix]

It’s not surprising that those who chronically disbelieve Scripture also disbelieve the truth about other Believers. Thankfully. God knows. And you will, too, in due course.

[Quix]

Of course it’s to make money to seel books. It’s also an honor that I had no idea or knowledge of until it was a done deal. It was used of God to touch my heart at a needful time and I’ve always been thankful to Him about it. I didn’t expect any of the Rabid Clique folks to have the slightest understanding, belief in the truth or decency about it.

That’s just not their SOP.

However, given the chronic slams from some of them, I thought it would make an interesting contrast. Given what it’s triggered, it has.