| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 07/13/2010 2:29:14 PM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Poster’s request |
Posted on 07/06/2010 6:54:33 AM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
Isn’t that the purpose of a caucus? To prevent challenges or discussion of contrary beliefs?
It doesn't appear by this exchange that Peter and the other disciples knew that Christ would die for our sins, be buried, and rise again the third day. Which is the Gospel.
But this thread is an open thread, so what's yer point?
There’s a much larger context for the role of Peter, my FRiend. I suggest you look at Peter in that larger context.
You believe your personal interpretation of "church" and "members," which came out of the Reformation, and I'll believe mine, which comes from the Apostles.
I am attempting to start where Christ gave Peter and the other Disciples The Gospel of the Kingdom and it’s command. It would have to begin with what the GOSPEL was I assume. And by the scripture I gave you, it doesn’t seem that Christ dying for our sins, being buried, and rising again after three days is part of that Gospel. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Oh no! Now we have a language barrier! LOL.
Thanks!
I wonder if your formulation doesn't put it exactly backwards, though. If you squint just right, you can see that statement as starting out from an assumption that disparate beliefs are equivalent to a sharp line between true Christians, and "so-called" ones. Certainly we see glaring examples of that assumption on this and other FR threads.
But Jesus put it the other way:
John said to him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us." But Jesus said, "Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us. For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward. (Matt. 9:38-41)
John's position is similar to what we so often see on these sorts of threads, and indeed throughout the bloody history of Europe during the Reformation.
Jesus' gentle(?) rebuke would have us recognize each other as brothers and sisters in Christ first, and above all else; and if both sides in a dispute can approach the problem from that perspective, resolution of differences seems much more tractable. It takes humility and charity to live that way.
In real life, of course, we don't always succeed in that ideal -- we all want what we want, and we're absolutely certain we're correct, or we have a good excuse, or whatever. And that means the other guy is wrong, which makes him a heretic....
Sometimes the Body of Christ has no way to deal with folks like that, short of cutting off the offending part and throwing it away. But that's only as a last resort; unfortunately, many folks are in a big hurry to get to that last resort.
Regards your thoughts on the differences between Catholics and Christian nonCatholics reading of scripture;I reached the same conclusion and am trying to explain it in another thread currently running. After making light of my answer they have disappeared.
In any case,I appreciate your way with words and your light touch. I am much more clumsy and humorless.
I wonder if your formulation doesn't put it exactly backwards, though. If you squint just right, you can see that statement as starting out from an assumption that disparate beliefs are equivalent to a sharp line between true Christians, and "so-called" ones. Certainly we see glaring examples of that assumption on this and other FR threads.
But Jesus put it the other way:
John said to him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us." But Jesus said, "Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us. For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward. (Matt. 9:38-41)
John's position is similar to what we so often see on these sorts of threads, and indeed throughout the bloody history of Europe during the Reformation: they're not with us, so consign them to the flames.
Jesus' gentle(?) rebuke would have us recognize each other as brothers and sisters in Christ first, and above all else; and if both sides in a dispute can approach the problem from that perspective, resolution of differences seems much more tractable. It certainly provides for more fertile soil into which the Holy Spirit can plant His seeds.
It takes humility and charity to live that way, though. In real life, of course, we don't always succeed in that ideal -- we all want what we want, and we're absolutely certain we're correct, or we have a good excuse, or whatever. And that means the other guy is wrong, which makes him a heretic.... And that takes us back to the topic of "intemperate and indiscreet zeal."
Sometimes the Body of Christ has no way to deal with folks like that, short of cutting off the offending part and throwing it away. But that's only supposed to be a last resort, not (as some are too willing to make it) the preferred remedy.
“No, its to permit reasonable rational discussion among the caucus members without unnecessary outside interruption”.
I think you just made my point,
Are you saying wish to embrace the bastardization of Christianity that is found in Mormonism? Really? For what end?
For ‘unity,’ perhaps?
2 Corinthians 6:14 (Amplified Bible)
14Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers [do not make mismated alliances with them or come under a different yoke with them, inconsistent with your faith]. For what partnership have right living and right standing with God with iniquity and lawlessness? Or how can light have fellowship with darkness?
And that is how Mormons use the expression. To assert otherwise is just special pleading on your part.
Your complaint seems to be that we do not interpret Mormonism the way you think it ought to be interpreted, or teach it the way you think it ought to be taught.
not even secularists consider mormonism within the lineage of historic Christianity
they know a new kid on the block when they see one
I find it refreshing,he is not afraid to say "this is what I see,believe,think" rather than hiding behind the phony and hypocritical amorphous blob identifications of both the accusers and the accused commonly observed in so many of these back and forths.
I would find it patronizing except it's rather pathetic. But as so many people have noted on numerous threads "different strokes for different folks",or something close.
"Repent ye therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoked by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." (Acts 3:19-21).
Once again, there is no message of Christ dying for our sins, being buried, and being raised on the third day: The Gospel. You will search Acts in vain trying to find Peter and the other Disciples preaching this Gospel. The Kingdom Gospel, yes, the Gospel of the Grace of God, no. The Kingdom Gospel does not contain the message of salvation in Christ's Finished Work on the Cross.
As a matter of fact, you won't find that message until after Acts 9. That's because that Gospel was given TO PAUL, BY JESUS CHRIST>Not Peter and the Other Disciples, because it wasn't part of the Gospel of the Kingdom. BTW: Peter and the Other Disciples received the power of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. I think they KNEW what they were to preach.
I don’t know about easy to accept.
The man to read is John of Damascus, I hear.
The idea, I’m guessing, is that, since the Incarnation and the institution of sacraments, the Divine can (as I like to think of it) leak through created things. Or better, created things are porous to the sacred.
Clearly, though apparently traditions arise of ‘mojo’ attaching to certain icons, it is not the icon “in itself and for itself” that is worshipped or venerated but the saint (for veneration) or the Person of the Trinity, or in one famous Icon all three persons, who are worshipped (to use the somewhat artificial formal distinction.
I can’t remember the name of the Icon of the three angels outside Abraham’s dwelling, but it’s kind of a meta-icon, to me, in the following way:
The STORY is of three ‘angels”, but angels in the OT are sometimes not easily distinguished from Elohim. So the picture is definitely of human figures. BUT there are three, and two incline their heads to the erect one on the left. One is robed in red, and I forget the other two.
So it is viewed as an Icon of the Trinity — just as, one might say, the three angels were themselves icons of the trinity. HEnce ‘meta-icon’.
This is CLEARLY not a rigorous argument I’m making. It is to convey the sense of icons. I keep meaning to read John of Damascus but something always comes up.
It’s hot, my mind is fried.
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.