Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Do you prepare yourself for prayer? Do you have a special place you read scripture or pray?
Do you calm yourself first or press your palms together as you pray?
You don’t *need* this.
I wear a crucifix as a constant reminder. I cross myself when passing a Church.
This is helpful to me.
What I don’t understand is minimalism of some Protestantism.
Humility, friend.
We are human.
Straight as they were going to be.
You have an entire religion based on either ADDING to the Scriptures, in order to make them comply to your standards, or TAKING FROM the Scriptures, in order to make them comply to your standards.
Neither. There were 73 books of the Bible for well over a millennium (after the Councils finally got their selections finished) until Martin Luther got into them with his theological axe. Catholicism has the Scriptures brought to us from Hippo and Carthage. No adds, no deletes, no Reformation required.
Actually, America's Got Talent may just be a wiser road to take. At least they have RULES, that are written, and complied with.
Check out the Catechism. It is online and free for your viewing at the Vatican.va website. Rules, written and supposed to be complied with.
As to Paul in Acts, Galatians which you were just SO proud of, doesn't seem to your liking now...
I'm fine with both books. What do you mean? We were going through the timeline from Acts and you waved GALATIANS in your post in capital letters. I was explaining the timeline regarding Paul and his trips to Jerusalem to see the Council of the Apostles. If you wish to add the Galatians to corroborate or flesh out the timeline, please do.
LOVE Acts. It was the transition period from Law to Grace, from the Gospel of the Kingdom, to the Gospel of the Grace of God, from a kingdom of believers to a Body of believers, from Peter's preaching on the day of Pentecost to the nation of Israel, to Paul's preaching of the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile into One New Man. What's not to like?
Acts is great. There was a debate in the third century as to whether or not it should be considered as the Gospels are. I believe that some Bibles group Acts with the Gospels.
Unless you're looking for Peter's trip to Rome, or the claim that Peter was the first pope, or that Peter was the vicar of Christ. Then Acts is a problem..
Acts 2-11 goes a long way. But Acts is not the whole Bible; and there is Church tradition that was in place long before Acts was even written, much less chosen as Scripture.
Just that in John we see Jesus as the Word of God. As trinitarians, we believe the Word was God. (Is.)
We also call Scripture the word of God. But it is not the same Word as Jesus.
If we equate the two or conflate the two, we can fall into error.
We differ from Islam in how we believe our Scriptures were created. It's an important difference.
It was closed but the Hellenists attempted to add to it.
Some dates, please. When do you say that the Jewish canon was closed and by whom?
I have no idea of the date the Jewish Scripture was "closed", finished, nothig more to be added. I simply know only the Jews were entrusted to the task, not some Johnny come lately Hellenists.
The following may help:
So, explain this....
Why would the Holy Spirit send a vision to Peter which he came to understand that the dispensation of Jesus was meant for Gentiles as well as Jews?
Had Paul told him this? And if Peter was not the head, then why were the other Jews still grumbling that Peter had been with the uncircumcised?
Hadn’t Paul’s revelation been enough to quiet their doubts.?
Or did Paul not make this revelation known until after Peter’s vision.
And, last but not least. Why this answer from you rather than refuting my disagreement with your assessment of these passages?
It disproves a lot of what you have been claiming here, yet you don’t say one word about it. Rather you focus on the chronological events rather than the substance of the post.
here’s some of your idolatry.
p43
1 - “Hail Mary, beloved daughter of the Father, Mother of the Divine Son, Spouse of the Holy Spirit, complement OF the most august Trinity!”
p45
6 - To her was granted grace greater than that conferred upon all others, ‘that she might vanquish sin in every respect.’
.
[Qx: I guess Christ’s vanquishing sin was unnecessary—or ineffectual without Mary’s assistance?]
p46
7 - “Mary is the dawn of God because, just as the dawn marks the end of darkness and the beginning of day, so Mary indicates the end of vices and the beginning of virtue.”
.
[Qx: I guess Christ’s conquering on The Cross and HIS conquering trip to hell were unncessary?]
9 - God loved Mary so much that He gave her the keys to His heart. ‘No one can go to God without Mary drawing him.’
.
[Qx: I guess Holy Spirit has been relegated to a ‘Walter Mitty’ role as spouse of Mary? That’s SOME POWER to cancel & take over HOLY SPIRIT’S role to draw men to God!]
p47
4 - “Mary, trusting in the word of the angel, destroyed the sin Eve committed by trusting in the serpent.’
.
[Qx: Evidently, she beat Christ to the job of vanquishing sin!—or maybe just elbowed Him aside and took over HIS job???]
5 - “She desired the safety of everyone, went in search of it, and obtained it; it was also through her that this salvation was wrought.”
.
[QX: What an unnecessary waste of precious Blood and suffering on THE CROSS—when evidently one wave of Mary’s white hanky was sufficient!!!/sar]
p47
10 - “As Noah’s Ark saved all the animals that entered it, so Mary saves all the souls that entrust themselves to her care.”
p50
8 - “If she were not so holy as she is, how could God appoint her to be the ladder of Paradise, the advocate of the world, meatrix between HIm and us?”
p50
4 - “By becoming Mother of God, Mary belongs to the order of hypostatic union; hence she participates IN the infinite sanctity of God.”
Yourself excepted of course.
Oh? And hyperdulia applies to all of them?
Of course not. Where would you come up with that?
Because it was thrown into our discussion of Aquuinas, Mary, and hyperdulia.That's why.
So much to say with so little wisdom.
Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, not the evangelist. Two entirely different spiritual gifts. Consider all of the books in Scripture attributed to Paul. Were they only communications to unbelievers?
No, they were communications to believers with emphasis on faith of the Gentiles.
I have often wondered if the pressure many catholics feel, is because God is trying to get the true believers out of the catholic church before this happens. Same with the protestant churches, which are breaking up because of the morality issues etc. As though God is attempting to prepare us all for what is coming....sifting... if you will.
Thx. I’ve often had similar thoughts . . .
COME OUT FROM AMONGST THEM, AND BE YOU SEPERATE. . . . ETC.
I don't get that from your post, but you might.
What’s the problem with that?
We don’t know every detail of the pain and suffering that Jesus endured while dying for us.
We don’t know the detail of what happened those three days in the grave.
We don’t know the detail of how Christ was raised from the dead.
We couldn’t understand the detail of most of what related to how God worked salvation, but we know that He did and what it takes for us to appropriate it.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED!
That is how debate is done. Bravo
Just a friendly reminder of what you wrote about Galatians.. And a friendly reminder that Paul, in Galatians, says he did NOT receive his gospel from anyone, including the Council. Gal. 1:11,12. Just one more "But those who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me; God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat IN CONFERENCE ADDED NOTHING TO ME." (Gal. 2:6). you see? they added nothing to Paul, because they couldn't. And why is that? Because Gal. 1:11,12 tell you why. He received his gospel from revelation of Jesus Christ. He was only subordinate to Jesus Christ.Not to Peter, the 11, or the Council.
Where do you get your beliefs? You make them up as you go along?
You are very correct. God doesn’t need man to complete His Plan, although He already has on man, our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus who has fulfilled His will.
He doesn’t need a particular denomination to announce His Volition. The RCC is impotent apart from faith alone in Christ alone and the more any RCC adherent seeks a counterfeit from His Word or faith alone in Christ alone, the further they abominate His Body.
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.