6,070 posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2010 3:54:21 PM by Natural Law
Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. "does not mean that God made Christ to be a sinner. As it clearly says "who knew no sin" -- Christ was not a sinner and knew no sin. In other words, he knew no sin by His own experience. He had no personal guilt. He was without any blame or sinful corruption whatsoever.
"26Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens."The cross changed nothing of His innocent character. He was not made into a wicked person, nor was He in any way tainted by sin. He died as "a lamb without blemish and without spot." And this expression doesn't mean anything that would change that truth. Those who teach that Christ became "sinful" on the cross have misunderstood how our sins were imputed to Him.
"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.", in the words of Isaiah 53:4:
"He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows."There's actually a parallel expression in Galatians 3:13:
"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us."God the Father treated His own Son as if He represented that mass of sin—as if He were the pure, distilled essence of everything Our Holy God cannot endure—as if He were the very personification of everything God must judge with an outpouring of divine wrath and banish from His presence.
When, where, and how did you acquire sufficient knowledge of the Catholic Church's beliefs and teachings to be able to form a valid opinion of it? Have you actually studied the Catechism instead of accepting misinterpreted out of context and completely fabricated quips and excerpts thrown out by other ignorant anti-Catholics more interested in making a point than actually speaking the truth? Have you ever actually studied the complete Catechism or done the research to actually understand the meaning or context of any of any of its thousands of footnotes and references? Have you ever educated yourself on the derivation of the symbolism and imagery developed and used over the last 2,000 years as opposed to using an on-line dictionary?
Your claim to be able to form and accurately express an opinion or critique of the Church is nothing more than another example of the Protestant puffery that fosters the belief that you were born knowing all you need to know to be able to accurately interpret Scripture too.
She was the Theotokos which translates as "God-bearer" or "the one who gives birth to God" as it's purest direct translation.
I think the main intent on the "Mother of God" phrase was to show the nature of Jesus (God and Man) and not to describe mary's position.
Unfortunately, much error has evolved from this and from non biblical contemplation on the titles implications for Mary: an unintended consequence.
Sure, first, how much are you willing to give. You said that you were willing to bet, right?
Thanks for the ping narses.
My Godfather is a Dominican priest (validly ordained, out of St. Stephen’s Priory Dover MA 1960’s - went through alongside Bishop McKenna) from a family that included two more Dominicans. His younger brother died of a massive stroke (no warning) in the priory two weeks before his scheduled INvalid “ordination”, which I thought was an Act of God to so spare him. A sister became a nun and had her vows nixed within years.
The three had all fallen for the “charismatic renewal” early on in Florida, where their parent’s had retired, mid 1960’s.
Enough said- unless you want to get into Suenes (sp), Medjugorje and the history of this most despicable madness.
Some heresies never go away. Either you believe Jesus is God and that the Blessed Virgin gave birth to Him, or you don’t.
Ping to those mentioned
!DOH! And they try and convince us The Bible is familiar to them! Sheesh.
Well, evidently if the giggler prefers to say stupid things stupidly, that’s a quixotic thing to do and so one let’s the quixotic one do that until he gets taken away to Rigel 7
Seems like there’s an uptick this month in rotten eggs and tomatoes.
Evidently there’s a farmer’s market in Alice’s rabbit hole.
We seem to be arguing in circles over this, but why should we be any different than those who have come before us? I don’t think we will resolve those differences here, but I always try to answer to the best of my ability. I don’t have the education regarding the ancient and original languages, but I try to understand as best as I can.
The verse you mention here is speaking about the MAN and not Scripture. Again, Catholics do not dispute that everything in Scripture is necessary for man to know God, love Him and have faith in Him.
Think about this though...
What do we really need to know? God exists, He is one God in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Sin separates man from God. The second person of the trinity became man, lived and died for our sins. Because of this, if one has faith, one may be saved.
Catholics don’t disagree with this. But, it doesn’t mean that EVERYTHING is in Scripture and that outside of Scripture there can be no truth.
God said He has written His law on the hearts of man. If one never has access to Scripture, can they still know and love God? Can they still be saved?
You see, all we have to do is give your side Scripture, and here you come, backing up your point with NOT EXPLICIT SCRIPTURE, but catechism, and creeds, and doctrine, and canon. So it's pretty much right there, without having to dig. The only way to stop it is to demand your teaching/beliefs not be given. But then what would you have? Nothing but the IMPLICIT Word of God...
No, it did not change that, it has come to a deeper understanding of what is the church. That has happened within the church where an existing belief or accepted theology is expanded and clarified, but not changed.
The Church acknowledges that anyone baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are members of the church, though separated by schism.
I believe the Catechism can do a much better job of explaining, but haven’t the time now to post what it says.
You should have pinged Miguel de Cervantes and F. Scott Fitzgerald.
And the heat of judgment and light of God's truth are causing that fruit to rot, before they can be passed off to an unsuspecting buyer.
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.