Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save
?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live
There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ
I explained how Luke 1:34 allows us to conclude that Mary did not intend to have sex with Joseph her husband following the marriage. I did not say that Luke 1:34 says anything other than what it says. Where is the lie?
Romans 2:7-10, Matthew 25:31-46, James 2:17-26.
What good works did the thief on the cross do?
Defended the innocently accused and did penance for his crime. Funny you ask -- did you read the Gospel at all? Try it one day.
Of course he did. It's called covering all your bases. The Bible is full of such strategically placed comments.
Consistent with the authorship/stewardship=authority logic, than the first Christians should have submitted to the Jews. Which you probably agree with
Many did. Paul didn't, but Paul was an outsider, and his faction won, mainly because the Jewish Christians got kicked out of Israel and Judaism. The Catholic Church has the authority because it is the author and the steward and the owner of the Christian Bible. If the presumed divine author of the scriptures gave stewardship to the Catholic Church, he also delegated the authority to be the guardian of what is in it and how it is interpreted, unless he took a "chance" hoping they'd get it right. :)
It was the error of the Pharisees who presumed that their lineage made them sons of Abraham, but which both the Baptist and Lord Jesus reproved. (Mt. 3:9; Jn. 8:44)
And what makes Matthew or John the sons of Abraham? Is their faith equal to his? Do you know one Christian whose is willing to sacrifice his own children? As for John's Gospel, that was written at the end of the century with the explicit agenda to demonize the Jews. Matthew's rabid anti-Jewish sentiment is also considered one of the major factor for the rejection of Christianity in Israel.
And by the way, Jews don't believe in the devil, so Mat 3:9 is obviously not only unfriendly but theologically alien to the Jews. Obviously it wasn't written to win hearts and minds but, in retrospect, as an attack on the Jewish community for rejecting Jesus—another piece of evidence the Gospels weren't written early but late in the first century.
I put this here because it is related to your consistent rejection of God working through men, making it all their work. Certainly this was not the understanding of Luke. (Acts 1:1-3)
Luke doesn't give credit to God but to himself (Luke 1:1-3). In Acts he is talking about recounting what Jesus did and taught. That's not "inspiration." It's recollection.
RnMomof7: Like so many in "the church" that love the church, and the tradition more than Christ, and look to the church and tradition more than to Christ...
I love what Orthodoxy teaches, as an idea towards humanity. What's there not to love? Is certainly stands in stark contrast to the hateful Calvinist teaching of babies in hell and some divine "Love" creating human beings destined to hell.
How does one love a false religion?
Do you love only what is true? You don't have to believe something true to love it. I always liked Greek mythology without ever believing any of it. Are novels lies? Do you hate fiction because it's not true?
Aesthetics and richness of human creativity can be appreciated and enjoyed without worshiping it.
How does one love lies?
Are they lies of just honest (if mistaken) beliefs?
FK: There are countless examples of David praying to God in the "normal" sense, i.e. without having a supernatural one on one conversation with Him. Here are some other examples of "regular" prayer in the OT
He didn't need supernatural anything, being favored of God. You do realize David is referred to as the anointed one in the Old Testament (2 Chronicles 6:42), namely christos or christ in Greek Septuagint, and mashiyah (messiah) in Hebrew. Hardly some Tom, Dick or Harry. :)
So, I think he had a direct line on his iPhone if you know what I mean. :)
Ummm...NO..... Mary says, “How shall be this since man not I am knowing”. (Luke 1:34)
“shall be” is the future and “not I am knowing” is present. Mary says she is not at the time she is speaking ‘knowing’ a man and says nothing about her intents or future. To conclude from her statement something otherwise is simply reading into it what one wants it to say.
Some of the writings are heavily "synchronized" (Synoptic Gospels) or heavily interpolated (the Gospel of John), for example. Luke himself admits admits to compiling what he heard from others and form research, rather than by the "divine inspiration." So, although no formal committee took place as far as we know, the writings are evidently the result of multiple sources and multiple contributors.
And if such were the case, the Church of the fourth century is that of Rome today, that they certainly were amiss in failing to put at even one example of believers praying to the departed, or instructions thereto, or for the church to submit to feature as it's supreme head, etc. But besides your expected imaginative conspiratorial overtones and inferences of collusion, you seem to insist that divine inspiration can only be some sort of dictation of entirely new knowledge, rather than discerning and expressing truth when writing a historical record.
Thank you. Maybe the Protestant crowd will now stop mocking the Church for claiming author of the Christian Bible. Not only does the Church have the copyright on the New Testament, but is the exclusive publisher of the compiled books of Both Testaments, otherwise known as the Christian Bible, as well.
The issue is what this avails, as my statement was not in isolation from the last paragraphs in my response to your post. In brief, the very scriptures which are authorized attest that the authority of a true believer or church is not established by formal historical lineage, but by scriptural faith by which it exists. And that being the body through whom divine revelation flowed and was discerned does not render them assuredly infallible autocratic interpreters of it. The reality is that God could raise up a true visible church tomorrow, which is part of the Church Universal, which only consist of born-again believers, which is the church from out of which the scriptures flowed. Both Catholics and Protestants must (and most do) agree that this body transcends their divisions, though the number of evident believers corresponds to the degree to which their faith is manifestly Biblical.
We've had this discussion before I am not going into another marathon race again on it. The canon was set in the west by the end of the 4th century and approved by the pope at the onset of the 5th.
Yes and we certainly do not need to go into another marathon session on it, though I have more data that establishes my statement that the Roman Catholic canon was not fully decisively settled for RC's until Trent, after which the degree of continuing internal disagreement and discussion among a notable minority ceased.
.and (can you make it brief)? And what most essentially gave Holy Tradition its authority? What was its basis?
Supernatural qualities and attestation, which was given to such men as Moses, Jesus, and the apostles, and which contrite, repentant, be believing souls in the Lord Jesus Christ find today today and due measure.
I thin that is an excellent description of it.
As you must. I think we all understand that despite your affirmation of the Orthodox Church has concerns historical warrant, you reject its Bible and its God most antagonistically. And for that I think both sides here are grieved and saddened.
So much for the Orthodox church.
If the presumed divine author of the scriptures gave stewardship to the Catholic Church, he also delegated the authority to be the guardian of what is in it and how it is interpreted,
If the authenticity of the church is based upon historical lineage and which confers an autocratic infallible magisterium which defines itself as being scriptural. And that is the issue as regards her assertions of authority, not simply being the guide, nor being able to teach infallibility, but presuming she assuredly formulaically is, and thus may teach for doctrines things which are contrary to the Scriptures, the latter of which is what Jesus Christ reproved the Jews for so doing. And the Scriptures affirms men testing claims by the Scriptures as available to them. (Acts 17:11)
It was the error of the Pharisees who presumed that their lineage made them sons of Abraham, but which both the Baptist and Lord Jesus reproved. (Mt. 3:9; Jn. 8:44)
And what makes Matthew or John the sons of Abraham? Is their faith equal to his? Do you know one Christian whose is willing to sacrifice his own children? As for John's Gospel, that was written at the end of the century with the explicit agenda to demonize the Jews. Matthew's rabid anti-Jewish sentiment is also considered one of the major factor for the rejection of Christianity in Israel.
What makes such the Sons of Abraham is the very scriptures (Lk. 13:16;19:9; Rm. 2:28,29; Gal. 3) which the church of Rome asserts the right to be the supreme unassailable interpreter of, and that is what the aforementioned examples oppose. But as expected, you seek to attack the integrity of the scriptures which is not relevant to that argument, or consistent with what Roman teaches, though many of its scholars are overall liberal.where
And by the way, Jews don't believe in the devil, so Mat 3:9 is obviously not only unfriendly but theologically alien to the Jews.
You have the wrong verse, and we've touched on this belief before, but belief in a personal devil was not the only thing that Jesus taught that they found offensive, and the devil is not only mentioned in one gospel, but all, while John 8:44 is another example on Jesus correcting the fallible Jews. And that is good considering some of the things the Babylonian Talmud says about demons, which sources such as “The Jewish Religion: A Companion” deny were inserted into the Talmud by ignorant copyists or by those influenced by folk-beliefs, which were repudiated by the rabbis themselves. Biblical commentators in classical Judaism differ in what the serpent in Gn. 3 represented, from the evil inclination (Yetzer HaRa), Satan, or the Angel of Death to a phallic symbol. According to the Midrash, before this cunning beast was cursed, it stood erect and was endowed with some faculty of communication. All of which is really irrelevant to the issue, as the Roman Catholic church affirms Jesus words as being divinely inspired truth.
Luke doesn't give credit to God but to himself (Luke 1:1-3). In Acts he is talking about recounting what Jesus did and taught. That's not "inspiration." It's recollection.
By this we understand that for something to be divine it must preclude using human recollection, and a believer could never describe what he did by the grace of God without explicitly saying such. But again in this, the Catholic Church to whom you ascribe authority of the scriptures disagrees with you in what you determined constitutes inspiration. And as we agree with her in other foundational doctrines that are Scripturally substantiated, so here also.
Just as Jesus taught His Apostles - NOT!
Matthew 26:
26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body."
27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you;
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
But then, you know a better way than Jesus taught.
Rom.2Matthew 25, "The parable of the Talents," also is devoid of any indication of "salvation by works," in as much as it deals with stewardship, which is valid only to those already saved.
[1] Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
[2] But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
[3] And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
[4] Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
[5] But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
[6] Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
[7] To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
[8] But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
[9] Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
[10] But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
[11] For there is no respect of persons with God.
[12] For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
[13] (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
[14] For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
[15] Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
Works are the result of salvation.
JOHN 6:63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
But Jesus did tell them to do it in remembrance of Him.
Matthew 26:
26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body."
27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you;
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
What is your point? All the Gospels were written after the events in Matthew 16. They were not diaries.
However, the Gospel accounts describe events prior to the Matthew 16 event.
Matthew 8:[14] And when Jesus entered Peter's house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever;
Matthew 10:[2] The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb'edee, and John his brother;
Matthew 14:[28] And Peter answered him, "Lord, if it is you, bid me come to you on the water."
[29] He said, "Come." So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus;
Matthew 15:[15] But Peter said to him, "Explain the parable to us."
Mark 3:[16] Simon whom he surnamed Peter;
Mark 5:[37] And he allowed no one to follow him except Peter and James and John the brother of James.
Luke 5:[8] But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord."
Luke 6 [14] Simon, whom he named Peter, and Andrew his brother, and James and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew,
Luke 8:[45] And Jesus said, "Who was it that touched me?" When all denied it, Peter said, "Master, the multitudes surround you and press upon you!"
[51] And when he came to the house, he permitted no one to enter with him, except Peter and John and James, and the father and mother of the child.
He certainly was known as "Peter" prior to your magic "rock" event.
Perhaps you should rely on the teaching of the Catholic Church.
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.
It was Peters' faith, not Peter himself upon which Jesus built His Church.
Your reply has no relationship whatsoever to my post #5120.
Care to begin again?
ph
Even assuming the imaginative definition of the "I know not's" had any credibility one must assume no "I know not" was ever changed from "I don't" to "I do".
Get real and read the whole story of Joseph's reaction when he found she was pregnant.
I am tired of this merry go round. Enough!
I have been described as a cranky old man. I am.
I am tired of this infantile baloney.
Maybe. The chances are just as good as the men who told you those stories were there.
I can just imagine you and Kosta holding hands while you go skip, skip, skipping down the road.
Are you a mind reader? Please be aware this is discouraged on FR.
FK-I think this statement does capture a core principle of the Apostolic Church, that of glorifying the merit of man.
How you came up with the idea of glorifying human merit out of this is beyond me?
Self denial is human merit. God does not force self denial on us,dear brother,or we would be robots.
Calvin wanted to pawn off his sins on God and say it it was part of God's will to support his extreme dualistic personality of monster and think by interpreting the Gospel according to his own will He was doing God's will.
Calvin was very muslim like in doing this because his view of God is dualistic
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.