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
Jesus also says that He and the Father are One and that he who sees Him also sees the Father.
One in essence or nature maybe (the LDS say in purpose), but John's Jesus also clearly said that the Father was greater than him. So, here we have, in the Gospels, the concept of lesser and greater gods, which is not Trinitarian.
[Where does the Bible says all three are co-equal and co-eternal? ] The earlier website shows that there is one God (or just use 1 Cor. 8:4) and that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all God. Genesis shows that God is eternal.
Paul always identifies only one God, the Father. (1 Cor. 8:6) and Jesus as the Lord, that is—as the created medium through whom God created and through which everything exists (a classic Platonic demiurge), thus reflecting the divinity of the Father in him.
For me it is enough to know that all three are co-eternal and co-equal.
Not based on what the Bible says for sure.
I can see trouble arising when trying to establish that the Father is somehow greater
Then you have issues with what the Bible says in no uncertain terms.
Apparently, it is a HUGE deal between the Orthodox and Latins, but I have never heard the issue come up a single time as a point of discussion in the 22 years I have been going to my church.
LOL! And the Church feuded of this for the last 1000 years! That doesn't count. I suppose your 22 take precedence? Of course you wouldn't hear about it because your concept of Trinity is not what it has been since the 4th century AD.
[The Spirit doesn't have everything the Father has, as the Son does.] This is exactly the kind of statement that makes no sense to me as it has God lacking something. I have never understood that to be a Christian idea.
Well, Jesus says He was given everything the Father has, which in itself means he didn't have it eternally, and no one ever says the same thing about the Spirit. Obviously, the Son cannot be the Father and neither can be the Spirit, so explain to me how they are all one?
The origin is understood to be eternal, i.e. the Son is eternally begotten by the Father, and the Spirit eternally proceeds form the Father. It's like saying the water wells unceasingly from the eternal origin.
But the existence of both the Son and the Spirit (and therefore the Godhead, the Trinity) is eternally caused by the Father who is himself un-caused; hence the monarchy of the Father.
How about this: the Father is greater than I [John 14:28]?
So, now you have reached for labels? I was wondering when the mask would fall and the true face show up. Of course, this along with the constant charge that any criticism of the official "truth" is "trashing."
There is no contradiction there, even if I did say what you say I said. It is possible, -- in fact, it is usually the case, -- that the Tradition knowa one thing as fact, and some other thing -- as a possibility without being able to give it the strength of a known fact. The same is true in any family, and probalby in your family as well. Some things we know from the family records, other we know from related to us memory of others, yet some we are not sure because ther are more than one account and they differ, yet others we only know in general sense and with many details lost. In the Traditon of the Chruch there are things of all these kinds.
Now, I did not say "there is no historical proof, no Scriptural evidence, no writings from the early church fathers, no nothing to support the contention that Joseph was previously married and had children from that marriage". I said that "there is no single tradition on [whether] the firstborn son of Joseph was none other but St. James the Just, brother of the Lord, a Holy Apostle and the First Bishop of Jerusalem". There is no single tradition because two ideas dominate. In the East it is generally thought that James and other "brothers of the Lord" were in fact step brothers ans children of St. Joseph from his previous marriage. In the West, the prevalent Tradition says that they were cousins. There are good arguments for both. Note that regardless of the exact family relation of James the Just to Jesus no tradition thinks he is His "brother" in the narrow sense, yet both traditions lovingly call St. James the "Brother of the Lord".
It is usually a good idea to understand what was posted to you and if you wish to praphrase it, do so accurately.
Why do Catholics want the perpetual virginity to be true so bad?
You have put this question to me a few times already. Do you expect a different answer each time? We like to telel the truth, that is why. We leave lies and speculations to the Protestant charlatans.
There are many historical facts not supported by scripture. In fact, most of the word history from that age is hearsay and opinion. We know of the lives of 12 Ceasars from Suetonius but what he wrote was stories told to him but some unidentified others, -- hearsay -- and his opinions. Same for nearly every piece of ancient history: Pliny, Eusebius, Josephus, -- name it.
“There are many historical facts not supported by scripture”
As you say ‘MOST’ are not but neither do we elevate Josephus or Pliny to the authority of Inspired Scripture or if there is disagreement between the secular historians and Scripture raise these writers to a position of superiority, do we?
But family members very often do not remember their loved ones properly.
What difference does it make, FK, when you as a Calvinist believe the saved have been marked before they even existed. So, those destined to heaven are going to heaven whether they do it "in memory of him' or not.
If scripture is the word of God, then God determined what it was. He informed us of what scripture was by communicating it through His Church (or members thereof)
So why did it take theherarchichal clergy to figure out the puzzle (and still don't agree fully on it)?
You're right that it didn't happen overnight, but we can be confident today that what we have contains the essence of what God wants us to know.
Unless you are Jewish or Mormon or Muslim, or Hindu...
Paul was chosen solely by God to be one of a handful of people to actually write down "what is written". Therefore, he did not go beyond it. He participated in creating it.
Taking Paul, a man, for his word...
But Paul was a prodigious preacher. Weren't his epistles basically follow-ups to his earlier personal visits during which he transmitted the faith orally (preached)? With the Bereans, he told them to check the scriptures against what he SAID.
What exactly did they check? To find risen Christ (the only one Paul supposedly got to know) in the Old testament? Give me a break.
That's right, before any scripture was written down its truth was transmitted orally
Oh yeah? How, exactly, word for word, the same words every time? How do you know that?
Sola Scriptura is fine with that. The Apostles taught orally with authority from Christ
Who says?
and we can be sure that what later became scripture matched what they taught.
Really? Is that a fact?
So, as Luke's statement partly implies, if one did not have a reliable oral chain back to an Apostle, one could not be as sure as getting the information from what became scripture.
Only two New Testament authors (who are "known" only through legend) were actual eyewitnesses: Matthew and John. The other two were not eyewitnesses. Needless to say, their accounts differ like night and day. The rest of the Apostles we have no record of. We have no idea what they preached, where and how. We do know that the Church supposedly established by St. Thomas in India is somewhat different. So, none of what you said has any basis in fact.
Jesus was an "observant Jew", and clearly believed in the existence of satan
Judaism never believed in the devil. But Judaism also doesn't have a magisterium, and individual Jews can believe whatever they feel like. The only thing all Jews are in agreement of is that Jesus is not the Messiah. But the devil is not in the Torah, and nothing the Tanakh can only confirm what is in the Torah.
The story of His temptation in the desert had to have come from Him since He was the only one there to report it
Or form those who to it upon themselves to write in his stead.
Therefore, other observant Jews who were followers of Jesus would have believed the same thing.
Followers of Jesus created a very heterodox following. They all claimed the same source, but what they believed was not.
nothing the Tanakh can only confirm what is in the Torah = the Tanakh can only confirm what is in the Torah.
Here you evidently reject out of the evidence that Daniel was not a late addition.
The "evidence" is something to your liking. It doesn't mean it's true.
But as you seem incapable of dealing with the anything related to the Bible and God without ending up in your narrow minded denigrations..why should i give you excuse to express more of the same?
Strike one. This is a predictable evolution of all your attemeptsto debate with me. Two more and this sidiscusison is over.
And just where is this clear?
By the fatc that he never told them to write anything but to spread the "good news" by word of mouth (preaching). He didn't tell them to argue theology but to reveal the promise of salvation.
and never said that you needed to be an apostle, prophet, or teacher to study the Scriptures, and commended Timothy having known as a child the holy scriptures “which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (2Tim. 3:15)
That is Paul, and Paul is no Christ. Chrst never said what Paul said.
But there is a caveat which affirms otherwise: "If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema." — Trent.CANON XVI
So, now you favor Church councils over scirpture (Mat 7:12)?
There was no need to, as that is not the real story.
Says who? You?
Such are the typical attempts to discredit the integrity of the Bible
Says the "official truth." Yes, comrade commissar. No criticism allowed. Anything the official truth doesn't approve is "trashing."
and i would like to expose such allegations of supposed contras as spurious such as i have already done to yours, while many web sites deal with such, as well as the relative few copyist errors in every manuscript of any real import
Self flattery is not very convincing argument, even if ti may make you feel good. And appeal to multitude of "web sites" is likewise not proof of absolute truth either. It's just that zealots write more than ordinary people.
As for personal interpretation, that is an expected reality in every field, and while theology is an extensive one, core truths find almost universal concurrence in Protestantism has a whole
Core truths find acceptance in every human gathering, no matter what the belief.
But there is a caveat which affirms otherwise: "If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema." — Trent.CANON XVI
So, now you favor Church councils over scirpture (Mat 7:12)?
There was no need to, as that is not the real story.
Says who? You?
Such are the typical attempts to discredit the integrity of the Bible
Says the "official truth." Yes, comrade commissar. No criticism allowed. Anything the official truth doesn't approve is "trashing."
and i would like to expose such allegations of supposed contras as spurious such as i have already done to yours, while many web sites deal with such, as well as the relative few copyist errors in every manuscript of any real import
Self flattery is not very convincing argument, even if ti may make you feel good. And appeal to multitude of "web sites" is likewise not proof of absolute truth either. It's just that zealots write more than ordinary people.
As for personal interpretation, that is an expected reality in every field, and while theology is an extensive one, core truths find almost universal concurrence in Protestantism has a whole
Core truths find acceptance in every human gathering, no matter what the belief.
And that of course doesn't apply to the other side?
From energy and a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws which testifies to an intelligent cause ...
Ah, the pseudo-science of Intelligent Design. the mask finally falls!
Initially, one takes a step of faith
All it takes is one axiomatic, a priori assumption to build a whole religion around it.
First, this began in response to your assertion that inspiration was not recollection, which neither the church whose authority you were attempting to uphold, nor their Scripture support. As for knowing, that is according to the above means.
What does inspiration mean? There is only one reference to this Pauline coinage of the word "God-breathed" which can mean any number of things. But, to be "inspired" by something means to be moved or motivated by something, not that it hijacks you and writes with your hand or assures makes sure that you remember things just the way they were.
Whatever that is supposed to mean. You are tripping all over your own verbosity.
And in which you left out the rest of the sentence which reads, “or which were related to him.”... blah, blah, blah.
Rather than hoping to get out of your own whole with obfuscation and flowery language, why don't you just tell us when did Luke meet Jesus in person, namely that he he was an eyewitness, as you suggest?
First, it is not is John 3:9 , but first John 3:9,
Then you could check your own sources.
My original statement was that “you reject its Bible and its God most antagonistically,” not some undefined abstract Deity.
I don't know what God is. I have no problems with God as a concept. I am not here to preach that God doesn't exist because I don't know that. I ask those who claim they do to tell me what is God. I also ask them to prove what they claim as faith but state as fact.
I do have disagreements with what some people write and tell me about their God, the God they made in their own mind.
No, your primary target is evangelical Protestants
Yes, because they claim to "know".
who you variously described (just of the few I've seen) as those who” seek low self-image therapy and food for their narcissistic nature,” while “
Yes, so?
Reformed "worship" is like "a pagan-like spectacle one would expect to see in a pagan temple, all swaying their hands in the air like something from "Indiana Jones" movie”...
And your point is? None of this is outside the RF rules. I am just giving the taste of their own medicine to those who relentlessly insult the Church.
The rest of your post is bellyaching to which I have nothing say.
You don't remember your post 5537, referencing transformative effects? Just scroll down (about five short paragraphs) where it says "First of all, John says, 'Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin;' and again, 'Whosoever is born of God sinneth not.' - John 3:9; 5:18."
That is your own reference. Also check out the author whom you use as reference but don't even know.
Our non Catholic friends and opponents support that idea with overwhelming evidence. Boy, have you ever 'missed the mark' saying that!
I don't think so. With millions of different interpretations all clamouring for men's souls out there in the Protestant pantheon, the evidence is quite clear.
What is so funny (ironic funny, not haha funny) about that remark is simply the salient fact that not one non-Catholic yet has agreed with yours and Losta, I mean Kosta's constant trashing of the Words of God in Scripture.
Actually, I have never trashed Scripture, and neither, to my recollection, has Kosta. Your use of "Losta" is merely unkind.
How many times have you both high-fived each other over your shared distrust of the written word in the Bible going so far as to say you only consent to even believing it because you trust in your Religion first, and, well, since they say it's true, then, shucks, I'll believe it, too. BUT, only 'cuz they said to!
In case you hadn't been paying attention, the evidence is only partially supplied by Church authorities, and mostly by Jewish and other experts on early Christian writings. What is, is, bb. The very fact that the NIV, e.g. can be used to defend different doctrines than the KJV, e.g. can, means that the words in your Bible are suspect unless read and interpreted with the authority of the Magisterium.
What is "dissonant and imprecise" is both of your own speculations on the truth regardless of the proofs easily found to the one who is honest about their search. Please don't try to pan off your own insecurity of your faith onto those who are sure of theirs.
My faith is secure. It is yours that is fragile, if truth exposed would be so damaging to it. I have not rejected the Church created by Jesus the Christ and commissioned by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and I am not the one to have been trying to compensate for that ever since.
It's like a religious Rorschach test. Everyone sees something different in it.
Our friends and opponents may see what they see, as influenced by the satisfaction of their dinner, or the level of their dyspepsia.
A hole in one, sir. To claim OSAS, or to claim the status of the elect is to shirk all responsibility for one's life and actions and merely go with the whim of the minute.
When one's theology derives from what one scrapes out from under one's toenails each day, what can we expect?
I guess it all comes down to (in)digestion. :)
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.