Posted on 12/05/2010 6:14:57 PM PST by RnMomof7
Does Yah'shua believe in the trinity ?
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
***Well Mom, you got me on the food (I am grateful for Gamecock’s correction yesterday) and I will be less riven by guilt when I enjoy a pork loin done on the grill.***
Pork loin? Splurge and have lobster!
Sure there was discussion about what books belonged in the bible- the early church had those discussions way before Luther- and decided it's canon at the Council of Rome in 382; reaffirmed throughout the 390’s. Up until Luther, that was the Christian canon.
I'm going from memory here, as I don't have a lot of time to post; your posts really deserve more time and I'm sorry I can't put in that time; nor am I a scholar.
The Jerusalem Jews of the first century wanted to differentiate themselves from the new Christians, so they decided they would abandon the Septuagint, and went back to what they thought were the Hebrew scriptures- those written originally in Hebrew. There was widespread dissention among them even then; and if I'm not mistaken, even today the Ethiopian Jews still use the 46 books of the Septuagint.
The books you mention as the apocrypha (Catholics call deuterocanonical) were believed to have been written in Greek (though we now know that Sirach or Ecclesiasticus was originally written in Hebrew, though no copy of the Hebrew was known of until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls); so the Jerusalem Jews excluded them, as well as the New Testament.
Trent was just reaffirming the Church's unaltered stance since 382; perhaps expanding on it's reasons, and declaring it infallible, due to Luther's liberties, but not adding or taking away any books of Scripture.
From what I remember about Esdras, there were four books; 2 in and 2 out; we now call them Ezra and Nehemiah, but they were always there, though not always under that same name.
Luther, due to his “sola fide” or “salvation by faith alone” belief, called the epistle of James “an epistle of straw” because it contains the only reference to “faith alone” in the bible, and it contradicted Luther (James 2:24). He also added the word (in his German translation) only in Romans 3:20 and Romans 4:15, and he inserted the word alone in Romans 3:28.
That's not quite right.
Mary says she rejoices IN her Savior. This indicates that she already had salvation, it WAS NOT conditioned on a future event.
The Church has NEVER questioned the Blessed Virgin Mary's NEED for a Savior. Original Sin comes at the moment of conception, not at birth. Babies who are never born still need a Savior, yet they will NEVER commit actual sin.
The Immaculate Conception was Mary's salvation, it was performed by God Himself, to deny that He could do this is to deny His omnipotence.
Doesn't seem so. Seems more like you're in a state of reaction against it, bound as fiercely to it by hatred as Catholics are by love. As Chesterton said of the anti-Christians of his day:
They cannot get out of the penumbra of Christian conroversy. They cannot be Chrisians and they cannot leave off being Anti-Christians. Their whole atmostphere is the atmosphere of a reaction: sulks, perversity, petty criticism. They still live in the shadow of the faith and have lost the light of tghe faith.
Sort of like the divorcee who can't get over bitterness toward the ex.
I agree that adults must repent before they are baptized. In the early church, most of those becoming Christians were adults (although whole households are mentioned). So of course they would repent, since they were able to.
Well if you want to “read into” whole households that there were no infants, you certainly can; I choose to believe that some of those whole households included infants.
I think we also differ on “being born again” and “being baptized”. To me they are the same thing. It appears to you they are two things.
No, the early church baptized infants; it has been the teaching of the Church throughout the ages, there is nothing in the Bible to contradict it.
The crux of the issue, as is most disagreements between Catholics and non-Catholic Christians, is whether the written Word is the only authority.
Acts 10:9-20
About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon’s house was and stopped at the gate. They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was staying there.
While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Simon, three men are looking for you. So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them.”
Jesus said baptism was necessary; I am sure there are exceptions; but that is not for me to decide; my job is to follow, as best as I am able, what Jesus said to do.
I don't really have the time to create a huge post on the Catholic belief of original sin; basically it is a condition we are born with that prevents the indwelling of the Holy Spirit within us; it should be removed as soon as possible; the Sacrament of Baptism accomplishes that; makes us members of the Church of Christ and adopted children of God. That is why Catholics baptize infants.
I have to stop posting, but since this thread was started to attack the Catholic belief in the Immaculate Conception, and since today is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, I would like to give a shout out to my fellow Catholics and wish them a happy Feast of the Immaculate Conception!
O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to you!
Walking the path of righteousness will lead to Salvation, however having ones backside permanently affixed to a recliner while boasting about ones grace won't.
Please go back and reread my post 989. You seem to have committed a grievous error and assigned, to me, an incorrect point of view.
A minute amount of reading comprehension will reveal that I'm talking about those on this thread who froth at the mouth when someone suggests that Joseph and Mary likely enjoyed all the benefits of a loving marriage after Mary gave birth to Jesus.
It appears that you are intellectually and spiritually evolving before our very eyes. Praise God!. At one time you believed and professed that Tradition and the authority of man were one in the same. Now you are conceding that Tradition is something different and apart from the authority of man. Welcome home!
Yes it is. A very interesting and impressive historical figure. Most notable is that he became a Christian, baptized by St. Peter and is preserved at the Duomo di Pisa, in Pisa, Italy.
Jesus warned that you can only serve one master. He warned you could not serve both God and Mammon.
There are plenty of (small 'g') gods.
Ask any Hindu.
QED!
Cronos, it’s homoousios. And it’s Greek, not Latin.
And, yes, I know what you are talking about when it comes to buying furniture in eastern/central Europe, but one country south of Poland. And I know what reading an author is like in his native tongue and not a translation.
Very strange conclusion -- do you think YOUR mother is your preceding source, your creator?
Are you suggesting that God did not exist until Jesus was born of Mary? You seem to be using circular logic in order to confound the conversation.
God was God before Mary.
And you grant their reality?
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.