The Romanist Jesus?
Posted on 12/05/2010 6:14:57 PM PST by RnMomof7
Do not make this thread about individual freepers. Discuss the issues all you want. Abide by the rules. if you talk ill of someone at least have the decency to ping them.
Ok...
How does one teach their seeing-eye-dog to type for them?
you’ve been pinging me all morning to your polemic drivel, and so what? last i looked it’s an open thread
I’m on it!
The Romanist Jesus?
I pity the fool who don't have 1611 ENGLISH as his first language!
If Mary had never sinned, she wouldn’t have acknowledged that she needed a savior.
Mary’s Song
Luke 1:46-47 And Mary said: “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
The whole reasoning that she was forgiven for sins before she committed them doesn’t make sense. In that case, she committed no sin to be forgiven for. It’s circular reasoning like none I’ve ever seen.
Mary didn’t need to be sinless because sin comes from within, not from without. Jesus was sinless because He was God Incarnate, not because didn’t have physical contact with sinful people.
If sin is transferred by contact, how was Mary immaculately conceived? Wouldn’t her mother have needed to be sinless to produce the (allegedly) sinless *ark* that carried Jesus?
And whatever miracle God would have used to produce a sinless Mary from sinful parents, why couldn’t He have used that same miracle to produce a sinless Jesus from a sinful Mary?
If Mary could be produced sinless from sinful parents but Jesus could not have been produced sinless from a sinful mother, that would make Mary greater in nature than Jesus.
What kind of God would Jesus be if contact with sin contaminated Him but not Mary?
What kind of God would Jesus be if contact with sinful people contaminated Him, period....?
I am about 1550 replies late for this party, and NO! I am not going back and read them all before posting my 2 cents worth!
Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
How did a yearly remembrance meal - PASSOVER - become morphed into a ritual that occurs every time someone darkens a Catholic Churchs doors?
That's what you call "substantiating your story"? What part of these unsubstantiated, anecdotal, subjective private recollections do you consider to have "substantiated" your claim? Frankly, you've given me no reason as yet to take you at your word for anything. Am I supposed to believe that you actually kept notes of all the scriptures read, cited, or referenced in every service you attended since childhood, and that you saved them to compare to your Catholic experiences later? Am I supposed to believe that your personal recollections (assuming they are true) are indicative of every Protestant worship service that took place worldwide over the last half-century?
He didn’t know. And told my mother in law as much. My wife yelled for me to come over.
The priest is a good guy, but a bit odd. I wasn’t really surprised he didn’t have any verses handy, and he is hardley a good example.
You know, anyone with posts pulled that everyone knows really happened can afford to taunt others to provide *proof* knowing full well that the evidence is no longer in existence on the forum.
It's disingenuous to demand proof for something, knowing that it's not available.
As a matter of fact, that seems like pretty despicable behavior itself.
where’s that girl that tells those apocryphal tales of baptists in the heartland when you need her? Those stories were entertainingly demented
When prey-tell was that? Would you point one out?
Rome 382:
The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book:
Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book;
Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books [First and Second Books of Kings, Third and Fourth Books of Kings];
Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one
book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus
(Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth,
that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one
book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias,
one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job,
one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.
Carthage 419:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, The Judges, Ruth, The Kings iv. books, The Chronicles ij. books, Job, The Psalter, The Five books of Solomon, The Twelve Books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra ij. books, Macchabees, ij. books.
Trent 1542:
The five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras (which latter is called Nehemias), Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter (in number one hundred and fifty Psalms), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets (Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias), two books of Machabees, the first and second.
Some of the names, order and combinations are different, but they are the same books.
The reason why the Trent list is the first infallible pronouncement of the list is because nobody ever challenged it before Luther!
One can point out what God had to say by directing others to the Scripture He inspired. That does not constitute *speaking for God*.
Speaking for God would be telling you that Dancing is a sin. Or that you shouldn't go to movies.
Directing someone to the passages that say, *Do not murder* is not speaking for God. God has already spoken on it and put it in writing. The person pointing it out is not speaking FOR God.
Rome would have people believe that Christ not only got his human nature from Mary, but also some sort of perfection from her, too.
And that's a lie. All and only perfection came from the Holy Spirit.
From Mary Christ was able to know and understand sin and to feel the depth of it because Mary was a sinner just like the rest of mankind.
For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." -- Hebrews 2:9-10
" For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." -- 2 Corinthians 5:21 "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Rome bows down to the creature when God's word tells us ALL the glory belongs to God ALONE.
Why are you changing the subject?
That's not what sola scriptura is all about and that's not what anybody claimed.
If you're going to debate, debate what people have actually said.
Why are you asking me? Who said that I followed Augustine?
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.