Nope...I said showing up on earth...We during the Rapture are heading up, well above the earth to meet Jesus...
The Raelian movement is alive and well.
Posted on 09/02/2011 9:07:47 AM PDT by marshmallow
Minneapolis, Minnesota (CNN) –Prior to 2006, few people even knew that then-Minnesota state legislator Keith Ellison was a Muslim. Because of his English name, he said, no one thought to ask.
But five years ago, when he ran for a seat in the United States House of Representatives - a race he would go on to win - word of his religious affiliation began to spread.
“When I started running for Congress it actually took me by surprise that so many people were fascinated with me being the first Muslim in Congress,” said Ellison, a Democrat now serving his third term in the House.
“But someone said to me, ‘Look Keith, think of a person of Japanese origin running for Congress six years after Pearl Harbor–this might be a news story.’”
Though Ellison's status as the first Muslim elected to Congress is widely known, fewer are aware that he was born into a Catholic family in Detroit and was brought up attending Catholic schools.
But he said he was never comfortable with that faith.
“I just felt it was ritual and dogma,” Ellison said. “Of course, that’s not the reality of Catholicism, but it’s the reality I lived. So I just kind of lost interest and stopped going to Mass unless I was required to.”
It wasn’t until he was a student at Wayne State University in Detroit when Ellison began, “looking for other things.”
(Excerpt) Read more at religion.blogs.cnn.com ...
Don't guess or presume, you are not that smart. I am fully aware of what constitutes blasphemy. You seem to thumb through your Bible for the same reason Clinton carried one, to find loop holes. At a minimum the things said about Mary in these Forums are profoundly disrespectful to Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Were someone to call my mother, wife, or daughter a whore or prostitute I would be incredibly insulted, and justifiably so.
The Church teaches that the sense of the sacred is part of the virtue of religion. Everything about Jesus, including His mother, is sacred.
CCC - 2144 Respect for his name is an expression of the respect owed to the mystery of God himself and to the whole sacred reality it evokes.
Mary is part of that sacred reality. The Church further teaches:
CCC - 2162 The second commandment forbids every improper use of God's name. Blasphemy is the use of the name of God, of Jesus Christ, of the Virgin Mary, and of the saints in an offensive way.
Hardly. The Catholic Church does not allow Funk & Wagnals or some comic book publication to redefine the lexicon for the amusement and satisfaction of anti-Catholics.
You wrote ""Thus, while the Catholic could have reasonable assurance of what the Biblical canon consisted of prior to Trent" is a complete admission against self interest. From Carthage to Trent there was acceptance of the canon as promulgated in Carthage/Hippo as evidenced by its 1100 years of acceptance . So much for your reliance on some official definitive list which in light of the canon's historical constancy from Hippo/Carthage until today renders your contentions irrelevant.r
Mentioning the existence of scholarly debate concerning the canon proves nothing as no changes were effected by either the Church or the Orthodox. Ever wonder why this is so?. Mention of Jerome's doubts is laughable as he included these works. So much for doubt
The canon debates were not major factors from Carthage to the reformation as attested to by secular historians who mention many contentious areas but pay scant attention to the almost non existent canon debates.Your self serving sites do not refute constancy of the canon.No empirical evidence of any change to the canon condemns your rant to the dustbins of history. Concentrate on the "de facto not the de jure" .
Trent served only to perfunctorily act on what had been decided in Hippo/ Carthage and served as its seal of approval. The fact that both the Church and Orthodox accept the work of Hippo/ Carthage renders your infallible fetish moot. Therein lies the problem in that you focus on the de jure not the de facto.
In your extensive report of the debates at Trent it is interesting to note you mention Hubert Jedin an accepted historian. However, you rely on Alpha Omega Ministries site and it hired gun James Swan to take Jedin's comment and color them. This renders this entire section of your rant somewhat intellectually dishonest as what Jedin states in his work and what is reported by Alpha has some variances. Suggest you read these historians youself and not rely on the editorial chicanery of evangelical types to flavor facts.
If debate over books to include in scripture was so important to protestants why then did they retain these "Questionable " works in their own bibles until the 19th cent when they were excised, not by theologians but by British publishers to save printing costs?.
Most of today's non catholic objective historians accept the decisions of Hippo and Carthage in establishing scripture and why not since Trent's activities were perfunctory. Scholars as Elaine Pagels of Princeton in her PHD dissertation "Gnostic Gospels" blame the Church for compiling scripture in Hippo/Carthage which she deems counter cultural. The focus is on content.
Read historians as A Toynbee, George Weigle Steven Runciman, Eamon Duffy, Martin Gilbert as they are recognized as the scholars who are most knowledgeable about church history. You need to stick with objective in depth historical analysis and comprehend complex processes which can not be easily explained in superficial sites which cater to those seeking cheap discounted historical knowledge.
But, you see, I’m talking about God’s word. What HE says about the subject. You’re talking about the RCC’s words. What THEY say about the subject. So..what to do...believe God or believe a group of fallible men whose sole job is to tell everyone what God means when He says something. It’s a real conundrum.
But it wasn't Jesus who conquered them, nor bestowed the titles on anyone, nor co-opted their birthdays and holy days, nor implemented their rituals. That was an alter-christ.
In any case, in a fashion to which I am used, rather tan acknowledge that the fact I adduced refutes the false statement from your side that only “Roman Catholics” hold Mary to be holy (and what does your side hold “saint” to mean anyway?) you change the subject.
It doesn't change the subject at all. It is evident that the Roman church is not the only group that holds Mary to be holy. I am merely pointing out the fact that the title the Greeks give to Mary (again, not a title given to Mary by Christ) derives from an earlier time - as does everything having to do with her (and all your 'saints') elevation. And I assert that any calling Mary holy, need only to look to paganism to find the origin of the "Queen of Heaven", and the "Panagia".
It doesn't matter what the Greeks call her, or what you call her. What matters is that there is *no* evidence in all the Bible, nor in Hebrew tradition for this ascended female figure who is called "the Mother of us All". It has *no place* in what YHWH put in place from the very beginning. It DOES however, find reams... many volumes of evidence among the Pagans, in the 'mother goddess' which has forever been evident in the profane.
How very frightened and weak must be the faith in Truth of those who will change the subject to preserve the illusion of victory!
The heart of the matter will always be the syncretism which adopted this female goddess into the House of YHWH, along with many of her fellows, and a good many of their rituals and holy days to boot... That one would point to the Greeks and whine that 'they do it too,' sounds exactly like a recalcitrant child pointing to his fellows to lessen the culpability of his own crimes. *YOU* are responsible for what *you* believe:
We are to worship in spirit and in TRUTH. Those who are 'frightened and weak' are those who *will not* throw their faith upon the altar at any given moment to determine it's veracity, letting those things which are false burn away, so that the truth they hold is made more pure. Those who hold tradition to be equal to the Scriptures have the hardest time with this as 'truth' can be altered to suit the fancy of their organization - Which is one of the (if not "the") primary reasons that the concept of sola-scriptura is so vitally important. ANYTHING which takes away from what YHWH has placed from the foundations of the earth (Torah, Prophets, Yeshua, and the Kingdom) is *not* of YHWH, and must be, therefore, a distraction from the truth.
YHWH is not made that He should conform to the people. The people are made to conform to YHWH.
Many failed to respond to the excellent point Mark attempted to make on this thread regarding a comparison of the doctrine of the Trinity with the Assumption of Mary and Mariology in general. Everyone pounced on Mark for stating (rightly) that the doctrine of the trinity was implicit in Scripture not explicit, but none saw the point he was trying to make. If we are trinitarian Christians we must all agree that there are valid implicit doctrines found in Scripture. Yet Protestants dog pile on Catholics for other similarly implicit doctrines.
Suffice it to say we will not be swayed in our beliefs by poorly articulated Reformationist "discoveries" so stop trying.
I probably am not that smart, Natural Law. I’m so dumb that I refuse to defend the indefensible. I’m so stoopid that I believe God’s word to be the final authority. I’m so ignorant that I will take no man’s word over God’s Scripture. I’m so without brain matter that I search the Scriptures, not the Catechism to see if these things are so. It’s a real shame I’m not smart like you, depending on a building for my salvation and praying to Michael the Archangel to destroy my enemies. To have your braincells, what I wouldn’t give. And I do mean that. I wouldn’t give.
You can take it to the bank that I reject your Catholic faith
The Great Commission commands the Church to evangelize all nations, and by implication, all men. If individual men decide to reject God, then if we have done all that we can, God will not count it against us.
And that fire you seem to be looking forward to after you die will not be some phoney purgatory...That fire emanates from hell...
More posts from at right angles to reality. This makes less sense than the posts that you usually make.
You need to dump that religion (faith) and turn to Jesus...Ask him to save you and trust in Him, and only Him...
The Faith was Created by Him, given to the Apostles and handed down to us. We do not find it each morning in the dregs of a bottle emptied the night before.
Is that what the scriptures tell us??? No I do not have to study word origins to know what God has spoken in the scriptures that he so well preserved...
The dude didn't know that his dentist brother gave him a gold tooth!!! Yeah, right. Pull my right leg and it plays Jingle Bells. What a loon in the company of loons. And the loons that perpetuate these lies around the Internet. And then claim that they actually were there. What idiots.
Geeeeeeeeeeeeezzzz...Where do you come up with this stuff???
From reality. Where do you come up with your stuff?
If every time you actually are a heretic, God plucks one hair, some of you would be totally hairless. Cover yourself in feathers, then.
To start, I think if you blitz the Greek word hysteremata (don’t put money on my spelling, but I’m at least close), if you look at the way the KJV people translate it every other time it shows up, if you look at how the RSV translates it, you’ll find something at least interesting.
You say we all are called to suffer for the Church and for the Truth. But why, in your opinion, is that? Weren’t the sufferings of Christ all that was necessary?
What does, “... that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ ...” mean?
IMHO it means that the “small ‘s’” saints, you and me, are given the awesome privilege of joining with Jesus in his redemptive work, that His spirit in us, himSELF in us (the hope of glory) ties us back in time and grafts us into His suffering, and not feckless, love.
A dear friend, a non-Christian whose love for Truth and Justice shines in her eyes like a beacon, cannot come to terms with all the suffering in her life and in the world. She leads a hard and beautiful life, giving her time and her art, often in physical pain to our wounded soldiers.
I want to say, in Isaiah’s words which Holy Augustine took from the dubiously translated Vulgate, “If you will not believe, you will not understand,” and if she would believe, by a miracle of the Holy Ghost, she would not only understand, but rejoice and give thanks that to her, utterly without any merit being involved, was offered the great gift of filling up “what is behind” in the sufferings of Christ, for the sake of His body.
I think what is casually called Paul’s “mysticism” is the key. What he says is that to have faith in Christ is to die with Him, and that to die with Him is to rise with Him.
It is not that we all “have” to suffer. It is that we all are allowed to suffer, to unite the nails in His hands with the hangnail on our finger, his patience before His mockers with the pain we sometimes feel right here in this forum.
He does not offer the ease of the pampered lap-dog, but the deeper satisfaction felt when one has struggled and fought in the one good fight.
Sorry for typos. Confined to Blackberry.
When did Paul start preaching??? Minus the 3 years he spent in the presence of the 'risen' Jesus Christ...
Where does it say that Paul spent three years in the presence of the risen Christ? Come on, trot it out. I would interested in more of your wisdom. At any rate, Paul's first letters occured more than 20 years after Jesus Ascended. You said that Paul started writing immediately. So, I ask again, do you charge Paul with being a slow writer? More than 20 years? Even you write faster than that.
I see you addressed this to the Catholic MarkBsnr...Odd...They teach that Jesus already came on the Lords Day (Sunday, LoL) back there after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD...
To judgement and death, according to Jesus in that same chapter) leaving the wheat (the believers, the sons of God) untouched and standing to be gathered to him from around the world afterwards.
That's what we've been telling you guys for eons...And that starts the thousand year reign of Jesus on the throne of David...
Nope...I said showing up on earth...We during the Rapture are heading up, well above the earth to meet Jesus...
The Raelian movement is alive and well.
I don't have enough interest in your council of Nicea to ever remember where it was.
Odd; you do remember that they declared heretical a whole class of beliefs, of which you profess at least some. Sore losers are fun to deal with.
But I'll bet if one could talk to the real Christians in that day, it was the council at Nicea that was excommunicated by the Christians.
This is one of lamest statements that you have ever posted. You are wrong. Your posted beliefs are not Christianity. Either come over to the light or be lost.
That must be your own Twilight Zone realitity since it's not God's reality...You'll never find a 20 year generation in the scriptures...
That's because we have a different Captain than you catholics do
That's because you follow the guy in the mirror and we follow God. You oughta try it some time. It's wonderful.
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.