Posted on 10/28/2011 6:59:29 AM PDT by markomalley
That’s the book where the woman who supposedly was supposed to have been burned for listening to Paul’s teaching that all should stay virgins in order to get into heaven. While she is being readied for burning she sees “the Lord in the likeness of Paul” even though Jesus said they would not see Him again untill His coming at the end of time. Then when they lit the fire the ground opened up and hail and water came down and she wasn’t burned. As you read the stories of Thecla the virgin in that book you can understand why Tertullian called it heretical.
It becomes obvious by the writings that by the year 200AD the pagan influences had begun to engrane themselves into the “religion” of those the CC calls “church fathers”.
I get the impression that you read that stuff as if it is scripture. It’s pagan through and through as is much of the doctrine of the RCC.
Jesus was both God and man. God does not have a mother.
I would not take Tertullian’s pronouncement as valid. He was declared, and died a Heretic.
Scripture interprets scripture.
>> The only difference is you refuse to see that you are relying on Baptist tradition when you interpret the scriptures.<<
I’m not a Baptist nor do I rely on their interpretations.
>> The written record needs an interpreter.<<
So says? >> How do you objectively know that the liberal Protestants aren’t right?<<
Because they go against scripture as does the CC.
>> After all, it’s just your word against theirs.<<
Nope. It’s scripture against the interpretations of man.
Scripture says that Christ was tempted like any man but didn’t yield to temptation but you say He wasn’t the only one? You say that Mary also “yielded not to temptation”? You say that Christ was not the only one who was sinless? I call that blasphemy.
I believe the Catechism of the Catholic Church still him a father of the church does it not? So you would say that one of the fathers of the CC was a heretic? Yet doesn’t the CC also claim unanimous consent? Are you saying that not only do they not have unanimous consent amongst the various “fathers” but that they don’t even have it in each of the “fathers”?
The Apology of the Augsburg Confession quotes from Tobit and 2d Maccabees.
I never understood that when I was a Lutheran. Article 24 of the Augsburg Confession commends prayers for the dead.
It always amazes me how Lutherans say they believe in the Bible alone and Baptists say they believe the same thing, yet they have very little in common.
I remember in college joining the Protestant study group and being shocked how we all claimed to believe in the Bible alone and faith alone, but when it came down to the details, we actually had very little in common.
>> Aren’t you relying on traditions of men in the way you interpret scripture?<<
Scripture interprets scripture.
>> The only difference is you refuse to see that you are relying on Baptist tradition when you interpret the scriptures.<<
I’m not a Baptist nor do I rely on their interpretations.
OK, that of whatever Protestant sect you belong to.
>> The written record needs an interpreter.<<
So says? Is God not the God of unity not of division? 1 Corinthians 14:33 Yet you get a Lutheran, a Methodist, a Baptist, a Calvinist, an Arminian, etc. in the same room, I think you will find they can’t even agree among themselves what the Bible actually means.
Do the Baptists have a monopoly on the Holy Spirit or the Calvinists, etc.?
>> How do you objectively know that the liberal Protestants aren’t right?<<
Because they go against scripture as does the CC.
Aren’t you relying on your subjective personal interpretation? What apart from yourself leaves you to believe you have the correct understanding of what the Bible actually means?
Do you know better say than St. Augustine or St. Ignatius of Antioch for example?
>> After all, it’s just your word against theirs.<<
Nope. It’s scripture against the interpretations of man.
Aren’t you interpreting scripture and aren’t you a man?
Well, Tertullian wasn’t exactly orthodox throughout his career.
Maybe he became a good Protestant when he fell into the heresy of Montanism.
Every bishop is a vicar of Christ, per St. Ignatius of Antioch.
Then you reject the dogma of the hypostatic union. Correct?
Are you a Nestorian?
Nope, scripture interprets scripture. I don’t.
You keep talking about differences in belief among the Protestants. I would simply ask you this about differences. Do you believe like the Catholic Church that you serve the same God as the Muslims?
Christ was indeed both God and man.
The Nestorians believe Jesus had two natures, but that Mary was the mother of the human nature only.
And still be considered by the CC as a church father? Wow!
BTTT!
There is only one God.
Is it your claim that the Church teaches that we can all become God? Really? Again, silly to the extreme.
Tell me, CB, are you perfectly united to God as Jesus was?
Or do you understand that as long as we are separated from Him by our sinful states, we cannot fully grasp the perfection and glory of God?
Though Jesus paid in full for our sins so that we may one day share in His glory, we are not and cannot be perfect while in our bodies. We must certainly strive for such perfection, but without grace, we cannot hope to even come close.
It will only be in death, when our souls are released from the carnal world that we can be fully united to God, one with Him, as we praise Him forever in heaven.
“That they may be one, as you and I are one.”
Not likely as they were dead before the time it was written.
In this passage Jesus is not decrying the woman for her praise of Mary, but clarifying why Mary is blessed.....she heard the word of God and obeyed it.
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.