Posted on 12/08/2012 2:24:39 PM PST by NYer
JESUS, Read the Jewish Scriptures, Spoke Hebrew, Wore Jewish clothes , Ate only biblically kosher food, Kept the Jewish Sabbath, Celebrated the Jewish feasts, Followed Jewish customs, Lived His entire life as an observant Jew. Jesus' followers were Jewish. The New Testament tells us that they worshipped on Saturday (the biblically appointed day), attended the Synagogue and kept the feasts. They acknowledged Jesus as the Jewish King and Messiah, wrote the "Jewish" New Testament, and lived Torah-observant lifestyles (Acts 21:20). Jesus and His early followers were deeply rooted in the rich Hebraic soil of their ancestors. They thought, taught, and lived out of this soil. God planted Christianity in this traditionally rich soil.
They were still functioning under the Jewish laws as Jesus had night yet died and paid the sacrificial price once and for all.
“had not yet died”
Something did 'try' BEFORE Luther posted 95 Theses on the 'gate' while doing the will of The Father. And while Tyndale was doing the will of The Father, he was executed/burnt at the stake for he being proactive in getting the Good News in the hands of the public.
The statement about 'the gates of hell not prevailing against His Church' shows us that His church is supposed to be on the offensive, not the defensive, in our spiritual warfare.
Thankfully -- Luther, Tyndale and others were on the offense and were pro active. Certainly, if they waited for 'permission' they wouldn't have received it.
Jesus was 'prophesying' when He said that because He knew evil would 'try' to come against the Good News which is His Church and He was telling us 'the gates of hell' will NOT be successful. As ALWAYS, Jesus The Word is right.
No wonder they have a 'mirror' handy while posting.
Son OF God/Son OF man - is how JESUS is described. Theotokos is a Catholic 'invention' as all their teachings/traditions are.
So your saying Jesus and His family respected their Jewish tradition throughout His entire life, because Jesus hadn't died yet? Okay, Do you think Jews for Jesus are not entitled to Salvation because they continue to honor their Jewish traditions? Do you think,Protestants like Lutherans, and Episcopalians are also not entitled to Salvation for their traditional beliefs?
Do you think that God's covenant no longer exists for Jews? Or is it just Catholics?
If that were true, y'all wouldn't feel the need to post threads and come on them so much to state hundreds of times how all the Protestants "vandals" are wrong, heretics, not Christians, blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada. In fact, if it really were of no concern, it would not have been made a mandated article of faith for all Christians. AND it would have been something the Apostle John would have at least mentioned if it were so important a belief for the church seeing as he supposedly cared for Mary until her death.
As it is, all you have is legends, myths, hypotheses, dreams, wishes and coulda, shoulda and wouldas to back up some of these extra-biblical stories. I'll stick with the faith God ensured we would know about because He included them in Holy Scripture.
Please go back and re read my answer to you. Would you please show from my answer where I referenced “tradition”?
If you don’t understand the difference between before Christ’s death on he cross and after I’m afraid this forum is much too limited to get the point across. You really need to understand the difference before the way of salvation makes any sense to you. >>Do you think that God's covenant no longer exists for Jews? Or is it just Catholics?<<
God’s covenant with the Jews was “forever” and will again be evident at the start of the tribulation. It’s the Catholics who believe that the church has replaced the nation of Israel.
He was paraphrasing St. Augustine who said; "I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." - (St. Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental, 5,6)
"Henry Edward Manning stated it well at Vatican II."
Cardinal manning did NOT make that statement at Vatican II. He died in 1892, sixty years BEFORE Vatican II. Neither did he make it at Vatican I. He wrote the Temporal Mission of the Holy Spirit in 1865, five years BEFORE Vatican I.
The controversy regarding this began when it was cited out of context by William Webster. It was debated publicly in letters to the London Daily Times in 1875 between Cardinal Manning and various Protestant apologists including Lord Renesdale.
Peace be with you
I will explain the subject and the Nestorian heresy, but I will not debate its merits. This was settled nearly 1600 years ago. Give it a rest.
Peace be with you
“But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves.” He did believe that to question what the RCC teaches regardless of whether there is either scripture or tradition to back up those teachings is both heresy and treason.
Annalex,
Have you ever read Martin Luther’s 95 Theses?? There were very good & valid reasons for the rebellion of The Reformation. The Catholic Church was VASTLY corrupt! And changes became inevitable...brought about by some extremely courageous men... IMHO.
The controversy began when Rome was exposed for being out of context with God's Word.
It was debated publicly in letters
It was debated publicly in 95 Theses.
Controversy has it's roots in Genesis - when evil is in opposition with The TRUTH. Did God really say?
Let's put a rest to this as this is just another one of Rome's teaching were they are 'ASSUMING'. No truth in it. At least Rome didn't make an *ss out of those who stood/standing for TRUTH regarding an 'Assumption'.
Yes I have.
There were very good & valid reasons for the rebellion
The Theses were all reasonable questions and the need for reform in the Church was there, and the Church was reformed. But the so-called Reformation, whatever its original impulses were, created a self-destroying scattering of sects, all loosely centered around counter-biblical premises of Scripture Alone and Faith Alone, and on anti-clericalism. The Protestant Reformation did nothing good and is headed toward the trash heap of history along with the Donatists, the Iconoclasts, and sundry Gnostics.
If you were to read the post you are responding to, you will be able to find a clear indication that I speak of Protestant belief system as a whole, and not of her personally, in the very paragraph you are quoting, and I also explain what was broken by Protestantism, so have someone read my post to you, please.
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.