Posted on 05/31/2013 2:44:05 PM PDT by NYer
It was always at night — the arrests invariably happened at night. The sudden jerk out of sleep, the rough hand shaking your shoulder, the lights glaring in your eyes, the ring of hard faces round the bed. In the vast majority of cases there was no trial, no report of the arrest. People simply disappeared, always during the night. Your name was removed from the registers, every record of everything you had ever done was wiped out, your one-time existence was denied and then forgotten. You were abolished, annihilated: vaporized was the usual word.
Do you REALLY need a reference??
I’m not saying Eve didn’t sin. But sin did not enter the world until Adam ate.
THEN the eyes of the both were opened.
Scripture clearly says that sin entered the world through the man.
Are they always unanimous or is a majority sufficient.
ouch.....
Well, then. tell us how we're *wrong*. Simply throwing that out there is going to convince exactly no one.
It's getting, this old constantly being told we're wrong but never having the person providing why they think we're wrong.
Sorry, but we think you're wrong and we're not just going to take your word for it.
Amazing..... Criticizing people for a belief because it's not found in Scripture when the Catholic church teaches lots of stuff that's not found in Scripture and when challenged on it their response is basically *Well, just because it's not in Scripture doesn't mean it didn't happen* or *Well, Scripture doesn't SAY it didn't happen so therefore we can claim it did and nobody can prove it didn't.*
The Trinity is not found in Scripture by name. Do you disallow that as well?
The perpetual virginity of Mary and her alleged immaculate conception, and her alleged assumption are also not found in Scripture but the Catholic church teaches them as fact.
The hypocrisy is staggering.
Well, isn't that interesting?
When there are differences of opinion on something by non-Catholics, Catholics consider that proof of the inherent weakness of each man interpreting Scripture for himself.
And yet here we have the magisterium, which Catholics and Catholicism claim is led by the Holy Spirit, not being unanimous, or even NEEDING to be unanimous.
If they're not unanimous, that means that some of them are not being led by the Holy Spirit. So how do you know which ones are and aren't? How do you know that if some of them are not listening to the Holy Spirit, that it's only the minority in the vote?
What if the majority are not being led by the Holy Spirit? That would mean they passed something and passed it off as being from the Holy Spirit under false pretenses.
One would think that if God is protecting the Catholic church and they are pronouncing the pronouncements of God, they WOULD be unanimous. After all, it would be the same Holy Spirit leading them, would it not?
The fact that their votes are not unanimous is proof positive that they are not being led by the Holy Spirit.
What a double standard to allow something for Catholicism and condemn it for non-Catholics.
More staggering hypocrisy.
Peter himself even says so and yet the Catholics STILL don't believe him.
1 Peter 2:4-8 4 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” 7 So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” 8 and “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.” They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
It is imcumbant on every outspoken critic of the Church to actually know the subject matter before foolishly opining.
There are two categories two categories of Magisterium; the Solemn Magisterium and the Ordinary Magisterium, differentiated by the gravity of their pronouncements. The Solemn Magisterium speaks from the Chair of Peter on matters of dogma.
The Magisterium is comprised of the Pope and the Episcopacy of the Church. The bishops consider an issue and advise the Pope, who with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then speaks on the issue. It functions today as it always has:
"The apostles and the elders met together to consider this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers. And God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; " Acts 15:6-8.
Peace be with you
I do not judge or test God. In faith I am content to let Him judge me.
Peace be with you
Juniper Carol, for example, writes: ‘The first express witness in the West to a genuine assumption comes to us in an apocryphal Gospel, the Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo–Melito’ (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 149).
Roman Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott, likewise affirms these facts when he says:
The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus–narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours’ (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209–210).
Juniper Carol explicitly states that the Transitus literature is a complete fabrication which should be rejected by any serious historian:
The account of Pseudo-Melito (a forgery), like the rest of the Transitus literature, is admittedly valueless as history, as an historical report of Mary’s death and corporeal assumption; under that aspect the historian is justified in dismissing it with a critical distaste (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 150).
The history, therefore, of the belief which this festival was instituted to commemorate is as follows: It was first taught in the 3rd or 4th century as part of the Gnostic legend of St. Mary’s death, and it was regarded by the church as a Gnostic and Collyridian fable down to the end of the 5th century. It was brought into the church in the 6th, 7th, and 8th centuries, partly by a series of successful forgeries, partly by the adoption of the Gnostic legend on part of the accredited teachers, writers, and liturgists. And a festival in commemoration of the event, thus came to be believed, was instituted in the East at the beginning of the 7th, in the West at the beginning of the 9th century (A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, William Smith and Samuel Cheetham, Ed., (Hartford: J.B. Burr, 1880), pp. 1142-1143). http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/assumption.html
Nope! Only pointing out the hypocrisy of claiming it as the governing principle of Faith, claiming it is in Scripture and then feigning outrage when the error is pointed out. You should be mad at the fathers of the reformation who duped you, not me or the Church for holding fast to the teachings of the Apostles. We are making progress. I believe that this is the first time in the last 10 years that a believer in Sola Scriptura has actually admitted that it is extra-scritural.
Peace be with you
“When there are differences of opinion on something by non-Catholics, Catholics consider that proof of the inherent weakness of each man interpreting Scripture for himself.”
Absolutely. The difference between us and you is that we have a standard to go on when there is disagreement. You do not. If there is a disagreement - everyone goes on his own and divides the body.
“And yet here we have the magisterium, which Catholics and Catholicism claim is led by the Holy Spirit, not being unanimous, or even NEEDING to be unanimous.”
Yet, we do agree that when a majority agrees - that everyone agrees to abide by that decision - even if they personally may have disagreed. This is the difference between us and you.
“If they’re not unanimous, that means that some of them are not being led by the Holy Spirit.”
Not so. It simply means that some of the Bishops are wrong about a particular issue. Not everyone is perfect all the time as an individual.
“So how do you know which ones are and aren’t?”
Again, you misunderstand. Just because a bishop is wrong on one issue doesn’t mean that he is wrong on all issues.
Two, how do we know the correct answer - again - what the magisterium decides as a whole.
“How do you know that if some of them are not listening to the Holy Spirit, that it’s only the minority in the vote?”
If it were so, then they would be in the majority. Simple as that.
“What if the majority are not being led by the Holy Spirit?”
Give me an example.
“One would think that if God is protecting the Catholic church and they are pronouncing the pronouncements of God, they WOULD be unanimous.”
Nonsense. One would think if God is protecting the Catholic church that the magisterium as a whole would be preserved from error. I find it interesting that you demand uniformity, and yet refuse to submit to the majority.
“The fact that their votes are not unanimous is proof positive that they are not being led by the Holy Spirit.”
Again. Nonsense. All it shows is that some of the bishops are incorrect about one issue.
“What a double standard to allow something for Catholicism and condemn it for non-Catholics.”
We don’t hold non-Catholics to Catholic standards. We do, however, hold non-Catholics to their own standards.
You say scripture is from God and that scripture alone is sufficient. How then do you determine who is correct in a dispute with scripture?
Scripture is quite clear to acknowledge that Eve sinned and that therefore your theory that ‘sin only passes from the men’, is unscriptural.
Nowhere do we find this assertion, except however, from you.
Why is this? You say you believe in sola scriptura and yet you insist this is true even though it doesn’t appear anywhere. Why? Who taught you this?
I’ve explained how you are wrong. You just don’t like the answer. The Magisterium makes decisions based on the majority of bishops. Just because one bishop says something doesn’t mean that the bishop is correct.
If you had said "I think you don't like" it would have been expressing your own mind and not reading hers.
Discuss the issues alll you want, but do not make it personal.
Where?
The Magisterium makes decisions based on the majority of bishops.
So then we can conclude that the magisterium isn't being led by the Holy Spirit after all.
If it's being led by the Holy Spirit, then by the standards that Catholics hold non-Catholics to, it should be unanimous. After alol, it's the same Holy Spirit in all of them, is it not? How can He give them two different or contradictory opinions?
“Still waiting for a response from GPH and MeganC to this post.”
NYer, Your demand for myself to recognize your post with a response is an act of pride and where your Church identifies pride as a mortal sin you’ll appreciate that I’m not wanting to contribute to your eternal damnation by indulging said sinful pride. If your post warranted a response then the need for one would be self-evident and a less prideful person would be accepting of this determination.
Megan
And I repeat that I never said that Eve didn't sin.
Scripture is quite clear that sin entered the world through man.
I will post the Scripture again showing that sin entered the world through man, that he is the one responsible and accountable for it.
Genesis 3:3-7 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin,
Romans 5:17-19 17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. 18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.
Now if you can provide some Scripture to show that sin entered the world through the woman, that she is responsible, then by all means, post it.
Excuses, excuses.......
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.