Apologists Concerned About Rick Warren's Alignment With 'Holy Father'

Charisma News ^ | 12/3/14 | Mark Andrews

[ealgeone]

Do we have the body, or what we think is the body, of Joseph?

[vladimir998]

“It denies Jesus’ humanity and the incarnation and claims that Mary is the mother of divinity.”

Actually that comment is irrational. Motherhood - for a human woman like Mary - necessitates humanity and with Jesus the incarnation.

[CynicalBear]

>>So, your position is that the New Testament IS a totally comprehensive encylopedia of EVERYTHING Jesus said, did, and taught, and what the apostles said, did, and taught?<<

Everything God thought we should know about yes. Would you say the Holy Spirit forgot some important points?

[terycarl]

The Catholic Church interprets the words of Jesus literally when he said, "This is my body." Protestants have a different interpretation.

it is 4 words...how much interpretation is possible.....and yes, the protestants, after 1,600 years of honoring Christ's words, have decided to deny their true meaning!!!

[CynicalBear]

ROFL That’s all your left with?

[CynicalBear]

>>Do you agree that Catholics should correct nonCatholics ?<<

If based on scripture have at it.

[Resettozero]

Do you agree that Catholics should correct nonCatholics ?

I'd say yes. To correct someone, God once caused a donkey to stop and to speak to a man in the man's language.

God can use anyone and anything to correct one He loves...one of His children.

But so far, you've just griped about what you are being told regarding the truth and have made accusations. God does not like complainers.

[CynicalBear]

"thou shalt not eat the blood"

it is 6 words...how much interpretation is possible

[JPX2011]

Non-RCC Christians talk up Jesus as Christ and Lord of Heaven and earth and RCC proponents talk up the superiority of the RCC non-Scriptural beliefs that, in fact, deny and not just minimize Lord Jesus Christ as the Living Word of God and ignore what He HAS said as recorded in the four Gospels alone.

It is the carnal and boxed-in Protestant mind that insists that anything they claim diminishes or minimizes Christ actually does so. The pathology is such that the Protestant takes John 3:30 personally. Anything that deviates from their man-made Protestant construct means they must decrease which is anathema to them since Sola Scriptura puts them in the driver's seat. Too be told to get in the back of the bus is unthinkable.

[Arthur McGowan]

I have given a reasonable explanation for the NT’s silence on certain matters: There was no debate or disagreement taking place at the time the various scriptures were written. My explanation had nothing to do with the Holy Spirit’s “forgetting” anything.

[Arthur McGowan]

I have no idea. I’ve never heard of one.

But my argument with regard to Mary has nothing to do with there not BEING a body. My argument is based on the fact that there has never been even any CLAIM that there was a body.

It is the total absence of any CLAIM that there was a body that requires explanation.

[Gamecock]

**My point is that if His Son is to be perfect, it makes no sense for Him to derive sick flesh, sick blood, a sick mind from a sick mother.**

Christianity makes no sense.

That being said being born to a sinner is all part of the humiliation of Jesus.

[Gamecock]

To 753.

[Arthur McGowan]

>>You still have not answered the two yes-or-no questions in my previous post.<< AKA You haven't followed me down this rabbit hole. Waaaaa

BTW: metmom didn't respond with two words; she responded with hundreds of words. And she proffered a couple of syllogisms, both of which were formally invalid.

That answered any questions I had about the quality of her thinking.

[Resettozero]

It is the carnal and boxed-in Protestant mind that insists that anything they claim diminishes or minimizes Christ actually does so. The pathology is such that the Protestant takes John 3:30 personally. Anything that deviates from their man-made Protestant construct means they must decrease which is anathema to them since Sola Scriptura puts them in the driver's seat. Too be told to get in the back of the bus is unthinkable.

Sounds very educated, lettered, professorial.

Have no idea why you posted it to me or what you intend to accomplish by posting it. But, you and I share the great privilege of making posts on FR whether they mean anything to anyone or not.

[Resettozero]

My argument is based on the fact that there has never been even any CLAIM that there was a body.

It is the total absence of any CLAIM that there was a body that requires explanation.

You truly cannot see what you are saying.

[terycarl]

Here at FR we've caught the whole catholic church lying about this "dogma" by promulgating an untruth built upon untruths.

interesting isn't it, that the Catholic Church cannot lie in matters of Faith and morals. Christ promised His church that He would protect her and He has done so. He did have that power you know....at least I certainly believe that He did. You are free to deny Him that authority I guess, but He did it anyway.....think about it, why would He have founded a church(which, of course He did) and then let that church flounder and commit egregious error and mislead His flock....didn't happen nor COULD IT!!!!!!!

[Resettozero]

metmom didn't respond with two words; she responded with hundreds of words. And she proffered a couple of syllogisms, both of which were formally invalid.

Well, THAT settles it. Syllogisms were formally invalid.

(No syllogism was invalidated during the writing of this response.)

[ealgeone]

The bodily assumption of Elijah (and a few others) actually tells in FAVOR of the assumption of Mary, since it reveals that God CAN and MIGHT assume bodily into heaven those who have served him faithfully on earth.

I agree God can assume into Heaven He desires. Because He can doesn't mean He does. Because we have the example of Elijah doesn't mean God did assume Mary into Heaven.

Do we have the body of Joseph? One might think he'd be pretty important.

It is a huge assumption (no pun there) by the catholic church this is what happened to her.

It goes back to man-made reasoning. Wouldn't it be nice....doesn't it seem like, etc. However none is based on Scripture. It is based on wishful man made thinking. This is what gets us into error with the Word.

As I have pointed out before, the total absence of any mention in history of any body, tomb, or relics of Mary is totally uncharacteristic of the early Church. In fact, given human nature, universal belief in the Assumption is the ONLY possible explanation for the absence of any such veneration of “relics” of Mary—real or phony.

We presume the early church would want to keep a relic of Mary. Do we have proof of this desire?

Do we have proof that the early church held Mary in such lofty esteem as the catholic church of today.

But again, in your argument you appeal to human reason... given human nature, universal belief in the Assumption is the ONLY possible explanation for the absence of any such veneration of “relics” of Mary—real or phony.

Another explanation exists....they didn't hold Mary in the lofty position it is assumed they did.