I see how that COULD happen!!!
Posted on 12/14/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by ealgeone
The reason for this article is to determine if the worship/veneration given to Mary by the catholic church is justified from a Biblical perspective. This will be evaluated using the Biblical standard and not man’s standard.
Thank you for that excellent article at the link you gave from Rob Gagnon. Very informative and useful. It’s a keeper!
Don't worry Terry, I was not offended. I don't know if the mod just happened to see your post by accident or what. The truth of the matter is, I am rather enjoying the debate.
:-)
Boy, would I love to get $1 for every time this topic has been discussed over the years here. As soundly as you have demolished the RCC lie about what they boast is the Bible "they" gave the world, one would think at least the SAME people wouldn't keep tossing out that old, gnawed and splintered shard of bone as if they had NEVER EVER heard anything to the contrary in their whole life, but they still do. Asking that it be "phrased" differently is like asking them to commit some kind of religious hari-kari...can't be done, it's the only one they know.
Sure it is...
So are these:
Get thee behind me SATAN.
"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?
"First let the children eat all they want," he told her, "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred?
When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her,“Woman, here is your son,” and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.”
From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
Too bad that 'route' created FAILING churches in Asia.
They spin and create...
I see how that COULD happen!!!
I think it goes all the way back to the Sons of Thunder mindset.
In Luke 9 we find...
49 And John, answering, said: Master, we saw a certain man casting out devils in thy name, and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us.
50 And Jesus said to him: Forbid him not; for he that is not against you, is for you.
WAY too many folks tend to forget this statement from Jesus.
Darn you and your researchable FACTS!
No; you did NOT!!!
"The Catholic Bible is the same today as it was two thousand years ago. "
Not that kind of a dwarf. 😄
Which is either ignorance or willful deception and wrong. These and other prohomosex polemics are examined and refuted here , by God's grace. (Took a while!).
Which is nothing new, in the face of which you have 3 basic alternatives:
1. Reject that there is any transcendent supreme and coherent authority on such things.
2. Insist that magisterial historicity and or the assured veracity of it settles the issue of what is True (not simply what must be followed or punished), as the supreme interpreter of Scripture.
3. Hold that Scripture alone is the supreme infallible standard , and by manifestation of the Truth, in the light of the weight of Scriptural substantiation, appeal to men, overcoming evil with Good.
In contrast to evangelicals, the typical recourse of prohomosex polemicists is to effectively negate the authority of Scripture, as its hermenutics effectively negate the universality and transcendent immutability of any moral command, and or they argue that Scripture offers no coherent sexual ethics, as Wink is chastened here for doing and the Truth upheld, thank God.
The second recourse has been tried, but its premise of assured magisterial veracity in the light of historical descent has been found wanting, and requires one to make an act of faith in Rome in order to believe in the Bible and find Christ. Holding the magisterium as supreme and infallible also easily has the effect of perpetuating errors, and not only Truth.
But as the prohomosex polemicists we are dealing with presumes to use Scripture, and as it alone is the wholly inspired word of God, then combating them on the same level must be done, which is how Lord did so with the devil, and the NT church did with foes, nor under the premise of perpetual insured veracity.
But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2)
Giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed: But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:3-7)
Only insomuch as the church does so (and i sadly come much short) can it est. its claim to be the church of the Living GOD, the pillar and ground of the Truth.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (Romans 1:20)
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (Romans 1:26)
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: (Romans 2:14)
Yes, it is quite good. Glad I could help. :)
I know that this is the Protestant mantra, but this is not the case. By about 4 century the canon was formed and in the Catholic Church has not changed since for both Old Testament and the Old. There was, of course, textual work done by linguists, and translations were done but that is the same Catholic Bible since then. But the books of the Bible have not changed since John the Evangelist finished his Apocalypse, so that is, roughly, 2000 years.
That the Church teaches something in addition to what it teaches through the Holy Scripture is of course true. But the Church does not fool anyone that it is scripture. When a pope writes an encyclical, for example, it does not get added to the canon of scripture. It is known to all to be a latter teaching, and often speaking to a problem that just emerged, not covered in the scripture in any way.
Because you-all Protestants invented the idiotic idea that the faith comes from scripture alone, plus tossed whatever books you don't like and ignore half of the content of the Gospels, you have that perception of the world where "extra-biblical" has some special meaning that you put in it. I am not playing your games.
The Church does not have a definitive teaching on the unbaptized. it is true that a child cannot sin, but on the other hand we have "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark 16:16), which seems to limit the state of being saved to the people who are baptized. Now, you might love it or hate it, but that is where the Catholic Church stands, and frankly I am only interested in what the Holy Church teaches, not in opinions of Protestant men.
OK so how is the “Catholic Bible” different from 2000 years ago? Getting past the fact that the New Testament was written not exactly 2000 but perhaps 1950 years ago.
An opinion based on what exactly?
Those are not my facts, much like "that is not my dog".
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.