Posted on 02/11/2015 12:02:36 PM PST by RnMomof7
You tell us. It's YOUR church.
Catholics would be the only ones who care about that.
So prove that what the apostles called “tradition” is exactly what the Catholic Church today calls “tradition”. If you can’t the Catholic is no different than Mormons, Muslims, or JW. All have beliefs and writings other than scripture.
Well, have you answered his question?
Just where is it recorded that people used wedding rings in the worship of God?
Prove that I told paladinan the reason I don't wear a wedding ring.
Actually those wee your exact words in post #91 to Paladinan.
Paladinan Question >>look at your left hand. Do you have a wedding ring there?<< Your reply: NO, nor would I be using it in my service to God if I did.
Clearly you are saying that you do not wear a wedding ring. Please make up your mind.
Post #91: >>look at your left hand. Do you have a wedding ring there?<<
NO, nor would I be using it in my service to God if I did.
"So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." 1 Corinthians 10:31
What part of "all" do you not understand?
Still waiting on you for several responses. Would you mind getting on them we are wondering how you are going to dodge again.
Here's the real scripture.
Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water into () repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Greek - eis - properly, into (unto) – literally, "motion into which" implying penetration ("unto," "union")
The baptism was because they repented.
>>And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance..." Acts 19:4a<<
Once again. The baptism was because of repentance.
>>For the same reason Jesus was baptized by John, though he had no sins to repent.<<
Jesus took upon Himself the sins of us all. He suffered and died because of those sins. It was for those sins that Jesus "fulfilled the law"
>>Mary fulfilled the Law.<<
Who's sins was she "fulfilling the law" for?
So you're saying that for every verse a priest uses, the rcc has an explanation for that verse? Every verse? Each and every one?
Now according to another poster on this thread only seven verses have been defined by the "extraordinary magisterium".
What follows below is from the other poster...it is not my work.
From the Catholic answers web site Peggy Frye: Only seven passages of Scripture have had their senses partially—but not fully—defined by the extraordinary magisterium. These definitions were made by the Council of Trent (see "The Limits of Scriptural Interpretation" in the January 2001 issue of This Rock): The reference to being "born of water and the Spirit" in John 3:5 includes the idea of baptism. In telling the apostles, "Do this [the Eucharist] in memory of me" in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24, Jesus appointed the apostles priests. In Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22–23, Jesus conferred on the apostles the power to forgive sins; everyone does not share this power. Romans 5:12 refers to the reality of original sin. The presbyters referred to in James 5:14 are ordained, not merely elder members of the Christian community. Seven out of the entire Bible.
Good luck with that. Put your faith in that Church and if they go down you go down. We put our faith in Christ alone. Any chance of Him going down do you think?
Catholics put their faith in story telling over thousands of years. Ever played the story telling game? It don't turn out well.
You and I are in agreement, The addle minded are trying to twist things again. It is best to ignore them when they are off their meds.
No kidding!!! Well, aren't you the bright one!!!
DUDE, the statement by Heart-Rest was that it was BECAUSE I believed it was pagan. Do you see any BECAUSE in that statement? Surely your reading comprehension is better then that.
NOW, why don't I wear a wedding ring?
Do you wear your wedding ring as service or worship of God?
Gettin' a little hot in the kitchen for some!
When the name calling starts you know you've won the argument. :)
Getting a little desperate are you? You haven’t shown were I gave a reason for not wearing a wedding ring after making the statement you did. Let’s have it. Show where I gave a reason.
"He is the head of the body, the Church..." Colossians 1:18
Show where I gave a reason for not wearing a wedding ring and let’s see who is twisting words.
LOL The twisted definition the Catholic Church has given to ekklesia has nothing to do with what Christ is the head of.
I said the Church has certain, plainly defined teachings, and you can check whatever a priest or anyone else says (about anything, including Bible texts) against the teachings of the Church.
Have to go now, so you have a great evening.
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.