...it’s a mystery.
Posted on 04/04/2015 1:59:27 PM PDT by Steelfish
If you only read it maybe you’d understand Catholic beliefs.
Alrighty then...
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
"You vipers...
Thatr is a keeper. I love Frank Sheed. I really have to go back and finish reading "Theology and Sanity".
That’s right. It’s his Real Body. And as He said, “My flesh is food indeed; my blood is drink indeed.” And then He gave us to eat and to drink.
This is apropos of what?
Still waiting on even one of you to do the same.
Care to be the first?
Great point smvoice! I would like to know the answer to that as well.
Until you can show another infallible source for what the apostles taught, scripture will remain the only source.
WORSDS MEAN THINGS. Those meanings are called DEFINITIONS. ἄνωθεν anthon 's primary meaning is "from above" if you go to ANY ONLINE dictionary, if you use the "Concise Greek-English dictionary of the New Testament" Prepared by Barclay M. Newman Jr., or the KJV Greek Interlinear KJV, you will find the EXACT SAME THING.
If any of them use "Born again" it is not a Primary definition, it is not even a secondary definition, at best it is a tertiary definition, if it is used at all.
That is right, please read again carefully, ANY and ALL dictionaries have "Born again" as a tertiary definition if they have it at all. Not a single one has it as the primary definition. Several don't use it at all.
On the other hand Every one of those same sources give exactly one definition for ἀναγεννήσας anagennao. and that mean is "Born again".
The question you should all be asking is why are prots so insistent on using the tertiary definition of the word at best?
Why are you all so insistent on using the tertiary definition of the word?
If what the ECF wrote isn't Holy Spirit inspired, God breathed revelation, then it's merely opinion pieces written by men which can be dismissed without any qualms or consequences.
And this is a perfect example of why Catholicism requires "sacred tradition" because it's by THAT that most of their doctrine is supported, not by Scripture.
It's no wonder that Catholicism downplays the very Holy Spirit inspired, God breathed word.
I wasn’t the one who made the “absurd” statement. Your good buddy Steelfish did:
The Catholics seem to do this a lot here...
Then do you admit that the translators of the Douay-Rheims Bible used the wrong word and translated poorly the phrase that is translated *born again* in John 3, correct?
The question you should all be asking is why are prots so insistent on using the tertiary definition of the word at best?
Then the question becomes, "Why did the CATHOLIC CHURCH use the phrase "born again" in it's approved Douay-Rheims translation of the Bible that it translated itself?"
Worshipping that cracker is idolatry.
//cut
The question you should all be asking is why are prots so insistent on using the tertiary definition of the word at best?
**
Because we don't let dictionaries define what we are but look straight to the inspired word of God.
The real question is why do FRoman Catholics look to secondary and tertiary sources to define their identity?
and apparently non-catholics are more familiar with this than catholics are!
I understand the catechism teaches catholics and muslims adore the same god and that they don't believe in a literal six day creation....it is symbolic.
tells me all I need to know about catholicism right there.
Why do you fear the term “born again”?
From the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible.
John 3:3 Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again (anóthen), he cannot see the kingdom of God.
John 3:7 Wonder not, that I said to thee, you must be born again (anóthen).
Galatians 4:9 But now, after that you have known God, or rather are known by God: how turn you again to the weak and needy elements, which you desire to serve again (anóthen)?
You need to get with your pope and straighten those guys out first it seems to me. Or are you making definitions of scripture over what they say?
The "eucharist" is nothing more than idolatry. The "sacrifice of the mass" is blasphemy. The sacrifice of Christ was "once for all" not to be continued and the "sacraments" are simply paganistic rituals.
So your "one truth" of Catholicism is not the New Testament ekklesia of Christ. It's nothing more than a false religion. Paul wrote that anyone who teaches something they didn't should be considered accursed. Catholics cannot show that what they teach is what the apostles taught and should therefore be considered accursed.
Yes! Through the Catholic Church.
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.