Posted on 11/08/2023 12:11:15 PM PST by Roman_War_Criminal
>>We’re still here.
But we are the descendants of Noah. The rest of mankind suffered collective punishment by drowning, including infants and the unborn children in their mother’s womb.
——>God’s people are those who follow Him.
Correct.
The promises that God made to literal Israel were conditional. Specifically, because of their grievous sins, discussed by Jeremiah, among others, God allowed them to be taken captive to Babylon, and of course many of them were outright killed before they even got there. The worst sins were desecration of the Sabbath and worshipping the sun. God gave them EXACTLY 490 years to atone for their sins and accept Christ as the Messiah. They failed. That is what Daniel’s 70 week prophecy was about. It has absolutely nothing to do with chopping 7 years off and placing it just after the false Pre Trib Rapture fantasy.
Well, you should look up the language of the Old Covenant, because it was CONDITIONAL on obedience. Anything to do with literal Israel is a fairy tale. Literal Jews now have the same chance at salvation as anyone else has, as individuals.
——>“The Covenant with Israel stands.”
Not LITERAL Israel. Those who believe in the false Pre Trib Rapture just can’t understand that. Literal Israel as a corporate entity is history.
Genesis 6:5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Genesis 6:11-13 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Should God not have punished sin or dealt with evil? Exactly how should God have dealt with it then? What way would you approve of him doing it?
AMEN!
Israel is indeed God's chosen people.
Those of us grafted in in addition by faith are also.
It doesn't mean that God has replaced who His chosen people are as if God could only have one chosen people at a time.
And therein lies a great irony.
Jesus himself was Jewish. How can one claim to be a follower of Christ and at the same time hate and reject the Jews?
If Jews accept Christ, what do you call such persons?
“Christians.”
They CANNOT be one. They are legion.
Yes, and beloved for the father's sake: ISRAEL: CHOSEN OR FORGOTTEN?
Actually (contrary to the parroted polemic) the attempted censure by Catholics against private interpretation of Scripture (which Catholics liberally can and do engage in) is nowhere found in Scripture, and their attempt to invoke 2 Peter 1:20 as teaching is an example of the "wresting" of Scripture that Peter condemns in 2 Peter 3:16.
Nor (contrary to the parroted polemic) does private interpretation of Scripture make one a "little pope," except in cults, since rather than presuming any ensured veracity, any claim to veracity must rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation.
But Scripture is not the sure supreme standard for faithful Caths anyway, as their church is, and their basis for assurance of doctrine is to the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity as per Rome, at least in salvific matters, versus that of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. Which is how the NT church began, in contrast to the Roman model, in which "the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," " with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go..." (Sources http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14)
Thus distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels)
Well, without even reading the long article, the conflict I see as regards the place of Israel whether the regathering of Jews today and establishment of the State of Israel is a fulfillment of prophecy, which replacement types reject, along with the further conversion of (what is left) of Israel. Rome has a history of being reluctant to support the establishment of the former (besides past anti-antisemitism, as with Luther also), while affirming the latter. (CCC 674).
Related to this is the rejection of the literal 1,000 reign of Christ, which is well-supported.
First, it’s not really being discussed here how Paul has several warnings here for Christians to be humble and to be first concerned with the genuiness of their own faith. That’s all the more important in this time where the church overall greatly resembles that of Laodicea.
Next, the church has become part of Israel after a manner. Rabbi Jonathan Cahn has warned against America going the idolatrous way of ancient Israel as recorded in Isaiah, for one. Again, all the more reason to examine one’s faith in light of God’s Word to be certain to be part of the remnant in the church.
Also, Paul doesn’t explain exactly why “the fullness of the Gentiles” must come in first. I’m seeking answers from the Lord on it but don’t have them fully yet.
And, too, Paul said he, in effect, tailored his message somewhat to his audience. So to Gentiles, he was concerned about them not seeking to keep the Jewish law. That was his emphasis, as the apostle to them. Acts, for instance, shows a different side to Paul’s views.
Who should we rather trust? Pope FRANCIS???? Just look at his track record. You want HIM interpreting Scripture for you? Or anything else for that matter?
Acts 17:10-12 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.
There was no church in Berea yet. Paul and Silas went into a synagogue.
The Jews there did not have some church hierarchy to *interpret* Scripture for them. They read it themselves to see if what Paul and Silas were saying was true, and THEN they believed.
And they were commended for it.
Not condemned as Catholicism does.
I have observed that "former Catholics" have the most egregiously mistaken notions as to what "Catholicism does".
I also observe that you are arguing beside the point. Bergoglio has nothing to do with this; dragging him into it is a Red Herring.
The question is whether or not Mr. James (or any Protestant) holds the definitive teaching authority which he grasps at in his article. Clearly he does not; the very foundation of Protestantism denies it. By Protestant standards, Mr. James has no more (or less) authority to read, interpret, and understand Scripture than you or I.
Do you deny that I, or any other Catholic, have the right to read Scripture for ourselves? The Church recommends that we do so, BTW. Do you claim the right to tell us that our understanding of the Scriptures is "ERROR" should it differ from yours?
I'm talking to you, metmom, not to your posse of followers.
That depends upon a Catholics definition of such past papal teachings as,
*'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14)
Can. 831 §1. Except for a just and reasonable cause, the Christian faithful are not to write anything for newspapers, magazines, or periodicals which are accustomed to attack openly the Catholic religion or good morals; clerics and members of religious institutes, however, are to do so only with the permission of the local ordinary.
Can. 827§4. Books or other writings dealing with questions of religion or morals cannot be exhibited, sold, or distributed in churches or oratories unless they have been published with the permission of competent ecclesiastical authority or approved by it subsequently.But since TradCaths determine the validity of the authority of leadership based upon their judgment of what past valid teaching is and means, as well as "competent ecclesiastical authority" and "a just and reasonable cause," then they are the little popes, even though they often are right as to what past (even if unscriptural) RC teaching is.
The Jews there did not have some church hierarchy to *interpret* Scripture for them. They read it themselves to see if what Paul and Silas were saying was true, and THEN they believed.
But the Jews did have some church hierarchy to *interpret* Scripture for them. Whose judgment, if consistent with the classic Catholic model for assurance of Truth, it what 1st century souls should have wholly submitted to.
If I believed the damnable gospel of Rome and other false teachings, I also would be a TradCath. Vatican Says Transgender People May Be Baptized 11/9/2023, 9:58:27 AM · by devane617 · 23 replies WSJ ^ | 11/09/2023 The Vatican also said that the children of gay couples, including ones who are adopted or born to surrogate mothers, may be baptized, and that such couples may serve as godparents. The statement, released on Wednesday, helps to clarify Catholic teaching with regard to transgender people, a topic the Vatican has said little about until now.
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.