I got down on the floor but I still couldn't see up under the address bar.
Concerned in Fla. JH :-)
Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
Got a verse? Or is it "all men have sinned"? Women and children are ok?
I got down on the floor but I still couldn't see up under the address bar.
Concerned in Fla. JH :-)
How vague is this? "call no man your father upon the earth"
Or this, "There is no mediator between man and God but Christ Jesus.
It appears you made it through lent and managed to stay off the threads, huh?
Did you or your mate peek?
Good to see you back. JH :-)
Peter did receive a blessing the others did not, but remember he was the heavy throughout the Gospel.
It was him who suffered from foot in mouth disease, and was called Satan by the Lord, and he was denied Christ three times, and was the only disciple who was openly corrected by Christ time after time.
It was Peter's many shortcomings that gave Jesus an opportunity to speak on a myriad of subjects and give us the knowledge we needed from reading of Peter's mistakes.
I think Jesus knew this, so He rewarded him for being the heavy by giving him the first opportunity to bring salvation through Christ to both the Jews and the Gentiles, when he was given the keys to Kingdom of heaven.
Of course you know Jesus gave the same authority to all the disciples in Matthew 18:16 don't you.
But even given that, where did Peter give you the authority to use his name as your pope? He was never in Rome as far as I've been able to tell, and he certainly never heard of the Catholic Church.
There is no where he is recognized as being in authority over the other disciples/apostles, and he preferred teaching the Jews anyway.
1 John 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Matthew 20: 25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
26. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
I know you hate long post, but I see you’ve gone from being a two liner, to a full page your self. Lol
JH :-)
That one is easy. Just as when the Scriptures referred to Rome as Babylon it was not yet the center of Catholicism but still in Roman hands, when Jesus said those words to the people there were not yet any people that were called father other than their own natural fathers.
Mat 19:29 carries the same sense, I think. Give up your patrimony, forsake your earthly inheritance.
There is no mediator between man and God but Christ Jesus.
No argument from me on that one. Mary's prayers, and anyone else's, on my behalf are most welcomed however.
Lent was good. I didn't peek. My wife freeped but didn't read to me.
v.
Sure, Peter knew the church at Rome was called Babylon, 30 years before John put a name to it Revelations, huh?
That’s really weak, but had it ever occurred to you, that the reason no one had been called “father” prior to when your Church began doing it, was because no one had the nerve to completely ignore Christ written word and do what you wanted to do, since you feel your above the scripture.
I would have loved to be sitting in the Church the first time a priest read Matthew 23:9, and everyone started looking around at each other. Lol
No argument from me on that one. Mary's prayers, and anyone else's, on my behalf are most welcomed however.,/I>
What proof can you share with us, showing that Mary is able to communicate your prayers to anyone?
Are you saying now that she has no power to answer prayers, only take them to the Lord?
Do you believe she is omnipresent? How else could she listen to the millions of daily prayers, and then organize them, and take them to God and explain what so and so needs?
Have you thought how ridiculous this sounds?
JH :-)
How to answer this. Geepers. Dave always wants to make it so personal. I point out what the scripture says and suddenly I'm the problem - not what scripture says. Old Dave's job is to play Goebbels. Ecclesiastes 9 paints an unobscured picture that Dave doesn't like. But since I'm the one that pointed it out, Ecclesiastes 9 is void in his head. He must either accept that his leaders are wrong about something (countless somethings actually) or he must embrace his error more closely and cry to the heavens that opposing interpretations are wrong - though interpretation doesn't enter into it. When scripture states that Christ did his job then ascended to heaven - not to return till the end (period) - Dave takes this as room for his leaders to say they physically bring him back down to earth everytime they have communion. The error here is obvious and manifold as has been pointed out on countless prior occasion. But it must be because someone points that out that there is danger.. Indeed. The danger is that someone listens and learns and perhaps decides to listen to God's word rather than to Dave and his leaders. That would be tragic - for them. It is more important for them to try and paint a picture of correctness than to actually be right. Either Christ sat down as the message of God states(Heb 1:3, 10:12), or the message of God is a lie and the Catholics are right. I trust God. And Contrary to Catholic claim, that puts me on the side of Jesus and the Apostles and Catholics on the side of their philosophy.
Let's engage a little logic, Christ's return is much anticipated and is referred to as the second coming - when He shall return to the world in Judgement. To this end, Jesus gave warning that he would not return till the end and Not to believe people who would say "lo, he is there" or "he is here" (Mark 13- esp 13:21-23). He continued on to say that no man knows the hour of his return (Matt 24:27; Mark 13:32-33; Luke 12:40; 1 Thes 5:2; Rev 3:3, 16:15 ...). If no man know the time or place, how is it Catholicism claims to bring him down on demand - that would have them knowing not only the time and place but put control over him in their hands rather than His. This would have to be so in order to ensure his pressence bodily at every communion. Thus, in the error of redefining Communion as something it is not, they have treated Christ as a demon to be summoned as though they imagined they had control over Him. Noting Mark, Jesus said he would not return till all the things prophesied be fulfilled. Catholicism would have him returning everytime they break bread and drink wine. Either they are right or Jesus is. There is no middle ground on a statement like this. If Jesus is not to return till the prophecies be fullfilled, then he cannot be bodily in Communion wafers and wine. If Jesus is a liar, then He can be bodily in communion wafers and wine; but, if He be a liar, then all this is pretty elementary and none of us should be worrying with it at all. Jesus is not a liar and accusing Him of such is Blasphemy. The philosophy of the "Eucharist" by it's very nature then is blasphemy because it makes Jesus a Liar.
Communion was intended to be a simple feast of remembrance - like any other Jewish feast. But this is one that Gentiles could partake in. The reason communion is for believers is that it is symbolic of Christ's punishment and death at the hands of the world - having been wrongly accused. We remember what he indured as an innocent among us and by us. To partake as an unbeliever is to infer it should yet again happen or that it was proper. With such a thought being perpetuated, one should expect condemnation upon themselves. For only one who hates God would knowingly say such a thing.
Jesus, in this passage, is telling his disciples not to be venal men who lust after power and position.
Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
[26] But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
VENAL!?
1a) Open to bribery; mercenary: a venal police officer.
1b) Capable of betraying honor, duty, or scruples for a price; corruptible.
2) Marked by corrupt dealings, especially bribery: a venal administration.
3) Obtainable for a price.
Princes of the Gentiles excercise dominion over them and they that are great (among the princes) excercise authority upon them. There is no discussion of bribery, betrayal etc. Indeed there is no mention of morality at all. It is a statement of how things are period. To be great among the princes ruling, they excercise authority over gentiles. Jesus said on the other hand that to be a great Apostle, they will not subjugate; but, rather Serve. Setting a position of principle opposition. In the world - Greatness is to rule over servants. In Christ Greatness is to be a servant - not a ruler. The things you'll say to mar and obscure Christ's words are want for description. Appaling. Had it been a warning against venality, The RCC has trashed even that in grand style. Why is it that even where you rewrite Christ, your church errs against what they rewrite - hmm. Nature of the beast.
That there has to be someone in charge is self-evident. The Church the Lord started is not anarchical.
There was someone in charge - Christ. The Church wasn't in Anarchy when the Apostles were moving about their given areas of ministry establishing congregations and teaching them. The church was led by Jesus and watched over by the Apostles and later by those whome they'd raised up to replace them in their work. They didn't run about setting up feifdomes for themselves, they moved about raising up servants of God. Anarchy came with the encroachment of error that snowballed in the time of Constantine and his successors - when men decided not only to lord themselves over the church but over the secular society as well - destroying anything that threatened their newly stolen power. Planting error grows a crop of error - or do you not know your parables. An evil tree does not bring forth good fruit. And An institution founded in lies and fraud is nothing if not evil. For lies and fraud are of the Devil. Here is a parable for you, An evil man plants weeds for a crop to choke out the food of his neighbors. For food to grow in place of weeds, the weeds must first be uprooted and the soild tended to. And everafter one must gaurd against the return of the weeds.
I would think the world had ended if the Devil wasn't mischaracterizing God's word and the truth. Danger doesnt' arise by way of men who point to scripture in need of no interpretation - Danger comes from those who don't want those verses known - who have something to gain from people being ignorant of God's word. Danger, in otherwords, exists in listening to you and yours Dave - that is if one wishes to be a Christian.
Faulty logic Dave. If one eats the coconut, he does not eat the shell but that which is within it. The shell serves a purpose; And breaking it can be tough; but, is it not discarded upon the doing as ineffectual. The purpose of the crucifixion was not to make us a meal, it was to release what was contained in the shell - Jesus' spirit. You can't understand the spiritual if you are always stuck on the flesh. And this is why your logic fails. You need to look at the spiritual aspect where Jesus said the profit was.
But if they be true apostles, then their message will be the same as the first. If their message be different, then the foundation is not the same. And your message is certainly far different.
The authority of the Apostles did not come from within them. It came from without. And if a man come claiming apostleship, then one must judge on some basis whether he be an apostle or not. If it be on hearsay, then there is no sure measure. If it be on popularity, then right or wrong is useless - it was more popular to follow error than to be righteous even in Jesus time. Therefore the message and spirit of the message must be the key. So authority doesn't come with ceremony.. one man claiming office from another. It comes from God. And if God and his message be not in a man, then no authority in the word resides there - proving him a liar - not an apostle.
Another fine copout. You're far too intelligent to play these games, Dave.. or to get by with them.
This is old ground. Last time I quoted this you called it near blasphemy; but, here goes:
Matthew 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? [11] He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
[12] For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. [13] Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
[14] And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
[15] For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
[16] But blessed [are] your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
[17] For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous [men] have desired to see [those things] which ye see, and have not seen [them]; and to hear [those things] which ye hear, and have not heard [them].
[18] Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.
And the kicker: 1 Corinthians 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
From Jesus own mouth - It was not given them to know these things and it was purposed. Chase after them and tell them they had it wrong - not hardly. To the apostles he gave clarity. To the unbelievers he gave parables. And it was so purposed to keep the unbelievers and the devil dumb about what was to come.
Nah, not eat his flesh. This is a forshadowing of His death, Dave. That is where your logic fails. The command to eat his flesh is present tense - meaning if the command were to be taken literally, they should then sit and cannibalize him. No, it is intended to say that Jesus must be consumed in a different way, that his shell be broken and the spirit released. For if this failed to happen, we would not have salvation. Jesus wasn't sacrificed so that we could have wine and wafers. He was sacrificed so that we could have eternal life. That sacrifice gave us forgiveness of sin. See, your logic fails you here again. Note the paradox about which I've spoken before.. that one must be free of sin to partake in Communion yet you guys have this notion that communion forgives sin. If it were through bread and wine as you teach, your own teaching says you are without hope because the mere fact that partaking of it in Sin damns you and it is your hope of being saved from the same sin. As intelligent as you are this should be screaming at you that something is wrong. Wake up, please. As interesting as you can be to talk to, I'd hate to not have you around for eternity.
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.