Skip to comments.
The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles)
Associated Press ^
| 3/24/01
Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 51,061-51,080, 51,081-51,100, 51,101-51,120 ... 65,521-65,537 next last
To: SoothingDave
What the hell does Jesus being without sin have to do with in_principio_erat_Verbum?
Have you declared him Immaculate? Is he now free from questioning becuase he is our Lord?
Yeh, that's what I'm saying. Good evaluation Dave. Lol
JH
To: OLD REGGIE
You can be thrown out of the country, but you will forever be born an American. Factually incorrect!
Factually incorrect? Whatever are you on about?
There are no facts here, only beliefs. I was illustrating the belief we have about ordination being irrevocable, akin to birth. That you don't agree with Catholicism is hardly worth noting.
SD
To: JHavard; malakhi; PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain; CindyDawg
Yeh, that's what I'm saying. Good evaluation Dave. Lol Well, since malakhi came up with the same conclusion, I don't feel so foolish.
As for the "pharisitical" line of questioning I was badgering everybody with, Backy and Cindy had no problem answering. They didn't feel like Jesus under fire.
SD
To: ventana
So the first mistake we Catholics made was to add all those other books to the OT? YES! ;o)
To: JHavard
Do you think this was the type of sin he referred to? I think Paul was stating a belief about the human condition in general, not merely for himself.
To: malakhi; ventana
Nah, we didn't do that til Trent, remember? I think our first mistake was letting the Romans stop killing us.
SD
To: JHavard; malakhi
Do you think this was the type of sin he referred to? Stop the presses! NC discovers the difference between venial and mortal sins.
LOL
SD
To: JHavard
Have you declared him Immaculate? Is he now free from questioning becuase he is our Lord? Yeh, that's what I'm saying I don't get it. Can you explain for us slower folk? :')
51,088
posted on
05/01/2003 2:21:02 PM PDT
by
CindyDawg
(just so yall know. payroll in. I'm not goofing off at work. I took the day off :'))
To: SoothingDave; ventana
ventana:
So the first mistake we Catholics made was to add all those other books to the OT? me: YES! ;o)
SD: Nah, we didn't do that til Trent, remember?
Oh, I thought ventana was talking about the "New Testament".
51,089
posted on
05/01/2003 2:21:39 PM PDT
by
malakhi
(Sola Tanakh, baby. ;o)
To: malakhi
I get ya. Didn't catch that. Very good. LOL
SD
To: SoothingDave
and that he has no faith.
What does this mean, will you answer the d@mn questiion?
JH (grin) & :-)
To: JHavard
To have no faith means that the person, OK, doesn't have, like, faith. That is, that he doesn't believe in God or Jesus or nothing.
Since we are (for sake of his argument) saved by faith alone, not having faith is a bad thing.
We can judge hwo does and who does not have faith by whether they repeat their sins.
SD
To: SoothingDave
then God can make a man a priest in a similar irrevocable way. I see in scripture where God has done this for the tribe of Levi, but where in the NT does it say the office of a priest is irrevocable?
To: SoothingDave
Fine. Then could you ever be plucked out of the grasp of Jesus your savior? Or when you got saved was it something permanent that God did, no matter what you do?
If I had been a pedophile or a fornicator, God would not have had me in his hand to start with.
JH :-)
To: Invincibly Ignorant
And He breathed on them and said "receive the Holy Spirit, if you forgive men's sins they are forgiven them"
He didn't have no fine print about taking it back if they sinned too bad.
SD
To: SoothingDave
And He breathed on them and said "receive the Holy Spirit, if you forgive men's sins they are forgiven them"Ok. I see now. You can't find it anywhere in the NT. This is just some private interpretation of scripture.
To: malakhi
Yes, I agree. Further, I think the Catholics, despite resistance from some of the bishops, are taking care of the problem.
I pray your right.
JH :-)
To: JHavard
If I had been a pedophile or a fornicator, God would not have had me in his hand to start with. What a sad thought. So someone who is engaged in fornication can never be saved? That's not what you mean.
Someone who is saved will never engage in a sexual sin. No, that's not it either. People can fail.
What you mean is that saved people can't possibly do things that bad. You are putting a stipulation on salvation. Instead of salvation by "faith alone" you have added a clause. If you fall into sin that is too "heinous" God won't pull you out.
S
To: in_principio_erat_Verbum
Still waiting for an answer on this one.
ipeV ##50829: BTW, the "casting the first stone" stipulation, was according to the Law, that the first to cast the stone had to be not guilty of that exact same sin in order to cast the stone.
me #50844: Can you cite me the specific verse which states this requirement?
Where in the Law is this requirement found?
51,099
posted on
05/01/2003 2:40:33 PM PDT
by
malakhi
(Sola Tanakh, baby. ;o)
To: Segale2001
mail call :') You still here?
51,100
posted on
05/01/2003 2:43:07 PM PDT
by
CindyDawg
(just so yall know. payroll in. I'm not goofing off at work. I took the day off :'))
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 51,061-51,080, 51,081-51,100, 51,101-51,120 ... 65,521-65,537 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson