Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Posted on 02/04/2006 1:47:00 PM PST by bornacatholic
******"But it still fell on Cornelius BEFORE he..."
Nope. Again. Gal 3:21-29. This is not hard.*******
Let's see.
These signs shall follow them that believe....
....and they went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, confirming with signs FOLLOWING. Mark 16: 20.
To Cornelius...While Peter yet spake these words, the HOLY GHOST fell on all of them which heard the word.
And they were astonished that..."The Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the HOLY GHOST". ACTS 10:45
Again, was Cornelius and those with him saved BEFORE they were baptized or not! If not, why did they receive the Holy Spirit that was the proof of their salvation!! If they were saved, why would they need to be baptized for the remission of sin!
You can't have it both ways! Something is changing!
Whoa. That is a mighty big claim for you to make considering it is the Holy Spirit who teaches ALL things.
Not the modern catholic church anyway.
"If not, why did they receive the Holy Spirit that was the proof of their salvation!!"
I can see we are not going to get together on this one. I don't think the scripture teaches anything like the statement you just made above. Just as it was on Pentecost, the HSB was evidentuary. It was manifest evidence from God, and it validated what Peter spoke on Pentecost in opening the kingdom for the Jews, and in Acts 10 it proved to the Jews present that salvation was also for the Gentiles. These are the only two cases of HSB recorded in the Bible and since Peter was given the keys to the kingdom it fell to him to open the door of the kingdom to both Jew and Gentile. Sorry I can't agree with you. Regards.
You've made your mind up. That's fine. Like I said, I'm sure I don't know myself as good as God does.
You're sure the Lord dwells in you. That's fine, I don't know you, it's not for me to judge, only to witness.
My testamony is that, just as the Lord said, there's a 'sound' that is heard, when one receives the Spirit. Where it comes from is not discernable, but it IS heard. And He said, "so is everyone that is born of the Spirit".
**Have you noticed that when the Lord or one of the Apostles healed someone they stood up, but when one of the modern day faith healers "heal" someone they fall down?**
LOL
Yes, the deceivers are sometimes kinda obvious. When it comes to divine healing, do you think the devil is just going to sit back and say, "Well, I can't try to copy that!"
Hmm, well, I guess you could clip out 1Cor. chapters 12 and 14, and tape them to the back of Acts, since in your opinion, they are past history. ;-)
Gotta git down the road, I'll look in on Fri.
Lord bless
You wrote:
”I note that Paul didn't mention Peter in this passage. His statement was much more broad.”
No, he just didn’t mention Peter by name. And why would he if Peter was a hunted man living in Rome itself?
”In that case ... most churches do have all of the offices you mentioned (i.e. bishop/pastor, priest/elder, and deacons).”
Nope. Protestant sects have offices created by men, not by Christ or the Church. You could start calling yourself a bishop tomorrow if you wanted to. Who would stop you? Would that make you a bishop, however? No. The Church makes bishops after Christ sent the Apostles.
”Could you be a bit more specific ?”
The Mass is described in Matthew, Mark and Luke in the Eucharistic narratives. It is seen in prophecy in John 6. It is described in 1 Cor. 11. It is described in Rev. as the worship in heaven.
”So confirmation is the laying on of hands ... to receive the Holy Spirit ?”
Yep.
”I'm afraid I don't see it.”
Then you must have a serious problem. You know that principalities and powers in HEAVENLY PLACES means angels right? And who or what makes known to them that manifold wisdom of God? The verse says the Church does. The Church teaches even angels.
Why ... those scriptures you are a' spinnin'
May God forgive you. ;^)
You wrote:
"Why ... those scriptures you are a' spinnin'"
Nope. Just reading them as they've always been read.
"May God forgive you."
He already did. That's why I'm not a Protestant, but an orthodox Christian instead.
"May God forgive you."
He already did. That's why I'm not a Protestant, but an orthodox Christian instead.
you know ... the degree of sectarian pride I encounter on these threads is amazing.
I can't help but be reminded of Jesus' encounters with the Pharisees.
They thought that they were always right too ... and had the credentials, as well.
But ... even they had misunderstood.
You wrote: "May God forgive you."
And then followed up my rejoinder with: "you know ... the degree of sectarian pride I encounter on these threads is amazing."
That coming from the man who thinks I need to be forgiven without committing a wrong? If you disagree with what I told you about scripture than be a man, or at least an adult, and challenge that rather than act like a Pharisee and assume I need forgiveness while you are perfect (Luke 18:11).
"I can't help but be reminded of Jesus' encounters with the Pharisees."
You must be thinking of your own hubris.
"They thought that they were always right too ... and had the credentials, as well."
And how are you acting any differently by claiming I need forgiveness?
"But ... even they had misunderstood."
And you still do.
And how are you acting any differently by claiming I need forgiveness?
Do you not need forgiveness ?
Have you met the mark in all ways ?
No arrogance, no pride ... ?
Have you loved me quite as much as you love yourself ?
You wrote: "Do you not need forgiveness ?"
Not for what you said.
"Have you met the mark in all ways ?"
In knowing how to interpret scripture? Yes.
"No arrogance, no pride ... ?"
Not in interpreting scripture.
"Have you loved me quite as much as you love yourself ?"
Nope, but I don't have to to still not need forgiveness according to what you suggested. Thanks for proving my point that you are just a Pharisee-like hypocrite. Not only were you wrong in what you said about my needing forgiveness, but you weren't even adulyt enough to actually stick to that point and instead tried to pretend it was about something else.
Also, thanks once again for proving that you can't actually challenge anything I said about scripture or its proper interpretation.
You had your chance. You blew it. Have a great day!
Also, thanks once again for proving that you can't actually challenge anything I said about scripture or its proper interpretation.
Nope ... can't challenge that scripture interpretation.
Particularly when that interpretation tries to take a statement where Paul says that he prefers not to build on any other Apostle's foundation ... and make it into something about Paul meaning Peter specifically, ... but not wanting to name him ... because Peter was a hunted man.
Now that's what I call a questionable interpretation ... if not ... off the wall.
(Tell you what ... you find anything published that supports that interpretation ... you get back to me).
When you presented that one ... it was clear that you'd say anything to prevent having to admit that you were spinning out of control.
I guess I thought that I'd give you a chance to recant.
Oh well ...1 Corinthians 15:20 My ambition has always been to preach the Good News where the name of Christ has never been heard, rather than where a church has already been started by someone else.
21 I have been following the plan spoken of in the Scriptures, where it says, "Those who have never been told about him will see, and those who have never heard of him will understand."
You wrote:
"Nope ... can't challenge that scripture interpretation."
That was clear from the beginning.
"Particularly when that interpretation tries to take a statement where Paul says that he prefers not to build on any other Apostle's foundation ... and make it into something about Paul meaning Peter specifically, ... but not wanting to name him ... because Peter was a hunted man."
And that is all we talked about regarding scripture? Nope. Again, you try to twist the argument, to narrow it as if it were about only this or that that you think you conveniently succeeded at. Is that really an honest approach?
"Now that's what I call a questionable interpretation ... if not ... off the wall."
And still, you're blithely passing over everything else. Yes, you have to pretend nothing else was mentioned.
"(Tell you what ... you find anything published that supports that interpretation ... you get back to me)."
Sure, just as soon as you tell me when you renounced sola scriptura.
"When you presented that one ... it was clear that you'd say anything to prevent having to admit that you were spinning out of control."
Since I never spin out of control that can't be.
"I guess I thought that I'd give you a chance to recant."
I have nothing to recant of with you.
"Oh well ...
1 Corinthians 15:20 My ambition has always been to preach the Good News where the name of Christ has never been heard, rather than where a church has already been started by someone else. 21 I have been following the plan spoken of in the Scriptures, where it says, "Those who have never been told about him will see, and those who have never heard of him will understand."
Yeah, and who was building the Church in Rome? Peter.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
>>If a “Prot” posted a thread calling the Catholic Church “the whore of Babylon”, I fully expect a Catholic to respond and rightly so. Or would that be a Catholic “hijacking” a Protestant thread? <<
You haven’t been in the Religion Forum of FR for long, have you?
“The Whore of Babylon” is accepted on the forum, NEVER discouraged. Catholics just need a “thicker skin” when it’s stated.
That’s funny, my Bible, as does several other translations,
uses the word spread in that passage rather than publish.
This goes to the very heart of the argument of this priest’s sermon does it not?
The question of baptism, another point in the sermon. Who is right? You say there is no need for baptism, yet we are told “repent and be baptized”. The eunuch upon learning from Philip how he is to interpret the Word(the OT)in light of Jesus, immediately wishes to be baptized and Philip, an Apostle, one of the original twelve, went with him down to the water and baptized him.
I believe that sermon is a prime example of the prescience of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church that He would try, through Christ’s church to protect His flock from the intruders who would lead them outside the fold and thus endanger them.
Pot calling the kettle black.
What happens here and on other threads is that honest debate is lost amidst attacks and sneering derision for other people’s beliefs.
From whichever side it comes, it does not serve the Lord, and taking a few minutes to compose a respectable and thoughtful response to misleading posts will profit all of us more than the subtle and not so subtle innuendo and outright bigotry.
Jesus is the sole hope for our salvation. There is no other name by which we can be save.
But, Jesus called us to ACTIVE faith.
Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and imprisoned, care for the orphan and the widow, give water to the thirsty, forgive, preach the Gospel, repent.
All actions and repentance and baptism are just the first steps.
All fruits of faith in Jesus, who is the vine and the producer of all good fruits.
All outward signs of faith, signs which Jesus said we will be known by others.
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.