Posted on 06/01/2007 2:28:41 PM PDT by Gamecock
Why did the two men ONLY recognize Jesus after the Resurrection ONLY when he broke the BREAD??? Gee....if only you had Ears to Hear for real.
Actually, I just gave him proof.
Did you tell that young soldier you knew is faith was a fraud, or did you conceal your contempt for his faith?
Well here’s acontradiction. We know that Jesus was born without sin and according to some, so was Mary. If that is true, why would Mary offer a sin offering at Jesus’ circumcision?
His roots were Catholic, that was his moral foundation. He hated Jews because his church taught him to
Again Rome never publicly excommunicated him, perhaps out of fear he would win the war and they would be next or perhaps out of their own hatred of the Jews
They failed in their moral obligation to lead as Christ would.
You wrote:
“Henry VIII was no reformer. All of his moves were taken for personal/political reasons and not religious ones.”
That doesn’t make him any less of a “Reformer”. I think all of the “Reformers” often acted out of personal gain rather than religious conviction or simply confused the two as one in the same.
Also, your quote didn’t do anything to overturn what I posted. You are off by four years. It doesn’t matter how Henry VIII started out. It matters where Henry ended up. If Henry started to Protestantize the ritual books (and he did) and did all the other things I mentioned (and he did) then he was a “Reformer”.
The fact that he disagreed with the other “Reformers” is also meaningless. They ALL disagreed with each other. It’s sectarianism based on subjective feelings and interpretations of the Bible. Of course they disagreed with each other.
After his years in a Catholic school and being an altar boy? Whats the old saying “once a Catholic always a Catholic “( except of course if you are a mass murderer, then we do not want to claim you, but we still will not excommunicate you just in case )
I don't need to prove it, since it's self-evident.
Besides, you haven't contested it, and have, in effect, quit the field.
That leaves uncontested the proposition: "Scripture does not even mention the assumption, immaculate conception, and coredemption of Mary."
Being uncontested, and being biblically factual, it is, therefore, the correct interpretation of scripture.
LOL, He learned his hate and his moral code from his Catholic upbringing and Jesuit education.
Catholics were taught to hate Jews then, it was taught that THEY killed Jesus . THAT was his roots and the fruit does not fall far from the tree
...and he rejected them.
He hated Jews because his church taught him to.
Bearing false witness against an entire religion is a very serious sin.
Again Rome never publicly excommunicated him....
Hitler excommunicated himself, and no one at the time considered him a Catholic.
...perhaps out of fear he would win the war and they would be next...
At least you're marking off your very un-Christ-like calumnious speculation...
...or perhaps out of their own hatred of the Jews.
“The word of God always verifies itself in more than one place so I am sure you have many many scriptures to prove your belief;”
I finally understand something about the reformed.
They have to limit the Infinite within a narrow box that conforms to their view of scripture so completely that unless something is a “provable truth” it is dismissed. It leaves no room for miracle or revelation.
God help you people. You have deformed The Almighty into a shrinkwrapped diety of your own creation.
I sincerely will pray for you all because this is sadness itself. Now I understand what another poster meant when she said it made her sorrowful to tears.
.
You don’t follow the most important demand that Jesus gave us.......Holy Communion.
You pile calumny upon calumny, and I laugh at your hubris.
141 posted on 06/01/2007 6:01:16 PM MDT by Suzy Quzy
They did not recognize His face. They did recognize the nail prints in His wrists however. Many believe that that Yah'shua was so disfigured
b'shem Yah'shua
that He was rendered unrecognizable.
It is not.
Being uncontested, and being biblically factual, it is, therefore, the correct interpretation of scripture.
Thus spaketh Pope Xzins I.
Simple:
1) It was required by the Mosaic Law (which because Christ had not yet died, had not been supplanted)
2) It may or may not have been the case that Mary ever realized her own sinlessness (my own speculation), and even if she did, she wouldn't have been boasting about it.
There is NO mention of this....BUT I think you have a good earthly, non Christian way of thinking about it. Thanks.
I simply said the outcast Luther might have been more at home with John the Baptist. I made no comment on his doctrinal , political or social positions.
You were the one to point the finger, as Jesus said "Let he that is without sin caste the first stone"
Your church has blood dripping from its hands and altars and it is not the blood of Christ
You don’t seem to understand the Reformation. But, that’s OK. Many people don’t. The Reformation, at its core, was a doctrinal rebirth, and was not a rebellion. Henry’s acts place him squarely outside that reformation, but crucially, so does his doctrine.
By grace only, through faith only, because of Christ only.
Ad hominems only make my case the stronger.
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.