Posted on 06/11/2007 8:11:53 PM PDT by markomalley
You’ll need to speak to Jesus. He designed His Church that way. We simply followed His orders, FRiend.
F
What you just wrote makes no sense
Joseph loved Mary and had faith to believe what the angel told him.
What makes you think you can,t have love without sex in a marriage anyway?
Good night Brother.I,m out on business til late tomorrow.Perhaps Dear livius can shed more light on this
Is it permissible under the law for Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity, to heal on the Sabbath? Is it permissible under the law for Jesus to say, "I AM."
FRiend, why won't you allow God to be God? How can one commit adultery when God's Will is involved and when He sent angels to both Mary and Joseph to express His Divine Will and both those asked consented to it?
Mary conceived by "the power of the Holy Spirit." The Mystery of the Incarnation rumbles through the mind's of theologians to this day. God took on human form: He was a Divine Person with both Divine and human natures which John so beautifully describes. Why not let it go since it is a Mystery we cannot possibly fathom! "Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis!"
Given the implications for the position you're arguing from, I should think the 223 that are Catholic would keep you up all night.
So you claim. I disagree, and unless convinced by Scripture and plain reason it will continue to be so.
Post #67 goes begging, friend.
Joseph loved Mary and had faith to believe what the angel told him.
What makes you think you can,t have love without sex in a marriage anyway?
First of all, what was said regarding sex and marriage was quite relevant. Second, the issue remains...even absent the issue of sex...that what you are saying is that the mother of our Lord had two spouses. I should think that is a repulsive thought for any Christian.
Good night Brother.I,m out on business til late tomorrow.Perhaps Dear livius can shed more light on this
Be safe!
Begging the question perhaps...
I have a question about your tagline: Jerry Falwell: Now a Calvinist in Glory
I thought Baptists were free-will types, not predestination types. (not Pelagian denial of original sin, but that elected had to ultimately exercise his free will to accept that election)(this is in opposition to the concept of reprobation where God decides from the foundation of the world that a certain person was going to hell)
I may not be expressing myself all that well (the different Protestant soterologies is confusing to me, with due respect).
Don’t take all that much time in answering, as it’s just an academic curiosity for me. But if you have a moment, I’d appreciate a clarification.
If a doctrine is fabricated out of whole cloth it should be looked at as nothing more than a myth.
No different than if you were to say that Falwell is now a Catholic :)
When have you ever observed me use blinking text or any other blinking thing on FR?
Oh, I don’t think I’m perfect by a wide margin, yet.
And it’s entirely plausible that someone hereon could find a chip or a spot of thin skin.
But generally speaking, those don’t tend to be my pressing growing edges.
I know very keenly and emphatically of the stinking clay from which I was dug.
And, I know very emphatically the horrid fruit of sowing brittleness and vain reactionary responses out of fear and insecurity. Lived there for at least 30 years.
And you?
There are exceptions, I’m sure.
But I have, GENERALLY been impressed with the leadership’s oversight in evaluating such things.
I still don’t know what to make of a LOT of visionary things in or out of the RC edifice.
Counterfeits can be so slick.
That’s my point about cousin, too.
The text did not specifically take pains to specify cousins. Or nephews. Or uncles. It could have. It didn’t.
So AT LEAST it’s arguable.
I have long found it unwise to build any significant doctrine on such shakey evidence.
There’s nothing productive in spreading fiction about each other’s churches, friend...unless you’re looking to produce a fight.
= = =
PREACH IT BRO! PREACH IT!
Witness the title of this thread. They could have made it a caucus easily.
Yet we are accused of baiting.
Do we need to start logging such examples in a journal? Sigh. ‘Tis not the way of Love, to keep a record of wrongs.
I’ve never experienced, observed or found that
accepting hogwash—to whatever percent—to be edifying and upbuilding in my spiritual walk.
And there’s certainly plenty of it in the Proty realm.
Would you please point out where in this thread (or for that matter on any other thread) I have stated that a doctrine was based upon this apocryphal document? Read carefully so that you don't misinterpret something that I wrote.
Note, for example the initial post on the thread (apparently the one that really set you off...this time): rather an early non-canonical source that reflects the views of, at least, some of the Church in the second century AD -- that's a couple of centuries before Constantine for the conspiracy theorists in the audience.
In that statement, did I state that the doctrine was based upon that document? No. What I did say was that it reflected the views of at least some of the Church in the second century.
An archaeologist 1,000 years from now could pull a Free Republic religion thread and make the same statement. Does any thread on Free Republic define dogma (for anybody)? No. Does the content of threads reflect the opinions of a certain percentage of religious people (for right or for wrong)? Yes.
If you aren't able to do that, then perhaps you could show me (using reliable sources...be they Protestant -- such as Schaff -- or Catholic -- such as Denzinger or Ott) identify where this apocryphal document is cited as the basis for any doctrine? Again, you won't be able to do so. Or if you can, I'd love to read it.
If you can't do that, FRiend, you're beating a dead horse. Based on your posting history, that is a realistic possibility in of itself (just as I am known for being a little more in-your-face with some Protestants -- those who are in the habit of beating dead horses -- more so than is appropriate for Christian charity). If you can do so, I'd be sincerely interested in reading up on it.
Thanks
The great leap is in the self-reinforcing notion that the earthly institution of the Roman Catholic Church is the sole and infallible fulfillment of this teaching.
= = =
Excellent point.
2 Peter 1:20: “First of all, you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” (cf. 2 Peter 3:15-16).”
21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.
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.