Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save
?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live
There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ
There is nothign magical, or even surprising that an institution in existence since 1c AD has institutional memory dating from 1c AD.
Mary the Mother of God was at the Cross along with Mary Cleophas and Mary Magdalene. Mary the Mother of God was not among the women bringing myrrh to the tomb.
Apparently so, since the Greek original and Douay agree with me. It is a bad practice to translate idiomatically what was mostl likely meant literally; many modern translations do so and they shouldn't.
All three Marys, Mary the mother of God, Mary the wife of Cleophas and Mary Magdalen were at the scene of the Crucifixion; Mary the Mother of God was at the foot of the Cross and the other two were “afar”. James and Joses however are identified as children of Mary Cleophas. (Mark 15:40, John 19:25).
What part of Christian faith, in your mind, did the Church not proclaim sufficiently to your satisfaction?
His words, not mine.
Accept what?
The god you create.
While you are wasting time why don't you tell me what is God?
God is a who, not a what. He is a being, not a thing.
Yes, and the way the Evangleists chose was the most natural way to refer to them, "adelphoi/brothers". Were the Evangelist writing in modern America, they would probably write as you suggest.
Incidentally, if you think Mary having other children is important for your salvation, and you believe in Sola Scriptura, why do you think none of these passages definitively picks one child and say, "X, the son of Joseph and Mary, the mother of Jesus, who is Jesus' younger brother according to the flesh"?
Well, I agree. This is why I am here: to shed a light on the swamps of Protestanitsm.
The statement, "Our nature is material" is itself a metaphysical statement, which make it self-referentially incoherent.
Cordially,
So, we answer your questions, support it from the Scripture that you church claims it wrote and is inerrant, and you dismiss it as invalid for a variety of reasons.
Let me ask you this, Is there ANY evidence that a non-Catholic can present you that you won't off=handedly dismiss as invalid.
I've seen this kind of debate tactic before. The only evidence that's admissible is one that supports the person's position. Anything that shows him to be wrong is disallowed.
It's a dishonest debate tactic.
They were Catholic in every important sense, as they teach through the scriptutre they wrote the Catholic doctrine without excpetion. That is the sense I meant.
Annalex: The Catohlic Church was established by Christ in the Upper Room with the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles. Belteshazzar: you want to say the Catholic Church was established in the upper room, go ahead, since what you are referring to is the outward structure of “church.” But that is not what Christ established in the upper room. There He put the last piece in place for the church of the fulfillment of the OT...nothing more, but surely nothing less
I agree -- I never referred to any "outward structure". That is what was established in the Upper Room and that is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church united to the See of Peter.
Simply, no
Deep.
Nor does it say that she ALWAYS remained a virgin or lived a life without sin or was bodily assumed to heaven. Why are you adding your fantasies to the Holy Scripture?
Matthew 1:24-25 And Joseph, having risen from the sleep, did as the messenger of the Lord directed him, and received his wife, and did not know her till she brought forth her son -- the first-born, and he called his name Jesus.
Why do you take one part of the verse as being true and in mid-sentence decide that the rest of the verse is not? Although they are two verses, they are one thought and one sentence and it clearly says that he knew her AFTER she had given birth.
That's one the worst examples (and yet one of many) of exegesis by Catholics that I've seen. Yet it's pretty typical for a Catholic to apply different standards of interpretation to different portions of one sentence or passage to twist it around to fit their doctrine.
And no, those verses do not say that Mary had other children. That information is found elsewhere in the Gospels, and ALL of them mention His brothers and a couple NAME them.
Denial of the obvious is ludicrous.
And mockery does not help you case. We're not the ones making stuff up about Mary. Nobody said she lived in a condo in FL.
Tradition became scripture at some point, but nothing can become Tradition by definition of the word.
How do you know that? Peter called Paul's writings Scripture very early on in the life of the church. Contemporaneously, I believe. Not long enough to become *Tradition*.
Just out of curiosity, why do you and other Catholics have enough respect for tradition to capitalize the word but do not capitalize the word *scripture*? I've notice it often with the word *bible* as well.
Wrong. We can start with recognition of the papacy. THAT'S a theological issue.
What exactly is *the real world*? First you need to define it and then know that it's indeed *real*. Then you have to make a determination of whether something is indeed part of or not part of the *real world*. On what basis do you do that? What objective criteria do you use? Surely there must be a method to your madness.
How do you propose doing that?
Besides, there is enough material evidence, lots of theological arguments, historical and philosophical arguments, as well as the existence of simile religions to cast doubt in the veracity of that God in my mind.
What material evidence can cast doubt about the veracity of any god?
You know, any god that you create to believe in that is not capable of intruding into its creation and being able to manipulate it is an impotent poser. You can write of miracles and the supernatural all you want, but what you're left with it .... nothing.
Besides, I believe that the Catholic church recognizes the miracles of God, like raising people from the dead, walking on water, yes, even talking donkeys. After all, the Catholic church claims responsibility for the existence of the Bible and calls it *inerrant*.
Why do you disagree with them? What makes you think you're so special that you can sit in judgment on the determinations of the Magisterium and church fathers?
Funny. I've yet to see any Catholic say that the Protestant bible is inherently different than its Catholic counterpart. The only criticism that I've seen of it is that it is lacking some books.
Therefore, God is revealed in the same way in both Bibles where the books are the same. Unless there is some revelation about the character and nature of God in the apocrypha which contradicts that, any criticism of the *Protestant* God is criticism of the *Catholic* God.
I believe both groups recognize God as being omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnificent, eternal, loving, true, pure, just, merciful, and gracious.
I fail to see why anyone would have a problem with that. Well, actually, I can see why someone would have problems with the *just* part and wish to change God to avoid that.
And they're lauded as some kind of hero or genius....
What a pathetic state someone's faith must be in for that to be a step up.
Mother of God. She must be really old.
Um, where is the term *Mother of God* found in Scripture?
Likely because they didn't think that people were such idiots that they plain meaning of *brothers* and *sisters* and naming the brothers would be lost on them, wouldn't be enough, and that they'd need to spell it our more clearly than that.
“Which brings us right back to my original question: why not just make man without the posse peccare and spare everyone the drama, bood and guts?”
God does not lack anything in Himself that would prompt Him to create beings that would fall into sin. He wasn’t lonely or bored. He is eternally self-sufficient and perfect and doesn’t need anything. The answer lies within God’s nature; God is love (1 John 4:16, “And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love ;…”) and the nature of love is to give, to be other-centered, (John 3:16, “For God so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son...”). Jesus said love is to give of one’s self to the point of death, (John 15:13, “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.”)
Without this fall, ultimately no death would be necessary to atone for them and without that death, the greatest act of love could not be demonstrated and the truest and most perfect quality of love would not be fulfilled. God may very well have made a universe in which sin existed so that He Himself could show the greatest and most perfect act of love by laying down His life for His friends.
It’s almost as great as when Christian Protestants agree with non-Christian cultists from the Unitarians or the OPC or the LDS.
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.