Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExnTlIM5QgE ^ | Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;

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


TOPICS: Prayer; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: reformation; savedbygrace
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 5,451-5,5005,501-5,5505,551-5,600 ... 7,351-7,356 next last
To: daniel1212

Hello Daniell...as always great to see your posts.

What I saw in your post, over and over was “faith”. How would you describe Faith? Sometimes I think we overlook words which we might not fully grasp the meaning of. We assume we know.. but as in much of Gods word the full impact can not fully be appreciated apart from a good grasp of the words being used...in a manner the Lord would want us to understand.

Thank you for considering my question.


5,501 posted on 12/17/2010 12:16:50 AM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5498 | View Replies]

To: Belteshazzar

(Memo to self: Why do I feel like every time I talk to annalex some of my brain cells die?)

tsk tsk...chuckle... good one.


5,502 posted on 12/17/2010 12:19:08 AM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5499 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
you seem to insist that divine inspiration can only be some sort of dictation of entirely new knowledge, rather than discerning and expressing truth when writing a historical record.

Christian faith is a faith based on alleged revelation, which is a fancy way of saying  uncovering of new knowledge, be it a "prophesy," or a new meaning.

I take inspiration to mean what it means in English: to be inspired means to be moved or motivated by something, i.e. a 12-year old boy sees a doctor save someone's life and is inspired by this doctor's example to devote his own life to medicine.

In that framework, I see the biblical authors "inspired" by their faith, as they experienced it, and wanting to write about it.

the very scriptures which are authorized attest that the authority of a true believer or church is not established by formal historical lineage, but by scriptural faith by which it exists

You seem to lack neither verbosity nor empty suppositions. Whatever your sentence was supposed to prove, I will reword it to reveal to you how it sounds to me:  the pink unicorns which are real prove that the authority of those who believe they exist is not established by formal historical lineage, but by the faith that they exist.

Supernatural qualities and attestation, which was given to such men as Moses, Jesus, and the apostles, and which contrite, repentant, be believing souls in the Lord Jesus Christ find today today and due measure.

The problem with this is that biblical God used "miracles" and "signs" to convince people that Moses was right or that Jesus was right, and then had to go on "fixing" things, regardless, because very few people believed them. And when the miracles and signs had stopped, people believed, and still do, the stories more than they believed alleged miracles and signs.

I think we all understand that despite your affirmation of the Orthodox Church has concerns historical warrant, you reject its Bible and its God most antagonistically. And for that I think both sides here are grieved and saddened.

The Orthodox Church deserves due consideration because it is the Church that still uses the same language in which the New Testament and the Septuagint were written, and in the spirit of the languge and culture of the times. The EOC provides an invalueable perspectvie on the phronema and the interpretation of the faith by early Christians.

I have no antagonism towards God, whatever God may be. Nor do I hate the Church as some former Catholic seem to. As for condemning biblical collusion and extensive doctrinal "harmonization" of biblical authors and copyists  by using manipulative techniques to get people to believe them  I believe it is as unbecoming to preach morality while behaving immorally, but I also believe that many may had honest iof mistaken beliefs and no ill intent or hidden agenda.

However, given the preponderance of corurption evident in biblical manuscirpts, I understand many sought to do whater it takes, no different than political activists who engage in manipulative techniques, to get their agenda to win. Both groups seem to have a certain view they believe is true, along with the idea that ends justify the means.

5,503 posted on 12/17/2010 1:10:44 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5467 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

So much for the Orthodox church.

When I said the "The Catholic Church has the authority because it is the author and the steward and the owner of the Christian Bible" that includes the Orthodox Church. The pre-Schism Church was the Catholic Church. After the Schism, we have the Latin or Roman Catholic and Greek or Eastern Orthodox Churches, both are catholic and apostolic.

And the Scriptures affirms men testing claims by the Scriptures as available to them. (Acts 17:11)

And the scriptures also say it is wrong (2 Peter 1:20).

while John 8:44 is another example on Jesus correcting the fallible Jews

John is an example of the Christian attempt to demonize the Jews who kicked the Christians out of synagogues when John was writing it at the end of the first century and needed a scapegoat and a new (Hellenized) God.

And that is good considering some of the things the Babylonian Talmud says about demons, which sources such as “The Jewish Religion: A Companion” deny were inserted into the Talmud by ignorant copyists or by those influenced by folk-beliefs, which were repudiated by the rabbis themselves.

The very same source says that the Babylonian Talmud was heavily influenced by the Zoroastrian belief which infiltrated some Jewish communities. Naturally, the Jews will try to deny this (no different than anyone else denying something undesirable), by blaming the scribes, etc. The fact is that some Jewish sects developed dualistic beliefs influences by pagan Persian religion because, one, Persians were seen as liberators, and, two, Zoroastrianism is also a "revealed" religion, so it was near and dear to them.

But theft is that mainstream Judaism rejects any idea of a "devil" and acknowledges that some succumbed to Zoroastrian and Christian influence under long periods living in diaspora the way many Alexandrian Jews were more prone to Greek Platonic beliefs (i.e. Philo) then Palestinian Jews were.

All of which is really irrelevant to the issue, as the Roman Catholic church affirms Jesus words as being divinely inspired truth.

Matter of faith not fact.

By this we understand that for something to be divine it must preclude using human recollection

Really? What is divine?

But again in this, the Catholic Church to whom you ascribe authority of the scriptures disagrees with you in what you determined constitutes inspiration.

Again, the Catholic Church is the Church of the first millennium, and that church is rather different from the its modern namesake. And also I did not determine what constitutes inspiration. And neither did the Church. The linguists did.

And as we agree with her in other foundational doctrines that are Scripturally substantiated, so here also.

And this must be true because you say it's true, right? Whatever.

5,504 posted on 12/17/2010 1:59:07 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5468 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; annalex; boatbums; blue-duncan
I can just imagine you and Kosta holding hands while you go skip, skip, skipping down the road

You mean like this? :)


5,505 posted on 12/17/2010 2:03:44 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5479 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

“And if such were the case, and the Church of the fourth century is that of Rome today...

I never said the Roman Catholic Church is necessarily that of the fourth century. The Latin Church was always prone to innovations, which is a sure way to lose track of your roots. But they are trying to get back on track, having realized they strayed too much.

then they certainly were amiss in failing to put even one example of believers praying to the departed, or instructions thereto...

In  the fourth century the Latin Church was using the Antiochan and Alexandrian divine liturgies and as such most certainly offered prayers for (not to) the dead, and the Greek Church was using the divine liturgies of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom while likewise have paniklhida, or parastas services for the departed.

or for the church to submit to Peter as it’s supreme head, etc.”

And by the end of the fourth century the primal privilege and honor (but no universal jurisdiction) was granted to Peter's successor in Rome, as the first among equals (primus inter pares) of the bishops, without the authority to lord over other patriarchs.

This pribvilege was granted to the successor of Peter explicitly on the basis of Old Rome being the seat of the Senate and the dignity it carried and not, as the Latins claim, on any biblical authority.

The text to speech software failed to read my mind, and i missed proofing this sentence.

Maybe you should try to let your fingers do the talking and type what your mind says. :)



5,506 posted on 12/17/2010 2:18:24 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5481 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis; kosta50; MarkBsnr; metmom; stfassisi; OLD REGGIE; boatbums
There are many many minor surface discrepancies in certain details of the same event in different Gospels

The Synoptic ones you mean? That's why they are called synoptic, they are harmonized.  John's Gospel, on the other hand, is nothing like the other three. Night and day. And even then there are some serious discrepancies among them. Also, Luke's Gospel exists in two versions, long and short.

As far as I understand the issue, yes. Everyone agrees that the Father sent the Son, and there is no issue of subordination

Or co-equality? Even when Jesus says the Father is greater than I?

Why then would there arise an issue over whether the Holy Spirit "proceeded" from the Father alone or the Father and Son? Either way, there should still be no issue of subordination. Whatever the precise meaning of "proceeded" is, I wouldn't think it would infringe on the Three being co-eternal and co-equal.

Where does the Bible says all three are co-equal and co-eternal? And the origin of the Spirit is of utmost importance in the Triniatrian dogma.

For if the Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit is something that "comes" out of both of them, then then the cause of the Spirit are both the Father and the Son and you have double cause. How is the Spirit co-equal then?

The Spirit doesn't have everyhting the Father has, as the Son does. The spiration and the begotteness, on the other hand, point to Father as the first cause (even if eternal)  of everything and all, including the Godhead, and only the Father is uncaused.

5,507 posted on 12/17/2010 2:35:29 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5500 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; kosta50; MarkBsnr; metmom; stfassisi; OLD REGGIE; boatbums
"If John's eyewitness testimony was FACTUALLY WRONG, then he had to know it and was lying or crazy. By the manner of presentation, there is no room here for simple mistake, either Jesus said what He said or He didn't, etc."

Like I said, you're not a trial lawyer. Lying or insanity has nothing, usually, to do with what people see and hear and then recall even minutes later, let alone months or years later. Sometimes the differences can be dramatically different, not just in trivial matters but also in material ones.

"Whatever the precise meaning of "proceeded" is, I wouldn't think it would infringe on the Three being co-eternal and co-equal."

That's the problem, FK. You don't know the meaning of ἐκπορευόμενον. BTW, in the confusing English translation, it's "proceeds" not proceeded and the word has nothing to do with "sending" but, as Kosta points out, with origin. This makes a difference because we are trying, in the Creed, to describe the Triune God we worship. It is not bad theology to say that the Spirit is sent by the Father or by the Father through the Son but that is not what the Creed is taking about.

5,508 posted on 12/17/2010 3:51:45 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5500 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; daniel1212
"[John]...needed a scapegoat and a new (Hellenized) God."

Actually, we prefer new (Divinized) Hellenes! As you know, Kosta mou, I myself was once an example of such a Greek God; now, of course, I'm just a G.D. Greek!:)

5,509 posted on 12/17/2010 4:14:57 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5504 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; Forest Keeper; MarkBsnr; metmom; stfassisi; OLD REGGIE; boatbums
FK: If John's eyewitness testimony was FACTUALLY WRONG, then he had to know it and was lying or crazy. By the manner of presentation, there is no room here for simple mistake, either Jesus said what He said or He didn't, etc."

[Kolo to FK]  Lying or insanity has nothing, usually, to do with what people see and hear and then recall even minutes later, let alone months or years later. Sometimes the differences can be dramatically different, not just in trivial matters but also in material ones.

Back in the early 1970's when the IRA and the British troops were in a real shooting war im Northern Ireland, a British reporter David Tereshchuk was narrating his own experience of an incident known as the Bloody Sunday (1972). He said he distinctly remembered a British paratrooper in a red beret (which is worn by British "paras" in garrison and nonocmbat situations) pointing a rifle directly at him. This terrifying moment was apparently indelibly burned into this reporter's memory as he could vividly recall the details.

Unfortunately, someone came up with a photograph of that moment taken by another reporter, which clearly shows the paratrooper had a steel helmet and it wasn't red! The only thing that was more bizarre is that the Tereshchuk admitted that even after seeing the photograph his brain refused to accept it and when he closes his eyes he still sees a paratrooper in a red beret!

Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, especially with passage of time. Just as people believe what they want to believe, what they are comfortable with, they also remember what they want to remember, consciously or unconsciously. This is a fact that has been established by countless repeated experiments and anyone who doubts is welcome to do their own research.

Now, someone will come up with "Yeah, but John was 'inspired' and God woldn't let him remember incorrectly," or something to thast effect.  Of course there is no evidence that John was "inspired" suggesting any type of error-protection, writing almost 70 years after the alleged events, quoting supposedly verbatim what Jesus said.

Maybe he was inspired (moved, motivated) to write about his faith, and his own personal experience, as best as he could remember, which of course is not lying or seeking to deceive.

Besides, the Gospel of John is so heavily interpolated that one can't even be sure which of the authors was "remembering." And then there are copyists who added and erred all over the place with each successive hand made copy, it is pointless to even talk about what John & al originally wrote.

Considering that the earliest complete copies of John's manuscripts are almost a century removed from the purported original manuscript and that they exist in numerous variants, just think how many hand-made copies were made in that century, each carrying its own errors and omissions and deletions and additions and "harmonizations" and doctrinal "adjustments" as each scribe saw fit!

5,510 posted on 12/17/2010 5:08:48 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5508 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; count-your-change

Yes, and the mother of James and Joses and Salome is identified in Mark 15:40 s another Mary: “there were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joseph, and Salome”. You are correct that the list of names differs from account to account, if that is your point.


5,511 posted on 12/17/2010 5:24:46 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5182 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; OLD REGGIE; annalex; presently no screen name; metmom; count-your-change
how can it be telling a lie when Scripture says in many places ...

I don't make the scripture say anything it doesn't say, and I don't make the scripture not say what it does say. The passages you are citing MAY be interpreted your way, but they also may be interpreted the correct way. I prefer the correct way, and yes, that preference comes from also knowing the Traditin of the Church.

5,512 posted on 12/17/2010 5:27:38 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5183 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; Forest Keeper; MarkBsnr; metmom; stfassisi; OLD REGGIE; boatbums
That's the problem, FK. You don't know the meaning of ἐκπορευόμενον. BTW, in the confusing English translation, it's "proceeds" not proceeded and the word has nothing to do with "sending" but, as Kosta points out, with origin

Here is the hint, FK, to understanding the original language in this case: εκ or εξ. It means from, or out of. :)

Ekporeuomai (see Matthew 3:5; Matthew 4:4; Matthew 15:11; Matthew 15:18; Matthew 17:21; Matthew 20:29, John 15:26 Luke 4:37, etc. [KJV]) in all instances signifies the origin, like "welling from." Pouremai means a movement of some kind, a departure, but ek places it at the origin.

As Kolo observes, ti has nothing to do with "sending" but originating. Given that both the Word and the Spirit are caused by the Father, and only the Father is without a cause, the Father is the source of everything and all, including the Godhead, i.e. the so-called "monarchy" of the Father, the essentuial part of orthodox Triniarian dogma. From what Protestants, at least on these forums, write about the Holy Trinity, the monarchy of the Father doesn't exit in their "trinitarian" ideation.

5,513 posted on 12/17/2010 5:30:06 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5508 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; RnMomof7; editor-surveyor; presently no screen name; metmom
You cannot be saved by faith AND works and still call it grace

That is just your opinion. The scripture however disagrees with you:

Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ, (by whose grace you are saved,) [6] And hath raised us up together, and hath made us sit together in the heavenly places, through Christ Jesus. [7] That he might shew in the ages to come the abundant riches of his grace, in his bounty towards us in Christ Jesus. [8] For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; [9] Not of works, that no man may glory. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them. (Eph 2)

by works a man is justified; and not by faith only (James 2:24)

The puzzlement you feel is because you either don't understand grace or you don't understand faith, and of course you don't understand works because you think works are works of the law and nothing else. Grace comes from God to you. Faith and works are something you do in response. So no, faith and works are not "called" grace. They are responses to grace.

5,514 posted on 12/17/2010 5:34:25 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5184 | View Replies]

To: metmom; boatbums; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; Belteshazzar; bkaycee; blue-duncan; caww
Galatians 3:1-14

Speaks of works of the law (verse 10). The Church agrees that works of any law are not works that save. In contrast to that the works of faith, such as the works of Abraham, are what saved Abraham:

[8] By faith he that is called Abraham, obeyed to go out into a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. [9] By faith he abode in the land, dwelling in cottages, with Isaac and Jacob, the co-heirs of the same promise. [10] For he looked for a city that hath foundations; whose builder and maker is God. [8] "He that is called Abraham"... or, Abraham being called. [11] By faith also Sara herself, being barren, received strength to conceive seed, even past the time of age; because she believed that he was faithful who had promised, [12] For which cause there sprung even from one (and him as good as dead) as the stars of heaven in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable. [13] All these died according to faith, not having received the promises, but beholding them afar off, and saluting them, and confessing that they are pilgrims and strangers on the earth. [14] For they that say these things, do signify that they seek a country. [15] And truly if they had been mindful of that from whence they came out, they had doubtless time to return. [16] But now they desire a better, that is to say, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for he hath prepared for them a city. [17] By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered Isaac: and he that had received the promises, offered up his only begotten son; [18] (To whom it was said: In Isaac shall thy seed be called.) [19] Accounting that God is able to raise up even from the dead (Hebrews 11)

Note that the circumcision and separation at meals, the issues in Galatians, are not listed by St. Paul among Abraham's works of faith, because the works of the law indeed do not save.

St. James agrees with St. Paul regarding Abraham's works of faith:

[21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. [24] Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? (James 2)

The saving faith is working faith.

5,515 posted on 12/17/2010 5:44:49 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5188 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; boatbums; annalex; presently no screen name; metmom; count-your-change
I do believe annalex is incapable of reading Scripture with an open mind

Then it should not be difficult to point out where I don't attend to the scripture I read.

For the record: I understand that one CAN interpret the "brothers" passages as literal brothers. What I say is that it is not the only necessary interpretation and the Church interpretation is valid as well: they are members of Jesus's household that appear like brothers to the speaker.

The "lie" that started this brouhaha is that the scripture is uncontrovertibly stating that Jesus had brothers by the same mother. As I show by citing many examples when we can see "brothers/sisters" used expansively, that interpretation is not the only one possible.

5,516 posted on 12/17/2010 5:51:31 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5210 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; daniel1212
Actually, we prefer new (Divinized) Hellenes! As you know, Kosta mou, I myself was once an example of such a Greek God; now, of course, I'm just a G.D. Greek!:)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Kolokotronis_statue_Athens.jpg

Yes, amazing what oikos yogurt can do; much better than makeup. Yayades know best. :)

And, to your honor, your ancestor Greek (almost) god: Kolokotronis

The statue of memorable Koloktronis in Athens caught in an unforgettable moment when he said "But I am with him!"

On his resume, his strongest bullet, besides throwing the Turks off the walls of Constantinople, was that he eats them for breakfast (hence the nickname turkophago! Ah, those divine Balkan brutes, aka homo balcanicus. :)

5,517 posted on 12/17/2010 5:54:56 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5509 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; Forest Keeper; MarkBsnr; metmom; stfassisi; OLD REGGIE; boatbums

better late than never, pouremai is a type, it should be poreouomai.


5,518 posted on 12/17/2010 5:59:30 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5513 | View Replies]

To: annalex; OLD REGGIE; boatbums; presently no screen name; count-your-change; 1000 silverlings; ...
For the record: I understand that one CAN interpret the "brothers" passages as literal brothers. What I say is that it is not the only necessary interpretation and the Church interpretation is valid as well: they are members of Jesus's household that appear like brothers to the speaker.

The "lie" that started this brouhaha is that the scripture is uncontrovertibly stating that Jesus had brothers by the same mother. As I show by citing many examples when we can see "brothers/sisters" used expansively, that interpretation is not the only one possible.

Then at that point, the person who recognizes that other possible interpretations can be legitimate CANNOT, because they have no basis for it, claim that theirs is the only right one and it would be foolhardy beyond comprehension to not only build a whole doctrine on it, but to also condemn others for not believing it.

Both things that the Catholic church has done.

5,519 posted on 12/17/2010 6:17:00 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5516 | View Replies]

To: annalex; OLD REGGIE; boatbums; presently no screen name; count-your-change; 1000 silverlings; ...
For the record: I understand that one CAN interpret the "brothers" passages as literal brothers. What I say is that it is not the only necessary interpretation and the Church interpretation is valid as well: they are members of Jesus's household that appear like brothers to the speaker.

The "lie" that started this brouhaha is that the scripture is uncontrovertibly stating that Jesus had brothers by the same mother. As I show by citing many examples when we can see "brothers/sisters" used expansively, that interpretation is not the only one possible.

In addition, it is not only those Scriptures about His brothers and sisters which non-Catholics use to support their contention that Mary was not a virgin and Jesus had siblings.

There's the verses in Matthew 1 ....

Verse 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.

And the well known one in verse 25....

25but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

Both verses clearly indicate by their plain reading and meaning, that they DID consummate their marriage after the birth of Christ.


5,520 posted on 12/17/2010 6:24:15 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5516 | View Replies]

To: annalex; boatbums

The Mary of Mark 15:40 is the wife of Clopas, (a.k.a. Alphaeus) not Mary, wife of Joseph.


5,521 posted on 12/17/2010 8:06:14 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5511 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; annalex; boatbums; blue-duncan
I can just imagine you and Kosta holding hands while you go skip, skip, skipping down the road You mean like this? :)

LOL! At least you didn't bow down to him.

5,522 posted on 12/17/2010 8:28:16 AM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5505 | View Replies]

To: metmom; annalex
In addition, it is not only those Scriptures about His brothers and sisters which non-Catholics use to support their contention that Mary was not a virgin and Jesus had siblings.

There's the verses in Matthew 1 ....

Verse 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.

And the well known one in verse 25....

25but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

Both verses clearly indicate by their plain reading and meaning, that they DID consummate their marriage after the birth of Christ.

Well, I guess, God screwed up those scriptures by implying there was a true, valid, consummated marriage.

Odd, that He would leave us with such a wrong impression for the incredibly important doctrine of perpetual virginity.

Fortunately, for us, the pagan, goddess worhip influence of 300 years after the events was able to set us straight.

5,523 posted on 12/17/2010 8:45:23 AM PST by bkaycee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5520 | View Replies]

To: annalex; boatbums; metmom
Please make that claim, and I will respond by scripture alone, as I always respond to such claims. It is true that there are things we know from the Hoyl Tradition and not from the Holy Scripture alone, but if you claim that something that we teach contradicts scripture, show me.

ROMANS 3:
20* For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
21* But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it,
22* the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction;
23* since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24* they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,
25 whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins;
26* it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.
27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On the principle of works? No, but on the principle of faith.
28* For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.

Did Paul exclude Mary!

How does Paul differ from your interpretation of "works" and "faith"?

5,524 posted on 12/17/2010 9:00:00 AM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5495 | View Replies]

To: Belteshazzar; annalex
(Memo to self: Why do I feel like every time I talk to annalex some of my brain cells die?)

I fully understand. My head hurts too.


5,525 posted on 12/17/2010 9:31:54 AM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5499 | View Replies]

To: Belteshazzar; annalex
(Memo to self: Why do I feel like every time I talk to annalex some of my brain cells die?)

Or more like this:


5,526 posted on 12/17/2010 9:45:39 AM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5499 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
What happens far too often, in my opinion, is that some religious leaders demand complete obedience in those minor areas and, by exerting that control, they ensure their power over God’s people.

Yup. Follow the money becomes follow the power. In trying to figure out the reasoning behind so many of their extra-scriptural tenets, to me it almost always boils down to power and control. That convinces me they are on the wrong path. It simply can't be God's will that we direct loyalty and fidelity away from Him and into the hands of fallible men.

5,527 posted on 12/17/2010 10:50:33 AM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5424 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
The real division is between those whose unity is based upon the identification [with] one particular church, thus they remain in it, despite the many various opinions, which can be just as numerous.

Yes, I very much agree. The true loyalty does not appear to be first to God and His word, but rather to the men claimed to have been entrusted with (for most intents and purposes) taking the place of God here on earth.

5,528 posted on 12/17/2010 11:12:24 AM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5426 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; annalex; boatbums; blue-duncan
LOL! At least you didn't bow down to him

Naw, don't believe in that. But others don't seem to mind. :)


5,529 posted on 12/17/2010 12:58:54 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5522 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Kolokotronis; MarkBsnr; metmom; stfassisi; boatbums; daniel1212
FK: Christ Himself said "Do this in remembrance of me.

Believers should not have to be commanded to remember him any more than family members have to be commanded to remember their loved ones.

But family members very often do not remember their loved ones properly. It happens with many things from birthdays and anniversaries to not taking their feelings into account and saying hurtful things. We need reminding about that all the time too. Part of our nature is that we slack off. (Look at how long it took Peter to forget his pledge to never deny Christ.) God recognizes this and so there is much repetition in His word. That isn't by accident, He knows our weaknesses and helps us with reminders.

It's a good source of study, but of course it is not all that it's hyped to be. It would be good to debate it but on another thread.

Yes, that website is not the be all and end all. I just like it because it is so easy to use as a quick reference.

Neat, except Paul doesn't specify what constitutes scripture, by whose decision, and how. Jewish canon was not uniform. It varied greatly between the sectarian communities of Samaria, the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Alexandrian Greek-speaking diaspora.

If scripture is the word of God, then God determined what it was. He informed us of what scripture was by communicating it through His Church (or members thereof). You're right that it didn't happen overnight, but we can be confident today that what we have contains the essence of what God wants us to know.

...1 Cor. 4:6-7 : 6 ...“Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another

Unless, of course, he is Paul!

Paul was chosen solely by God to be one of a handful of people to actually write down "what is written". Therefore, he did not go beyond it. He participated in creating it.

Supposedly being an observant Jew, it is strange that [Paul] would think so lowly of oral transmission of the faith, which, in Judaism, is actually considered higher than the written, and which was not reduced to writing until well into the Christian era otherwise known as the Talmud.

But Paul was a prodigious preacher. Weren't his epistles basically follow-ups to his earlier personal visits during which he transmitted the faith orally (preached)? With the Bereans, he told them to check the scriptures against what he SAID.

...Luke 1:1-4...it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

So, how did the people before Luke know with "certainty" what they have been taught before any of the NT (or for that matter any scripture) was written and widely read? Luke himself gathered what others told him, and not something he actually read!

That's right, before any scripture was written down its truth was transmitted orally. Sola Scriptura is fine with that. The Apostles taught orally with authority from Christ, and we can be sure that what later became scripture matched what they taught. So, as Luke's statement partly implies, if one did not have a reliable oral chain back to an Apostle, one could not be as sure as getting the information from what became scripture.

FK: We also have Jesus' example of handling every temptation of satan with scripture only.

Yeah, right, in the Greek, Zoroastrian-influenced dualistic sectarian storytelling. The Jews don't believe in the devil. How could an observant Jew?

I'm not sure what you mean. Jesus was an "observant Jew", and clearly believed in the existence of satan. The story of His temptation in the desert had to have come from Him since He was the only one there to report it. Therefore, other observant Jews who were followers of Jesus would have believed the same thing.

5,530 posted on 12/17/2010 2:53:50 PM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5455 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper

” Therefore, other observant Jews who were followers of Jesus would have believed the same thing.”

As the apostle John, Rev. 12:9. I would say Moses was an “observant Jew” also.


5,531 posted on 12/17/2010 4:50:10 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5530 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; daniel1212
You have "real" email!

The museum behind the statue is the HISTORICAL MUSEUM OF ATHENS. Its a museum of modern Greek history (since 1821). The building itself is the original parliament and was used during the reign of King Otto. It's a great museum and well worth the visit when in Athens.

"On his resume, his strongest bullet, besides throwing the Turks off the walls of Constantinople, was that he eats them for breakfast (hence the nickname turkophago!"

Almost, O Turkophagos was a fellow named Nikitaras. I have his picture hanging on the wall of my office, blood dripping scimitars raised aloft and standing on a pile of dead Turks, while angels dressed in Greek Evzone outfits hold a banner over his head proclaiming, "Our Holy Hero"! We have a sort of "muscular" style of Christianity....


5,532 posted on 12/17/2010 5:32:27 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5517 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
You've used this example before when I was new on FR; I was arguing with you and looked it up. You are correct.

The Church even then was bending itself towards harmonizing the message to the faithful. After all, having dissonant messages is not a good thing. Look at all the trouble that the dissonant Paul still causes...

5,533 posted on 12/17/2010 6:26:41 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5510 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
Almost, O Turkophagos was a fellow named Nikitaras. I have his picture hanging on the wall of my office, blood dripping scimitars raised aloft and standing on a pile of dead Turks, while angels dressed in Greek Evzone outfits hold a banner over his head proclaiming, "Our Holy Hero"! We have a sort of "muscular" style of Christianity....

The mighty have fallen; look at the riots occuring now because the retirement age in Greece is now what, 50? I look at all those Canadians who had Med tans on Cyprus. You guys should have taken care of them with your muscularity. :)

5,534 posted on 12/17/2010 6:32:38 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5532 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

“I never said the Roman Catholic Church is necessarily that of the fourth century.”

Thanks for the info. It still would not have taken much to add a couple lines such as a suggested regarding even those things.

” Maybe you should try to let your fingers do the talking and type what your mind says. :)”

I usually do, but my fingers have been getting stiffer (dad got the same, and i used to work in a freezer) and do not walk as i want them to, and on days when it gets colder they make more misses. But someone gave me an unsolicited, unused version of Dragon (i can guess where they got the name) and i find it can be quicker.

There is a lot of potential in this type of software (I can think of a lot of things it should be able to do), and more people are using it, but it still has a long ways to go judge humans amazing linguistic recognition abilities.


5,535 posted on 12/17/2010 6:32:54 PM PST by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5506 | View Replies]

To: kosta50


And the Scriptures affirms men testing claims by the Scriptures as available to them. (Acts 17:11)

And the scriptures also say it is wrong (2 Peter 1:20).

According to.. This is a major issue, and I submit that it does not, and the attempt of Rome make its say so militates against the idea that she is the infallible interpreter of it. The text states, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. {21} For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. " (2 Peter 1:20-21)

The context is that of how the inspired prophecy about Christ was written, (2Pt. 1:16) with a corresponding text being, "Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. " (1 Peter 1:11)

That is, those who wrote the prophecies were mystified as to what it all meant, rather than being something contrived by their minds, and is not about spiritual truth-loving souls who “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

The objection by Rome to souls interpreting Scripture in order to ascertain truth is that human reasoning is fallible and only her assuredly infallible magisterium is protected from that defect, when it defines something that fulfills her criteria for infallibility. Thus the only way for men to be certain of spiritual truth is by assent of faith to her magisterium. And by which “the infallibility of the Church in its teaching is proved independently of the inspiration of Scripture.” And having assented to her, Catholics are discouraged from searching the Scriptures in order to verify her truths by examining both sides of the issue.

However, it can be well substantiated that in the Scriptures human reasoning is often appealed to judge things in the light of evidence, including by scriptural substantiation, (Is. 34:16; Lk.. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:39; Acts 17:2; 18:23) Rome even states that “St. Paul alone appeals expressly more than eighty times to those Divine oracles of which Israel was made the guardian” of, yet his means of persuasion was by “manifestation of the truth” commending themselves “to every man's conscience in the sight of God.” (2Cor. 4:2) And as stated before, common folk who examined the very apostle's teaching by such were commended. (Acts 17:11) 1Jn. 5:13 even appeals to men to judge their own lives in the light of the truth concerning what constitutes Christian faith, and out of two to have assurance that they have eternal life. And again, rather than fostering implicit faith in an infallible magisterium, those who seemed to suppose they were such were reproved by the Scriptures. (Mk. 7:6-13)

while John 8:44 is another example on Jesus correcting the fallible Jews

John is an example of the Christian attempt to demonize the Jews who kicked the Christians out of synagogues when John was writing it at the end of the first century and needed a scapegoat and a new (Hellenized) God.

So you say. Naturally, those seeking for a way to deny the authority of the Scriptures invoke this as a convenient hypothesis.

Naturally, the Jews will try to deny this (no different than anyone else denying something undesirable), by blaming the scribes, etc...”

Certainly they would, and I affirmed Jesus correctness in reproving their forerunners, as both denied the Scriptures which manifest the devil as a real entity, and the New Testament treats such stories as historical events. Meanwhile, to hold the Scripture as infallible and supreme judge does not deny that other religions have some truth, and in fact Rm. 1+2 affirms that men have a basic revelation of truth, but which can become radically corrupted.

All of which is really irrelevant to the issue, as the Roman Catholic church affirms Jesus words as being divinely inspired truth.

Matter of faith not fact.

Warranted faith based on evidence which supplies a degree of warrant, which results in more evidence if real.

By this we understand that for something to be divine it must preclude using human recollection

Really? What is divine?

I was referring to your restriction. As for Divine, I realize it can used for something less than God so let me clarify I was speaking is something being from God. In this case, Luke was guided by God in collecting the research and inspired in writing it.

But again in this, the Catholic Church to whom you ascribe authority of the scriptures disagrees with you in what you determined constitutes inspiration.

Again, the Catholic Church is the Church of the first millennium, and that church is rather different from the its modern namesake. And also I did not determine what constitutes inspiration. And neither did the Church. The linguists did.

Its conformity with the Scriptures which it holds it authoritative and its essential basis for authority is the issue, and as for the second, it tries (see next post).

And as we agree with her in other foundational doctrines that are Scripturally substantiated, so here also.

And this must be true because you say it's true, right? Whatever.

No, we present our case, seeking to persuade men, while the issue was that “The Catholic Church has the authority because it is the author and the steward and the owner of the Christian Bible.” And it is her who asserts the veracity of things evangelicals most universally agree on with her, while she also recognizes , that those “separated Churches and Communities” as such such as “who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal,.. in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood,” also stating. “For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation.”

5,536 posted on 12/17/2010 6:35:02 PM PST by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5504 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
you seem to insist that divine inspiration can only be some sort of dictation of entirely new knowledge, rather than discerning and expressing truth when writing a historical record.

Christian faith is a faith based on alleged revelation, which is a fancy way of saying uncovering of new knowledge, be it a "prophesy," or a new meaning. I take inspiration to mean what it means in English: to be inspired means to be moved or motivated by something, i.e. a 12-year old boy sees a doctor save someone's life and is inspired by this doctor's example to devote his own life to medicine.

The issue being RC's authority, part of her expression of this is fitting:

No matter where the knowledge of the writer on this point comes from, whether it be acquired naturally or due to Divine revelation, inspiration has not essentially for its object to teach something new to the sacred writer, but to render him capable of writing with Divine authority. Thus the author of the Acts of the Apostles narrates events in which he himself took part, or which were related to him. It is highly probable that most of the sayings of theBook of Proverbs were familiar to the sages of the East, before being set down in an inspired writing. God, inasmuch as he is the principal cause, when he inspires a writer, subordinates all that writer's cognitive faculties so as to make him accomplish the different actions which would be naturally gone through by a man who, first of all, has the design of composing a book, then gets together his materials, subjects them to a critical examination, arranges them, makes them enter into his plan, and finally brands them with the mark of his personality — i.e. his own peculiar style.

the very scriptures which are authorized attest that the authority of a true believer or church is not established by formal historical lineage, but by scriptural faith by which it exists

You seem to lack neither verbosity nor empty suppositions. Whatever your sentence was supposed to prove, I will reword it to reveal to you how it sounds to me: the pink unicorns which are real prove that the authority of those who believe they exist is not established by formal historical lineage, but by the faith that they exist.

Your insistence rendering of such things is why detailed replies are often necessary, nor is my supposition faulty.

In short, “the mythical pink unicorns prove that the authority of those who believe they exist is by the faith that they exist,” by analogy meaning that “the inspired Scriptures prove that the authority of those who believe they are is by the faith that they exist.” However, mystical pink unicorns have nothing to say, and the issue is not whether the Scripture exists, but as they do and faith is grounded in them, it is that whether these material writings, even apart from the inspiration attributed to them but which a church claims consistency with, upholds her historical argument as the essential basis for her authenticity. Even if you make the pink unicorns analogous to faith in Divine inspiration of Scripture, those who believe in them must be consistent with what they say. Thus the real issue is Romes autocratic interpretive authority.

Supernatural qualities and attestation, which was given to such men as Moses, Jesus, and the apostles, and which contrite, repentant, believing souls in the Lord Jesus Christ find today today and due measure.

The problem with this is that biblical God used "miracles" and "signs" to convince people that Moses was right or that Jesus was right, and then had to go on "fixing" things, regardless, because very few people believed them. And when the miracles and signs had stopped, people believed, and still do, the stories more than they believed alleged miracles and signs.

I have responded to your narrow thinking in this before, and God was never under any delusion that majority would choose the broad path of destruction, but gave grace anyway, nor is it any wonder that it is only those who are of the humble and contrite spirit that manifestly come to Christ. (It would be good we they all stayed that way). No have miracles never stopped, even if not as prevalent and powerful as when God was instituting new revelation, as under Moses, Jesus and the apostles. But neither was i only referring to overt miraculous, but also to endure suffering and afflictions, needed for individual and corporate character, and overall that of the transformative effects of the new birth, with immediate new affections and other, ongoing, effects of regeneration, and of God's leading and working in other ways in the lives of faithful Christians, in the midst of all that passes for it.

I think we all understand that despite your affirmation of the Orthodox Church has concerns historical warrant, you reject its Bible and its God most antagonistically. And for that I think both sides here are grieved and saddened.

The Orthodox Church deserves due consideration because it is the Church that still uses the same language in which the New Testament and the Septuagint were written, and in the spirit of the languge and culture of the times. The EOC provides an invalueable perspectvie on the phronema and the interpretation of the faith by early Christians.

Certainly of historical value to you.

I have no antagonism towards God, whatever God may be. Nor do I hate the Church as some former Catholic seem to. As for condemning biblical collusion and extensive doctrinal "harmonization" of biblical authors and copyists by using manipulative techniques to get people to believe them ..

Kosta, need i post some of it and let other judge? And it is the former which can easily drive the latter view. And if we wanted to could go into far more extensive posting than we both probably are able to now on manuscripts variants and their import, i could deal with that.

Both groups seem to have a certain view they believe is true, along with the idea that ends justify the means.

Indeed, and also a type of firewall which disallows objectivity. I do try to analytically look at both sides of the issue despite my shortcomings, and myself have dealt with the venom of militant atheists and considered enough of their arguments while attempting to be reasonable to recognize a narrow mindedness particularly among such, which they often seem determined to justify. The arguments of such can present challenges, though it does not personally threaten my faith, and the reality of Christ on life for the past 30 years after becoming born again certainly gives me a different perspective, which I am sorry such do not know and resist allowing any possible valid warrant for.

5,537 posted on 12/17/2010 6:38:44 PM PST by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5503 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

You have real email!


5,538 posted on 12/17/2010 6:58:51 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5534 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

Not yet. Will monitor.


5,539 posted on 12/17/2010 7:58:17 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5538 | View Replies]

To: annalex; OLD REGGIE; presently no screen name; bkaycee; metmom; RnMomof7
The prediction of the angel was regarding the future. Yet she wandered how it will be possible. She, too, was referring to a future impossibility. If she was referring to the present state without implying the future, there would be no question. I know not men. I smoke not. I eat not pork. All these statements refer to a chosen way of life which is not about to change.

I was thinking about this subject some more today about the belief that Mary was a specially dedicated lifelong virgin who was somehow only placed under the care of a much older man, Joseph, who did not expect a natural marriage, so that she remained a virgin her entire life. Now, putting aside the Roman Catholic Church's dogmas about this, why don't we look at it in a different light.

What came to my mind was if Mary was indeed a life-long dedicated virgin, etc., then why does the Bible not say that? There would have certainly been no shame in her doing this and Joseph would be admired for taking the mother of the Messiah under his wing to care for her. We are given instead a narrative that sounds just like a normal young couple in ancient Judaism. In Luke 1 we are told:

26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

A virgin (normal for back then) pledged to be married (she was betrothed/engaged, also normal back then and it was supposed to last one year) to a man named Joseph (not her protector/benefactor, but a man), a descendant of David (he as well as Mary was descended from the lineage of King David which meant their offspring would also be heirs to the throne of David).

All we are told was that this was not unlike any number of couples who were probably in an arranged marriage (very much normal back then). So, why is there a need to invent an entirely new narrative to jive with the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity? Like I said, why, if that was God's intent, are we told what happened and nothing is said about any vows of virginity?

I, in no way am trying to denigrate Mary and Joseph, they were honorable and faithful young people who were obedient to God and through their faithfulness, they and all of mankind have been blessed by the incarnate God who came to take away the sins of the world.

5,540 posted on 12/17/2010 9:29:03 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5437 | View Replies]

To: annalex; RnMomof7; editor-surveyor; presently no screen name; metmom
The puzzlement you feel is because you either don't understand grace or you don't understand faith, and of course you don't understand works because you think works are works of the law and nothing else. Grace comes from God to you. Faith and works are something you do in response. So no, faith and works are not "called" grace. They are responses to grace.

I still believe that it is you who doesn't understand grace and to assure you, I most definitely understand works and the role they play in the Christian's life. You seem to be going on an assumption that I am the kind of person who thinks works have NO place in my faith. I get the impression that you, along with many other Roman Catholics - based on repetitive comments - that sola fide means we have a license to live in sin with no need for a changed life for the better. That once we are saved, we are always saved, so "let the good times roll!". Please! How many times have you been told that that is simply not the case, yet it gets repeated over and over again, much like what you accuse "Protestants" of doing when they insist Catholics worship Mary.

Let me build a narrative for you - almost like a challenge - for you and anyone else game to try it. How about for one month, you live like you believe you are really going to Heaven when you die. That Jesus Christ really did pay for all your sin upon the cross and, by his sacrifice, you have been justified, sanctified and made righteous in Him. You really accept that you are saved by God's grace through your faith and that your good deeds or way of life are because of the new nature within you that desires to please God out of love for him and in gratitude for his unspeakable gift. When you do slip up and "sin", which is human, you are remorseful and you confess your sins to God and then, as Scripture assures us, you are forgiven and clean of all unrighteousness and your walk with Christ is back on track. When you go to bed at night, in your prayers you thank your Heavenly Father for his love and mercy and the grace that reminds you every day that you are his child and that you are never going to be cast out, he will never lose you and you are safe and secure held in his hands.

During this experiment, you should continue going to whatever church you feel God is leading you to. When you sing praises to God with others during the worship service, you let yourself be open to the blessings God pours down and you bask in his love and the serenity that comes from knowing he is yours and you are his for all eternity. You rest in his love, you fall upon his mercy, you rejoice in his abundant grace.

After this month, you can go back to the way you always looked at your walk with Christ. Go back to thinking that God is keeping score of all your deeds and sins. Return to the belief that your good works along with your faith are what can get you into heaven when you die. Go back to pleading with God, Mary, the saints to help get you into heaven. Try not to think about what it felt like to be really free, to know you had eternal life, to do your works simply because you were a changed person and you loved God so much you hated offending him. Go back to worrying every moment that you may not make it and that all your efforts were wasted because you slipped up.

Maybe then you will understand what I mean about GRACE. It is undeserved, unmerited favor. It means God loves us so much that he will not give us what we rightfully deserve and he lavishes on us what we do not deserve or could ever merit - grace.

5,541 posted on 12/17/2010 10:24:24 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5514 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; metmom; annalex
No, see Old Reg, you don't get it. They aren't saying we are saved by "works of the law" but it's by "good deeds". Of course, the problem then is aren't the Ten Commandments part of "The Law"? By that thinking, I guess God says go ahead and steal, lie, murder, etc. - since that stuff is under "The Law", and as long as you do good deeds, you will be okay. See?

They do have to then explain what the following verse means under that kind of logic:

Titus 3:5
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

5,542 posted on 12/17/2010 10:47:05 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5524 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; kosta50
The Church even then was bending itself towards harmonizing the message to the faithful. After all, having dissonant messages is not a good thing. Look at all the trouble that the dissonant Paul still causes...

So, tell me, why didn't The Church "harmonize" Paul's writings, too, while they were at it? Just, think, they might have avoided the Reformation and all us filthy Protestants!!! ;o)

5,543 posted on 12/17/2010 10:56:46 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5533 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
You've used this example before when I was new on FR; I was arguing with you and looked it up. You are correct

Thank you mark. I try to stay with facts. Everything else is a conjecture which some apparently confuse for "facts."

The Church even then was bending itself towards harmonizing the message to the faithful

It's human nature. I never imply the motive.

After all, having dissonant messages is not a good thing. Look at all the trouble that the dissonant Paul still causes

Worth repeating, Mark. But it's not just Paul. The Bible as a whole is dissonant and imprecise, open to interpretation and speculation.

5,544 posted on 12/18/2010 1:09:53 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5533 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
How about thick wool gloves with fingertips exposed? We are tactile animals and our arms have a direct line to the brain. Our fingers pace out thoughts.
5,545 posted on 12/18/2010 1:16:10 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5535 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; Kolokotronis
Not yet. Will monitor.

Ditto!

5,546 posted on 12/18/2010 1:17:30 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5539 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
Oy, there you go again...

The context is that of how the inspired prophecy about Christ was written, (2Pt. 1:16)

Oh, yes, especially the part of "nor by fables " but by "eyewitness" account, in a book written a hundred years after Christ that even hard-line Christian apologetics had a hard time incorporating into the canon.

That is, those who wrote the prophecies were mystified as to what it all meant, rather than being something contrived by their minds

What prophesies? All these "prophesies" are either twisted into being prophesies or written after the fact, such as in the book of Daniel, the last book of the OT to be written (2nd century BC), which pretends to be written 400 or so years earlier.

The objection by Rome to souls interpreting Scripture in order to ascertain truth is that human reasoning is fallible and only her assuredly infallible magisterium is protected from that defect, when it defines something that fulfills her criteria for infallibility

No, the objection by the Church (not just by Rome) is that by private interpretation the morality of the Bible becomes relative. It is clear that Jesus wanted his message taught by "experts" and not read. 

Paul, on the other hand,  is inconsistent, as usual. On the one hand, he teaches that Bereans could somehow "verify" his preaching the risen Christ (the only one he supposedly witnessed) through the Old testament, and on the other hand he writes that  God appointed (ordained) some people for specific roles in the Church , and that no all can be apostles, prophets, teachers and interpreters, etc.  (1 Cor. 12:28

5,547 posted on 12/18/2010 3:06:44 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5536 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

Thus the only way for men to be certain of spiritual truth

The Church teaches that there is no certainty in faith, just hope. There are those who say "Lord, Lord," and believe, with certainty that they are saved, and yet the Bible says otherwise. (Mat. 7:21) The Church teaches against excessive self-confidence in second-guessing God.

And by which “the infallibility of the Church in its teaching is proved independently of the inspiration of Scripture.”

Well, if no one's interpretation is infallible, then the truth isn't and cannot be known. End of story. I could have told you that from the beginning.

And again, rather than fostering implicit faith in an infallible magisterium

Whether you place your faith in an infallible magisterium of men or in your own personal infallible magisterium, it is fallible human beings interpreting writings of other fallible human beings. Second, if the Holy Spirit guides you personally why not the magisterium? Are members of the magisterium also not believers in whom indwells the Spirit?

So you say. Naturally, those seeking for a way to deny the authority of the Scriptures invoke this as a convenient hypothesis.

Asserting the authority of the scriptures is a matter of faith. The Jews reject your scriptures as Christians reject Mormon scriptures; and all three accept theirs on faith alone.

But, here is the futility of all these arguments: the Bible contains enough self-contradiction, because it's so open to personal interpretation, and because of factual contradictions, as  to make it possible for every extant sect and cult to defend its beliefs using the very same Bible! All heresies are judged and founded on the biblical interpretation.

What I wrote about John's Gospel is a reflection of history, namely that the tensions between the Christians and Jews were intensifying and that by the time John & al wrote their Gospel, the Christians were declared apostates and cursed by the rabbis. Since then Christianity took a progressively anti-Jewish turn, and became progressively more Hellenized.

5,548 posted on 12/18/2010 3:07:55 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5536 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

Certainly they would, and I affirmed Jesus correctness in reproving their forerunners, as both denied the Scriptures which manifest the devil as a real entity, and the New Testament treats such stories as historical events

The NT is a reflection of a particular sect adhering to Zoroastrian dualism, which is  unknown to Judaism before the Persian liberation of the Jews from Babylon, and is soundly rejected by Judaism.

Meanwhile, to hold the Scripture as infallible and supreme judge does not deny that other religions have some truth, and in fact Rm. 1+2 affirms that men have a basic revelation of truth, but which can become radically corrupted.

And the same can be said of Christianity.

Matter of faith not fact.

Warranted faith based on evidence

Such as?

Really? What is divine?

I was speaking is something being from God.

How do you know it's from God?

In this case, Luke was guided by God in collecting the research and inspired in writing it.

How do you know that?

5,549 posted on 12/18/2010 3:10:33 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5536 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

Again, the Catholic Church is the Church of the first millennium, and that church is rather different from the its modern namesake. And also I did not determine what constitutes inspiration. And neither did the Church. The linguists did.

Its conformity with the Scriptures which it holds it authoritative and its essential basis for authority is the issue, and as for the second, it tries (see next post).

The Church was never based entirely on scripture, especially because the scripture was a loose term for quite a while. If anything, the Church was, and is to this day based on the Gospels first and foremost, the only Christian scripture uniformly accepted by what is known as the orthodox faction of Christianity.

And this must be true because you say it's true, right? Whatever.

No, we present our case, seeking to persuade men, while the issue was that “The Catholic Church has the authority because it is the author and the steward and the owner of the Christian Bible.”

Persuade with what? Your own infallible interpretation? The Church at least can claim the authorship; you can't. You are just a reader.

The rest of your paragraph still doesn't say why is it supposedly true. I guess because there is  no answer to that. It's something people like others to accept on thin air. Despicable.  

5,550 posted on 12/18/2010 3:12:19 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5536 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 5,451-5,5005,501-5,5505,551-5,600 ... 7,351-7,356 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson