Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
Someone was being facetious and showing the absurdity of the claim that the church fathers were all Catholic.
:)
And certainly your understand if she had said "I will not know man."
One is present tense. One is future tense.
Where?
Not at all. I meant exactly what I said "Invented Tradition".
There is no Apostolic "TRADITION" which supports The Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity, or Bodily Assumption of Mary.
How thoroughly Gnostic! But, assuming you are right, then, John 6:51, 53-54 was either just using a deceptive smokescreen when Jesus says...
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly (amen, amen), I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."
...or he really (truly, αμην) was joking, because he really (truly, αληθως) was thinking spirit and not flesh and blood! Yeah, sure. And I have a bridge to sell you.
The Gospel of John is, of course, a heavily interpolated compilation of unrelated sayings which the faithful faithfully pretend to make sense, the way some obediently pretend that the emperor really, truly has clothes even though he doesn't.
But that's true of Luke's Gospel as well, the long and short versions, that is. So, which version do you believe to be the pristine word of God? Hint: Marcion and Valentius liked one of them. :)
Ingatius' letters are, like those of Paul, divided into a collection which are attributed to Paul and the other (half) to authors pretending to be Paul. Then, again, all we have are later 2nd century copies of copies of what Paul allegedly wrote in the first half of the first century.
It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form. The spurious letters in this recension are those that purport to be from Ignatius." [Catholic Encyclopedia]
This is exactly the same type of bi-polar on-again off-again logic which seems to work flawlessly when it comes to some things (i.e. Ignatius) and completely shuts down when it comes to other heavily interpolated works "they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form." (i.e. Gospel of John, for example, or half of Pauline epistles), or even the identity of the author (i.e. Synoptic Gospels), which are accepted blindly on faith as capable of bearing witness!
We do not have a doctrine of salvation by works. We have the biblical doctrine of salvation through faith and works, by grace alone. Nor is it built on that one scripture. We see that we are judged by our works (Mt 25:31-46, Rm. 2:6-10); we are told to do good works (Eph 2:10, Titus 3:8, the ending of any Pauline epistle); we are warned that without them we cannot enter heaven (John 5:29). The opposite is true: the Protestant counterscriptural theory of salvation by faith alone contradicts all that, and it is only supported by the misunderstanding of Romans and Galatians as epistles teaching against salvation by good works, whereas both these letters teach against false pharisaic salvation by legalism, and also call for the good works of charity (Gal 5:6).
The bible is clear that it is God that gives the faith and it is God that ordains the works of the saved
Right. So they who have faith must do these works. Your own words condemn your false doctrine.
The Baltimore Catechism is known for vague and inaccurate statements like this. What they mean is that the Purgatory purges the souls of those who failed to do their penance for the confessed sin.
Where do we find the "defects" in the soul from sin taught?
Why, in 1 Cor 3:9-15. "If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss".
No, from your meaningless post I don't see anything at all other than you are upset over something.
What is there to explain? "God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting". We all agree on that; the problem with Protestantism is that they don't believe in 60% of what He said, as they don't believe James 2:24, or John 6:54, given to you as examples in the post you are responding to. That God loves you is a given; do you love Him back?
If you love me, keep my commandments (John 14:15).
Netmom: They do and they don't. All at the same time.
Huh? Anything in my post you did not grasp? It speaks of two distinct groups of churches.
There are Catholic Churches in full communion with Rome that keep Eastern, Byzantine liturgy. Roman Catholics are free to worship there, and they are free to come to Latin Catholic liturgy. There is no distinction between them theologically.
On the other hand, there are Eastern Orthodox Churches that keep the same liturgy but they are not in communion with Rome. We have few disagreements with them; for the most part our theologies agree. With them, papacy is a disagreement and there are a few other minor ones. They are however true local apostolic Churches that are good guiding their peopel to salvation just the same.
Our sharp dispute is with the communion of faith that got formed after the so-called Reformation. Those are outright harmful to the salvation of their bamboozled flock.
I was assuming Netmom knew at least that, but judging by your reaction maybe I had to explain it more.
It is always a good idea to know what one is talking about. If I was wrong in thinking that you accused me of somethiing, I am sorry that I misunderstood your post.
Which one was it? Let me look at it again.
How did we do that? Our tradition, unlike one in Mark 7, is not from the pharisees, -- they are form Christ Himself. If you think our tradition nullifies the scripture, point to that scripture and point where we teach against it.
When you run out of arguments, throw a tantrum.
Hopefully, not for long. The trend in the Church is for better English in the Liturgy. They probably chose the NAB not for any doctrinal reason, but because it lends itself best to oral delivery.
Many facts are such that nobody can prove them. I listen to a particular music in the car today. I cannot prove it. Is it any less a fact?
why is her lack of sex life so important to Catholics?
Because it is the truth as we know it.
And then the Gospel writers go on to name the siblings
...and then the mother of these siblings and she is not Mary the Mother of God. Funny how the scripture works.
They have made a goddess of her
Really? By giving her titles?
I rely on nothing but scripture in my theological argument with the Protestants, and so far I have not seen a satisfactory defense of their counterscriptural slogans of faith alone and scripture alone. If you want to convert me, that would be a good place to start.
Of course: because through the dictates of their conscience they already did the central act of Christian faith: self-denial.
When one gives you evidentiary proof, and you then nod your head in agreement, that is not faith. Nor is it building your faith. It is, simply, taking in the information, of no salvific value whatever.
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.