| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 03/18/2017 12:24:33 AM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childish personal comments |
Posted on 03/13/2017 8:58:52 AM PDT by ebb tide
When you aren’t railing against your recent Popes, you rail against a man dead for five hundred years! Explain how you aren’t guilty of hypocrisy for the SAME denial of religious authority?
Im in no way omniscient.
After reading ‘pleading my case’, a snoozy ‘whats your point?’ today, carries the same enigma as ‘know wha’ ahm sayin’ does.
I can hear Paul saying: "So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!" - Romans 7
This is the Bible-based understanding of what the Christian faith is about:
Are we reconciled to God? Do we love Him and trust Him? Do we submit to His will to the extent that we’re truly able to, and do we truly want to? Are we pursuing Him and following Him out of love for Him? Inside, are we devoted to Him, so that we truly live a life of that devotion? Do we believe that God is God, and our Creator, and we have broken His righteous commandments? Do we believe we’ve sinned against Him and our sin grieves us? All of this goes hand-in-hand with believing the truth He’s revealed to us, especially the Gospel, the Good News that He gave His only begotten Son for the world, so that we could be reconciled to Him, our sins washed away, and we receive eternal life. Now if someone truly loves God, sincerely submits to His will, and truly believes what He’s revealed about His Son, Jesus Christ, then how would that person still be God’s enemy? How would someone who has renounced Satan’s rebellion against God, and embraced God and His truth be rejected by Him? Would God reject someone who sincerely admits he has sinned against Him and is in need of His mercy, forgiveness and salvation, someone who has sincerely turned away from sin and to Him, and has a heart like David’s, who had a heart after God’s own heart?
“The corruption of Rome was so extreme that it sickened any one with a conscience.”
That’s really more myth than anything else. http://the-orb.arlima.net/non_spec/missteps/ch11.html If your claim was true, then someone would have to ask, “If the Protestant Revolution (and revolution it was rather than reformation) happened because of “Rome’s corruption” then why were the new sects that sprang up in its wake so corrupt?”
“Catholics continue to live under the delusion that everyone not catholic is running around with whatever Luther wrote.”
It’s funny you should make that claim in the same post you post this: “The translation “she” of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.”
After all when one thinks of how Luther twisted the translation of the Bible to serve his own “interpretative” needs, well, you should get the picture. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2801154/posts
And the reason why so many Catholics bring up Luther is simple - he is the father of Protestantism. Any historian can trace back Protestant sects and realize that they didn’t exist before 1517-1520. Sola scriptura, sola fide - these are Luther’s creations. Some Protestants deny that, of course, and even go to ridiculous lengths to establish some sort of historical pedigree for Protestantism (”Trail of Blood nonsense for example) but that’s all made up nonsense.
Protestantism, whether it is to be considered right or wrong, rests upon the shoulders of one man, one inventor, one creator, one father - and that’s Martin Luther.
Our founder was Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God. Your ultimate founder was a brilliant, but possibly mentally ill, rebel monk named Martin Luther. That will never change.
If Christians relied only on Luther you might have a point. Fortunately we have the original texts to compare our translations to.
The history of the RCC and Protestantism has long been debated.
. Was Luther perfect? No.
Is the RCC with its practices of idolatry and a priesthood not found in the NT perfect? No.
The Christian is to base their belief on what we have in the Word. It is the only inspired word we have from God.
Exactly how Christian is your tag line?
“Fortunately we have the original texts to compare our translations to.”
No, we don’t. No one does. There is not a single autograph of any Biblical book known to exist anywhere in the world. What you just said is OBJECTIVELY false. All we have are copies - and even some of those might be translations of copies.
“Was Luther perfect? No.”
No, but Jesus was.
“Is the RCC with its practices of idolatry and a priesthood not found in the NT perfect? No.”
Except there is no idolatry and the priesthood IS found in the NT. See, you actually have to make things up to attack the Catholic Church there. That actually hints at perfection logically.
“The Christian is to base their belief on what we have in the Word. It is the only inspired word we have from God.”
It always fascinates me that Protestants invent things about how the Word is to be viewed that are not actually “in the Word” and exclude the actual Word made flesh as well as the work of the Holy Spirit.
The idols of Mary say otherwise.
“Exactly how Christian is your tag line?”
Perfectly - when taken in the context in which it was written. It’s no different in that context than Galatians 3:1 was in Paul’s usage.
Allow me to clarify....we have the original languages to compare our texts to. You are correct....we don’t have a copy of the original texts....but we’ve got some that are close....at least for the NT.
Not really sure how you get your tagline from that verse....but I've seen other Catholics attempt to use Scripture to justify their use of profanity.
Care to explain your thought process on this?
“Allow me to clarify....we have the original languages to compare our texts to. You are correct....we don’t have a copy of the original texts....but we’ve got some that are close....at least for the NT.”
You need to clarify your clarification. We ASSUME “we have the original languages to compare our texts to”. Do we actually have them? There is evidence to suggest that some of the gospels were written in Hebrew or Aramaic and NOT Greek.
“Not really sure how you get your tagline from that verse....”
Where did I claim I did? You really need to improve your reading comprehension.
“but I’ve seen other Catholics attempt to use Scripture to justify their use of profanity.”
I’ve seen Protestants attempt to use Scripture to justify their use of heresy.
“Care to explain your thought process on this?”
I already said all that needs to be said in regard to the origin or use of the tagline. Whether or not you agree is immaterial.
“Exactly how Christian is your tag line?”
Perfectly - when taken in the context in which it was written. It’s no different in that context than Galatians 3:1 was in Paul’s usage.
“Perfectly” - or that’s what you claim. “When taken in the context in which it was written” - but that context is *nowhere* to be found. This is your *tagline* after all. There is no “context” to it. Instead, you’re aiming that remark at every one who reads it, and in particular, those who don’t agree with you. And calling them stupid, “empty headed.” Matthew 5:22:
http://www.usccb.org/bible/mt/5:22#48005022
And you would justify that by saying “It’s no different in that context than Galatians 3:1 was in Paul’s usage.” It’s already different from Galatians 3:1 in that it’s clearly an insult, no matter the context, which, again, isn’t present. You took it out of context to make it your tag line. Paul was fervently reasoning with the Galatians not to abandon faith in Christ for works of the law, and trying to wake them up using strong language. He called them foolish out of personal love for them, and concern for them apparently moving away from faith in Christ:
Justification by Faith.*
1 O stupid* Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?a
2 I want to learn only this from you:b did you receive the Spirit from works of the law, or from faith in what you heard?*
3 Are you so stupid?c After beginning with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?*
4 Did you experience so many things* in vain?—if indeed it was in vain.
5 Does, then, the one who supplies the Spirit to you and works mighty deeds among you do so from works of the law or from faith in what you heard?d
6 Thus Abraham “believed God,e and it was credited to him as righteousness.”*
7 * Realize then that it is those who have faith who are children of Abraham.f
8 Scripture, which saw in advance that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, foretold the good news to Abraham, saying, “Through you shall all the nations be blessed.”g
9 Consequently, those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham who had faith.h
10 * For all who depend on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not persevere in doing all the things written in the book of the law.”i
11 And that no one is justified before God by the law is clear, for “the one who is righteous by faith will live.”j
12 But the law does not depend on faith; rather, “the one who does these things will live by them.”k
13 Christ ransomed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree,”l
14 that the blessing of Abraham might be extended to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.m
The Law Did Not Nullify the Promise.
15 * Brothers, in human terms I say that no one can annul or amend even a human will once ratified.n
16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his descendant.* It does not say, “And to descendants,” as referring to many, but as referring to one, “And to your descendant,” who is Christ.o
17 This is what I mean: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years afterward,* does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to cancel the promise.p
18 For if the inheritance comes from the law,q it is no longer from a promise; but God bestowed it on Abraham through a promise.*
19 * Why, then, the law? It was added for transgressions, until the descendant* came to whom the promise had been made; it was promulgated by angels at the hand of a mediator.r
20 Now there is no mediator when only one party is involved, and God is one.s
21 Is the law then opposed to the promises [of God]? Of course not! For if a law had been given that could bring life, then righteousness would in reality come from the law.t
22 But scripture confined all things under the power of sin, that through faith in Jesus Christ the promise might be given to those who believe.u
What Faith Has Brought Us.*
23 Before faith came, we were held in custody under law, confined for the faith that was to be revealed.v
24 Consequently, the law was our disciplinarian* for Christ, that we might be justified by faith.w
25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a disciplinarian.x
26 For through faith you are all children of God* in Christ Jesus.y
27 * For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.*
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.a
29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendant, heirs according to the promise.b
In other words you can’t explain how you’re attempting to use Scripture to justify your tagline. Got it.
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.