you are absolutely correct.
Posted on 12/06/2006 4:29:58 PM PST by HAL9000
Excerpt -
ROME (AP) - Vatican archaeologists have unearthed a sarcophagus believed to contain the remains of the Apostle Paul that had been buried beneath Rome's second largest basilica.The sarcophagus, which dates back to at least A.D. 390, has been the subject of an extended excavation that began in 2002 and was completed last month, the project's head said this week.
~ snip ~
(Excerpt) Read more at christianpost.com ...
Exactly where in the ecumenical creeds does it say Mary was assumed bodily into heaven? Or in Scripture? There are millions of Christians who do not accept the authority of the RCC or its teachings, but are Christians none the less.
IMHO the RCC teachings on Mary border on blasphemy. The point is she was an ordinary person like the rest of us. Christ was also true man. His human nature was derived from Mary. In the magnificat she admits she too is a sinner in need of salvation.
The Word of God is True - and every man a liar (Romans 3:4)
Therefore, your statement is a lie?
How is it to live as a simpleton?
She says that her heart rejoices in her Savior. Nowhere does she call herself a sinner.
Full transcript of the letter, sometimes called "I Clement" (as in 1st Clement), is here.
The phoenix reference:
Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed.
And the faith alone reference:
Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, "Your seed shall be as the stars of heaven." All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Pretty interesting.
How is it to live as a liar?
And Mary was no "ordinary" person. She was the one woman born on this earth to be chosen by the Holy Spirit to give birth to the Christ Child.
I don't think either of us is guilty of insistent misreading, silliness, or dodging questions. So I'll soldier on, if you will.
You remarked, "even the Gnostics knew the difference between Thomas and, say, John." I took that to suggest that even the Gnostics didn't accept the Gnostic Gospels as being Scripture. My larger point (and maybe we agree) is that there was quite a bit of writing in the early centuries which was finally rejected from the Canon as apocryphal. That doesn't mean it was all false, still less that it has no insights to offer us about the early Christian milieu. It just means that there was a sorting process. Sorting is, by definition, the establishment of a canon.
"...you insist on misreading any knowledge of the past as Tradition with a capital T." Not so. Not at all. If I gave that impression, it is mistaken.
Does the Church add anything or recognize what already exists?
What can you possibly mean by this? It was men of the early Church--- the original Apostles and some who were not among the original Twelve (Luke, Mark, and Paul)--- who wrote the New Testament. I'm sure you're not suggesting that it "already existed" before they wrote it. In short, the Church wrote the New Testament. The New Testament is the Church's book.
There was an historical process of sorting out what was entirely divinely-inspired and what wasn't. That sorting-out is the formation of the canon. Eventually --- as late as Trent -- it was all dogmatically defined. Trent didn't invent anything. Trent "dogmatized" what was the centuries-long and widespread usage of the Church.
Does that about cover it?
You wrote: ..the final form of the New Testament Canon preceeds the "dogmatic definition" by over a thousand years.
True. Though Martin Luther wanted, as I understand it, to toss out the Epistle of St. James. To speak, on the other hand, of the Old Testament, Protestant Bibles today omit Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch and other parts of the Septuagint, which was the Bible as read and accepted by the Apostles and which was universally received by Greek-literate Christians (which is to say, in the ancient world, virtually all Christians of the Mediterranean civilization.)
Which means (and this must seem an irony for someone in your position) that Christians throughout most of history have used a Canon with exactly the same basis Protestants still believe ours has.
Yes, with the exception of the above Protestant omissions of the Septuagint canon. Other than that, they accepted what was handed down to them by the Catholic Church.
Please elaborate on your evaluation of Vincent of Lerins.
The cherry picking of the early church fathers is very intersting. I Clement is even more intersting because it is the real foundation of the claim to the papacy.
Someone decided that they wanted power, so they pointed to Clement. They stated they had power because Clement had power. They specifically pointed to I Clement as the proof of Clement's power. Everything else came after, including the cherry picking of the early church fathers.
By grace, through faith, for works. Clement would agree: the 4th Pope.
But hey, circular reasoning is FUN!
One doesn't need a Savior if one isn't in need of saving.
Redeemed by the blood of the Lamb - doesn't get any better than that.
The critical detail is in WHEN Salvation occurred. Mary speaks of her Savior in the present tense, her Salvation has already taken place prior to the Virgin Birth, Crucifixion and Resurrection -- our Lord DIDN'T NEED TO DIE FOR HER SALVATION. The Virgin Mary's Salvation took place at the moment of her conception.
Now, I am well aware that you will say that the Immaculate Conception DIDN'T occur. I know that you will say that the Immaculate Conception isn't discussed in scripture (even though it is). What I would like for you or any of the other Protestants to answer is this, why do you believe that God COULDN'T or WOULDN'T ensure Mary's Salvation from the moment of her conception?
So, you are saying that living as a liar got you redeemed by the blood of the Lamb?
All men (human beings) are born sinful and cannot save themselves. I was saved by God calling from spiritual death into new life - in spite of myself, not because of me. Read Romans 5:6-11
"6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement."
Do you believe that the Crucifixion and Resurrection is necessary for everyone's Salvation?
If you want a rational explaination why the Immaculate Conception didn't happen, how about Occam's razor? The way to salvation is through faith in Jesus. Why add an exception when it isn't needed?
The prophesy about Jesus' birth requires a virgin of the house of David. The gospels talk about a virgin of the house of David. Anything else isn't discussed or required.
When the Good News is discussed, it mentions a virgin birth. The creeds mention a virgin birth.
According to Occam's razor, no additional details are required and therefore didn't happen. QED.
The death of Christ is what purchased those called by God into new life. The resurrection proves His victory over death, validates Who He is, and gives the saints hope for life eternal.
Man, leave a thread about St Paul for a few days and it's turned into a thread about Mary.
I secretly think all protestant-catholic threads end up this way.
you are absolutely correct.
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.