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
So you don't cherry pick +Augustine?
All the time. Augustine was not infallible. When there is something that I believe Augustine has correct, its fair game to include his commentary into the discussion. I don't make my arguments based on the fallacy of Appealing to Authority, rather commentary has value in filling in the discussion with insights from others. Among the scholarly, it offers an understanding of the history of certain ideas, and when placed into the context of the environment and prevailing opinion of that era, gives us all an appreciation for what others saw and what they missed.
Its the property of fools to disregard the accumulated experience, knowledge and opinion of those who have gone before us and I am not threatened by Augustine's differing opinion, rather I investigate it and see where we differ and why so that I may either affirm or correct what opinion I hold.
I recommend to you the same.
Don’t ping me.
No. But that doesn't give leave for people to go around making stuff up about him that may or may not be true.
The only conclusion that one can come to about Joseph is that he died before Christ began His ministry and that's only because of the complete absence of mention of him after the Jesus being in the temple incident. He was alive when Jesus was 12. That's all we know for sure.
If he was alive when Jesus died, likely Jesus would not have handed the care of His mother over to John.
Scripture says she wasn't. Teaching that she was is a lie.
Why is it so important to YOU to deny this and to deny the writings of Early Christians?
The only writings of the early Christians that are of import are those found in the NT. Anything else, as interesting as it might be as philosophical exercise, is not inerrant, divinely inspired Scripture.
Doesn't the conundrum of the term sola scriptura which is not IN scripture confuse you enough?
Doesn't the conundrum of the term sola scriptura Trinity which is not IN scripture confuse you enough?
There are lots of terms not found in Scripture that the Catholic church teaches as fact. They are in n position to point fingers over the matter.
Why don't you read the Bible for yourself if you think the answer is in there?
There’s nothing new under the sun, is there?
Early Christians, of every persuasion, the ones the closest to the original faith chronologically speaking, and certainly the closest culturally, never questioned that—even those who later split from the Church, including Luther himself, believed in the ever-virginity of Mary.
The people who lived in the environment where the original Christianity flourished, and spoke the language of the Bible as their common tongue, did not have a problem with that interpretation, but people living in 21st century and reading tainted translations made 2000 years later, say the ancients did not iomterpret their own language and scriptures correctly, neglecitng to even akcnowldge that even today in the Mediterranea region cousins and step-brothers are referred to as borthers or sisters.
In this case of Paul’s personal (he labels it as such) advice and observation on the advantages of singleness it was always voluntary and marriage in no wise was a disqualification, either before or after ordination, for any office.
In fact, Paul wrote to Timothy that “forbidding to marry” was a “teaching of demons”. (1 Tim. 4:1-4)
That the “rule, discipline”, whatever it is called, is a rotten tree we need only examine it’s fruit.
By the time of the reformation the gross immorality of the clergy in general was a well known and reported upon scandal as historians like Lea and Schaff wrote about.
Said the above Schaff concerning the enforced celibacy,
“The Roman pontiff’s ordinance, setting aside an appointment of the Almighty, was one of the most offensive pieces of papal legislation and did unspeakable injury to the Church.”
(Shaff’s History of the Christian Church, vol. V, pg. 808)
500 years and a couple of billion dollars later the tree is still producing the same rotten fruit.
You say,
“To despise celibacy, therefore, is to undermine marriage itself—as the early Fathers pointed out.”
Then one must ask the simple question:
What sort of taint has been given to the whole idea of a celibate clergy by the Catholic Church’s harboring, protecting, excusing it’s most corrupt members? What sort of despising has the Catholic Church it’s self produced? What sort of undermining of marriage thereby?
Nope. There’s nothing new under the sun. Just the names and places changed - it all started with deception against The Word and the father of lies has his pawns to keep it going.
Bear in mind this is supposition on my part. I believe the choosing of the 12 was reserved to Jesus alone and the duties of the Apostles was clearly delineated by Jesus. This duty did not include choosing their successors. They were fallible men.
I know of them from reading about them, and from people like you, who claim to "know" them, having never seen them or met them, but, just like the rest of us, read about them from some 2,000 year-old anonymous narrative.
I don't know that, and oyu have not proven a thing. Why should I believe you?
Matthew 1:24-25 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
It clearly says that he had sex with her after Jesus birth.
Denying that is saying the writer of the gospel lied and that there are lies in the Bible.
What other lies are in the Bible? How do you determine which they are?
If the Catholic church wrote the Bible, and everyone *knew* that Mary was always a virgin, why'd they put that verse in there? Why didn't they say that Joseph did not know her even after Jesus birth and Mary remained a virgin the rest of their married life?
Evidence? Zilch. Just pulpit babble
Life. Dead people do not get up after being dead for four days. There are no voices in the clouds (but apparently in many people's heads), paralysis is not caused by "demons," etc.
And if there's a name attached, it makes a difference how?
Do you apply the same standard to ALL historical documents that you do to Scripture?
You can't even be sure George Washington existed. Nobody alive now ever met him and even if someone claims that they did, it's just their word. It's not hard proof.
How do you know that he's not just a fictional character someone made up?
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.