Posted on 12/26/2011 6:08:22 PM PST by rzman21
“Did Jesus exist prior to being born to Mary and Joseph?”
Yes - see John Chapter 1 In the beginning was the Word, (Jesus) and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He (Jesus) was in the beginning with God.
then -
Verse 14 - And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
I don't think any Catholic believes that...I do believe that you guys do blindly follow that illogical premise tho...
Jesus said people would be saved by hearing the word of God...Where would your religion be without the bible, to steal the occasional verse from???
Constantine, the Roman Pontiff, at Nicea in 325 CE.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Thank you for posting this excellent article, which many would not have seen if you hadn't done so. Many hold dear their anti-Catholic beliefs and misunderstandings, and when challenged it strikes to the very heart of their being; not a comfortable place to be. Their comfortable place is: We love Jesus, but thank God, we're not Catholic.
This essay leaves little room of escape from the Scipture Alone error, so many of the commentators reach into the anti-Catholic bag of slurs, acquired perhaps from their bible-totin' Protestant minister (or the gang at the Elk's Club bar) , to hurl whatever they think may stick. They believe they uphold Christian ideals, unaware of the applause of pagans, athiests, "progressives," orthodox Jews and Muslims, and serious Freemasons. If they change at all, it would only be slowly.
Again, thanks for posting, and taking all the stones and arrows from the aggrieved.
“I am completely skeptical of anyone who comes along with claims of the knowledge of the spirit world to begin with and anyone has those claims had better have the witness of Jesus Christ...Or we will know who their real father is...”
Totally agree. That was my comment earlier in a post. Always be skeptical. Even when what you perceive appears logical.
About 15 yrs ago, I was working with a woman and we said prayers together as she was having problems. All of a sudden, two spirits showed up and identified themselves as her deceased grandparents. Everything they said sounded logical, but my gut told me there was a problem.
All of a sudden, the words came out of my mouth (that I had never read) asking these two spirits if they believed that Jesus was born of the flesh? They responded, “We know Jesus.”
The words then came out of my mouth “That was not the question!” and the original question was repeated. At this time their blue eyes turned to black and then to red as they were imitators, trying to trick me. It was only later that I found the words uttered from my mouth as 1 John 4:1 on testing spirits.
The Holy Spirit working through me saved my ass and the woman with me. I am forever indebted and try to be the best servant possible. My strength in such matters only comes through my personal weakness.
A house divided against itself will fall. Dark forces have tried to kill me for many years and if it were not for Divine intervention, I would have been dead many times. For that I am eternally grateful. I have a tape recording of a demon exclaiming that he was trying to kill me as I am ruining their plans. It took over a woman’s body and voice and the recording was during its removal. It makes the hair stand up just listening to it.
That’s one thing I like about Catholicism, it has not discounted the Bible as much as many of the Protestants have relating to spirits and spiritual matters.
“a Protestant denies that there is any other source of religious authority or divine Revelation to humanity. “
The second paragraph builds the above strawman that makes the rest of the argument totally useless.
All Protestants that I am aware of strongly believe in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Obviously these two views on what constitutes the Christian’s rule of faith are opposed to each other, and anyone who sincerely seeks to follow Christ must be sure that he follows the one that is true.
Neither of the two views presented are the true object of a believer's faith. Chasing one or the other immediately places the believer out of fellowship with God for it shifts the object of our faith away from Christ at the Cross.
The 2 views presented by the article are:
1) Teaching of the Church (RCC only), or
2)"Scripture alone," (which alleges that the Bible – as interpreted by the individual believer.)
Scripture alone is brought into the soul of the believer in fellowship with God through faith in Christ and the Word within is then used by God the Holy Spirit to sanctify the thinking of the believer via the human spirit perception of the soul thinking.
A believer who attempts to interpret independent of the work of the Holy Spirit is just as sinful as one seeking anything other than God.
Sola Scriptura doesn't promote independent interpretation. It instead emphasizes the believer must continually remain in fellowship with God through faith in Christ, allowing God the Holy Spirit to perform His work on the believer.
Scripture is one of the best sources to find the Word of God.
Sadder still he leads many more on on Rav Paul instructed Timothy( 2Ti 4:1-3) is lost as he preaches against
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
the WORD of G-d !
the wide road to destruction. preach the word;
be ready in season
and out of season;
reprove,
rebuke,
exhort,
with great patience
and instruction.
HaHaHa...There wasn't any eisegesis...The verse means what it says...If you can read, you know what it says...If you reject what it says, that means you don't believe scripture...Simple as that...
You are seeing in the scriptures what you want to see in them.
Not to mention, you are projecting. And besides you quote from an interpretation of the original text translated by biased translators who render what they want and omit ideas that confute their perspective.
Spoken like a true Arian.
You list the 10s of thousands of competing interpretations and I’ll go thru them for ya...
Is that how your religion got you??? Sensationislism??>
>>When you have a logical argument get back to me.
Placemark.
” you quote from an interpretation of the original text translated by biased translators who render what they want and omit ideas that confute their perspective.”
So Rzman, you’re purpose of posting this thread is to question the accuracy of the Bible itself?
The funny thing about the Bible is that nearly all of it (except for 3 sentences) can be traced back to the original texts. So people like you who question the interpretation or bias of the translators are really speaking from ignorance.
Unlike the dark ages when the Catholic church limited access to the Bible everyone can access to original writings for themselves.
Yah'shua is the Shekhinah Yah'shua: His NAME means YHvH is/be my Salvation. You seem to be a follower of Constantine, the Roman Pontiff. Seek YHvH in His WORD, Sorry; I'm a follower of the Jewish Messiah.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
BTW, that "family" was chased out of India about 200 AD and went back home.
When we know a historic person and someone says he was conceived by an elephant, it is necessary to reject that belief as untrue ~ and totally irrelevant ~ just crazy talk by ignorant people on a level with the stupid rulings by mullahs out in the desert.
An example ~ I have a book about the use of a mildly hallucinogenic mushroom (amanita muscaria) where the writer deduces that instead of Jesus being a real person the Apostles were into using this mushroom. He even cites scripture to support his argument.
Obviously that belief is not part of Christianity.
So you disagree with the historically accurate version of Buddha but accept the new age watered down version.
OK, doesn’t change anything about the religion. It does display your willful ignorance of the subject.
Buddha was born into a privileged family, the son of a king. He spent most of his time stoned which is where he got his deep thoughts.
ph
However, they have 24 founding gurus ~ and go back in time a lot further than Buddhism.
You can learn about THAT relationship by going to http://www.jainworld.com/ (and other Jain sites). They are not a huge group, they predate Buddhism, and have elements that sound distinctly Western rather than Eastern.
For example, they believe it is possible to develop moral precepts which are correct without also believing that there is necessarily a god behind those precepts (although there maybe a god there, it is not necessary).
I think that can be simplified to this ~ about 2500 years ago the Jains figured out how to have a SECULAR VIEWPOINT.
You'll want to pay attention to SKYCLAD vs. WHITECLAD Jains. They are different.
And, within Northern Buddhism, are we attempting to 'splain ZEN, which seeks to work without a written scripture, or Ameda Buddha, which has various divisions devoted to certain specific scriptures identified by a commonly agreed upon numbering system. Within Ameda, which one?
Back about 200 AD the Hindu Revolution in India drove most Buddhists to the peripheral areas ~ although most Hindus will tell you "It was always that way, even when they lived in the middle of the country and owned everybody they really existed only in peripheral areas" ~ which is a rather strange Hindu belief, but they have it and it's not worth arguing out with them.
Buddha also was a near or actual contemporary of a number of other major religious leaders of the time.
I don't recall him ever hanging around a coffee shop. Now, about this guy Bourdain who went on a haj to India to find Marijuana laced milkshakes ~ I hope your understanding of India is not based solely on his "let's visit a restaurant TV show".
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.