Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible
Handsonapologetics ^ | Gary Michuta

Posted on 03/17/2012 7:26:45 AM PDT by GonzoII

    The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible

    By Gary Michuta

    King James I at the Hampton Court Conference

    "Dr. Reynolds...insisted boldly on various points ; but when he came to the demand for the disuse of the apocrypha in the church service James could bear it no longer. He called for a Bible, read a chapter out of Ecclesiasticus, and expounded it according to his own views ; then turning to the lords of his council, he said, " What trow ye makes these men so angry with Ecclesiasticus ? By my soul, I think Ecclesiasticus was a bishop, or they would never use him so."

    (John Cassell’s Illustrated History of England, text by William Howitt, (W. Kent & Co.:London), 1859, vol. 3p. 15)

    In 1604, the Church of England commissioned a new English translation of the Scripture, which later became known as the King JamesVersion. According to it dedication to the king, the hope was that this new version would “counteract the barbs” of Catholics and a foil to the “self-conceited” Protestants “who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil…” [Preface and dedication to the King, 1611 King James Bible], namely religious dissenters like the Baptists and others. Ironically, the Church of England had moved to other translations and the King James Bible (K.J.V.) had become, at least for a time, the translation for those groups that would have been considered dissenters. Today, the New International Version has become the best selling translation among Protestants, but the King James is still widely used and revered by non-Catholics.

    Bible translations are interesting in that they can provide a snapshot of the beliefs of their translators at that time. The Latin Vulgate, for example, can show us how certain words were understood in the fourth century when it was translated by St. Jerome. The King James Bible is no exception. When one compares the original 1611 edition with subsequent editions, one can discern some very important changes in viewpoints.

    If you own a King James Bible, the first and biggest change you will notice is that the original

    1611 edition contained several extra books in an appendix between the Old and New Testaments labeled “The books of the Apocrypha.” The appendix includes several books, which are found in the Catholic Old Testament such as the books of  Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1st and 2nd Maccabees and others.

    Table of Contents KJV 1611

    Some may be tempted to dismiss the omission of these books from the King James Bible as superfluous “add on” to the translation and that its omission really does not change anything important about the King James Bible. On the contrary, the so-called "Apocrypha” formed an integral part of the text, so much so that the Protestant scholar E. G. Goodspeed once wrote:

    “[W]hatever may be our personal opinions of the Apocrypha, it is a historical fact that they formed an integral part of the King James Version, and any Bible claiming to represent that version should either include the Apocrypha, or state that it is omitting them.  Otherwise a false impression is created.” [Story of the Apocrypha (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939, p. 7]

    If you pick up a modern copy of the King James Version and open to the title page, chances are you’ll not see any mention of the deliberate omission of these books (e.g. “The King James Version without the Apocrypha”). After all, who would want to put a negative statement about a product on the title page? However, perhaps to avoid false advertising, publishers do notify you that books are missing by cleverly stating the contents in a positive fashion like “The King James Version Containing the Old and New Testaments.” If you didn’t know that the Apocrypha was omitted, you’d probably assume that complete King James Bible since most modern Protestant Bibles contain only the Old and New Testaments anyway. Hence, as Goodspeed warns “a false impression is created.”

    The Cross-references

    The King James “Apocrypha” had a much more integral roll in its early editions than simply being an appendix unconnected to the two Testaments. Instead, the 1611 King James Bible included (like the Geneva Bible) cross-references from the Old and New Testaments to the so-called “Apocrypha.” Like modern cross-references, these were meant to refer the reader back to the text cited in order to provide further light on what had just been read. There were 11 cross-references in the New Testament and 102 Old Testament that referred Protestant readers back to the “Apocrypha.” The New Testament cross-references were:

     

    Mat 6:7

    Sirach 7:14

     

    Mat 27:43

    Wisdom 2:15-16

     

    Luke 6:31

    Tobit 4:15

     

    Luke 14:13

    Tobit 4:7

     

    John 10:22

    1 Maccabees 4:59

     

    Rom 9:21

    Wisdom 15:7

     

    Rom 11:34

    Wisdom 9:13

     

    2 Cor 9:7

    Sirach 35:9

     

    Heb 1:3

    Wisdom 7:26

     

    Heb 11:35      

    2 Maccabees 7:7

    1611 KJV Heb. 11:35 - 2 Mac. 7:7

    1611 KJV Matt. 27:43 - Wisdom 2:15-16

     

    1611 KJV Heb. 11:3 - Ws. 7:26

    1611 KJV Luke 14:13 - Tobit 4:7

    Like the early editions of the Geneva Bible, the editors of the Authorized Version believe that the non-Catholic readers should aware of what the “Apocrypha” had to say in regards to these passage. While some are mere correspondences of thought, others point to an awareness or even a dependence upon the “Apocrypha” by inspired New Testament writers. I detail these important passages in Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: The Untold Story of the Lost Books of the Protestant Bible (Grotto Press, 2007).

    In addition to the eleven cross-references in the New Testament, the 1611 King James also sported 102 cross-reference  in the Old Testament as well bringing to total up to 113 cross-references to and from the Apocrypha overall. No wonder Goodspeed could say that the "Apocrypha" was an integral part of the King James Bible!

    The King James Bible was not the only early Protestant Bible to contain the “Apocrypha” with cross-references. As we have seen in a previous article (Pilgrims’ Regress: The Geneva Bible and the “Apocrypha”), the "Apocrypha" also played an integral role in other Protestant Bibles as well.

    As I mentioned earlier, translations serve as historical snapshots of the beliefs of the translators and readers. The very presence of these cross-references shows that the translators believed that the "Apocrypha" was at work within the New Testament writings and that Protestant Bible readers would benefit from reading and studying the New and Old Testaments in light of these books. Sadly, today this noble heritage has been lost.

    Now You Read Them, Now You Don’t…

    Those who viewed the "Apocrypha" as somehow being the last vestige of "popery" pressed for the Apocrypha appendix and its cross-references to be removed altogether from the Bible. In 1615, George Abbott, the Archbishop of Canterbury, went so far as to employ the power of law to censure any publisher who did not produce the Bible in its entirety (i.e. including the "Apocrypha") as prescribed by the Thirty-nine Articles. However, anti-Catholic hatred and the obvious financial advantages of printing smaller Protestant Bibles began to win out against the traditionalists who wanted the Bible in the form that was given in all previous Protestant translations up until that point (in the form of Luther's Bible - with the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments). The "Apocrypha" remained in the King James Bible through the 1626, 1629, 1630, and the 1633 editions. By 1632, public opinion began to decidedly turn against the "bigger" Protestant Bibles. Of the 227 printings of the Bible between 1632 and 1826, about 40% of Protestant Bibles contained the "Apocrypha." The Apocrypha Controversy of the early 1800's enabled English Bible Societies to flood the bible-buying market with Apocrypha-less Protestant Bibles and in 1885 the "Apocrypha" was officially removed with the advent of the Revised Standard Version, which replaced the King James Version.

    It is hard to pin point the exact date where the King James Bible no longer contained the "Apocrypha." It is clear that later editions of the KJV removed the "Apocrypha" appendix, but they continued to include cross-references to the "Apocrypha" until they too (like the Geneva Bible) were removed as well. Why were they removed? Was it do to over-crowded margins? The Anglican scholar William H. Daubney points out the obvious:

    “These objectionable omissions [of the cross-references] were made after the custom arose of publishing Bibles without the Apocrypha. These apparently profess to be what they are not, entire copies of the Authorized Version … Plainly, the references to the Apocrypha told an inconvenient tale of the use which the Church intended should be made of it; so, either from dissenting influence without, or from prejudice within the Church, these references disappeared from the margin.” [The Use of the Apocrypha In the Christian Church (London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1900), 17]

    What was the inconvenient tale these cross-references told? They showed that the so-called Apocrypha actually plays a much greater role that most modern Protestants are willing to admit. Moreover, the cross-references showed that the church believed that knowledge of the so-called "Apocrypha" and their use in the New Testament benefited Christians who wished to understand the Bible. Sadly today, many Protestants use the King James Bible have been handed on to them in an unaltered and uncompromised form. The reality is that its contents had undergone several substantial changes beginning with Martin Luther's gathering together the Deuterocanon and placing it in an "Apocrypha" appendix and later when that appendix (and its cross-references) were removed altogether from Protestant Bibles.

 



TOPICS: Catholic; Charismatic Christian; Evangelical Christian; History; Mainline Protestant; Orthodox Christian; Theology
KEYWORDS: apocrypha; av; bible; deuterocanonicals; kingjamesbible; kjv; scripture
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 401-450451-500501-550 ... 601-617 next last
To: smvoice

Very good.

We believe that Christ’s Incarnation is the pinnacle of God’s word to man. If you would believe else, then we do part ways theologically.

I do appreciate your candor, though, after all these years.


451 posted on 03/31/2012 5:04:27 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Since you seem convinced this "group" is represented in this thread, perhaps you wouldn't mind pointing us to the post(s) that actually say what you claim. Just to clarify this scavenger hunt, believing that the Apostle Paul spoke under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit when he composed his letters is in no way saying "God is Paul's ventriloquist" and, that you would put it that way, only proves that you reject your OWN catechism. Maybe you should get a handle on what you really believe before you try criticizing those that may or may not be "coincident" here.

Read the last 150 posts and see what I mean. Inspiration does not mean ventriloquism. Those who substitute and subordinate Christ in the Gospels, to Paul in his letters to his flock are not Christian.

452 posted on 03/31/2012 5:08:53 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
What's this? I come back to check on your Scripture Stew and find that it has boiled over and burned beyond recognition. What in the name of pete are you talking about? Do you not understand that Christ has a CONTINUING mission, even in His absence on earth? Do you think He just stopped His plan when He ascended to sit at the Father's right hand? What in the world is the rest of the Bible for, if that is what you believe? It should have ended at Acts 1:9, when He was taken up in a cloud, if that is your belief.

And BTW, Christ's death on the cross for OUR SINS, His burial, and His resurrection for our salvation is the pinnacle of God's word and reconciliation to man. It is ALL about the Cross. Without that, nothing else matters. The Law, the Beatitudes, the promises, the covenants. Nothing matters without the Cross. And Christ's finished work on our behalf. Do you believe that Christ paid the FULL penalty for your inability?

453 posted on 03/31/2012 6:07:31 PM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies]

To: smvoice; MarkBsnr; metmom; boatbums; caww
>>I think I’ll just turn this post on low and let it simmer slowly for awhile...<<

Yeah, no kidding. Post 449 was so far off the mark I’m not sure where one would start.

454 posted on 03/31/2012 7:28:16 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: smvoice
Do you think He just stopped His plan when He ascended to sit at the Father's right hand? What in the world is the rest of the Bible for, if that is what you believe? It should have ended at Acts 1:9, when He was taken up in a cloud, if that is your belief.

They don't have a clue...They can't intelligently comment on it...They don't know what it means...

Their extremely limited commentaries end at the beginning of Acts and pick up again in James...And then it's just a few random verses that they think they can apply with their philosophical wisdom...

One of the biblical underachievers even claimed that Paul never saw Jesus...That's how much they know of scripture...

They have built their religion upon a few out of context scriptures and a boat load of human philosophy...Man's wisdom...

A great portion of the Old Testament is a prophecy of the time of the Millennial reign of Jesus Christ on earth and what do THEY say??? "Well I don't neccessarily believe that Millennium means a thousand years...I don't believe in the Millennium"...

The OT is just as foreign to them as the NT...

455 posted on 03/31/2012 7:52:33 PM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

To: smvoice; MarkBsnr
"I think I’ll just turn this post on low and let it simmer slowly for awhile...you are doing more to show people God’s Word of truth, WRONGLY divided, than I could possibly begin to address right now."

I've seen the reference to "rightly dividing Scripture" and "rightly dividing God's truth" on these threads many times, but it is completely misapplied. The only place in all of Scripture that the phrase is used is 2 Timothy 2:15. If you read all of 2 Timothy it says nothing about dividing the Word, it is a reference to dividing falsehoods from the Truth.

For Catholics the Word is indivisible because it is Jesus incarnate and must be taken as a whole. The idea of dividing it into portions, one for the Jews, one for the Gentiles is abhorrent.

456 posted on 03/31/2012 8:18:51 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: smvoice; MarkBsnr
"It is ALL about the Cross."

Actually, the Cross is important, but only in the context of the Resurrection. There were numerous claimants to the identity of the Messiah. Most notable was Simon bar Kokhba who lead a short lived revolt as was crucified by the Romans. By all historical accounts there many thousands of persons crucified by the Romans so the cross itself was nothing special. Scripture points out that there were two other persons crucified with Jesus, one clearly not deserving of Salvation.

The cross became a Christian symbol because it was a way to effectively give the finger to the might of Rome. It was a way of saying; you gave Him the worst, most excruciating (from a Latin word meaning from the cross) death that the Roman Empire could imagine and He overcame it.

Jesus referred to Himself numerous times as the "Resurrection and the Life" and the Apostles preached more about the fact of the Resurrection than they did of Jesus' actual teachings. Easter, the most Holy Day in the Catholic Liturgical Calendar celebrates the Resurrection, not the cross.

457 posted on 03/31/2012 8:50:54 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
"They don't have a clue...They can't intelligently comment on it...They don't know what it means..."

Jesus gave us the commandment to love one another and cited this as His second greatest commandment. With the persecution of the Church today and the HHS mandate a thought crossed my mind; if you were arrested tomorrow for being a Christian would there be any evidence to convict you beyond a few anonymous posts?

"And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will. - 2 Timothy 24:26

458 posted on 03/31/2012 9:07:51 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 455 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
When we read the earliest Greek manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus, AD 325) we see the use of Epiousion to describe the nature or substance of the bread. Early Christians associated this with the Eucharist. The Eastern Catholics still use this Greek version in their liturgy. The Coptics use the phrase "bread of tomorrow".

Not to be nit-picky, but there ARE manuscripts that date far closer to the first century than the 325 AD Codex Sinaiticus. From http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html we read of:

    In the 30's and 60's of the twentieth century a number of other, very important manuscripts have become available. We owe this to the efforts of two wealthy book collectors, Chester Beatty and Martin Bodmer. These manuscripts are of a special class for two reasons. They are written on papyrus and date from well before the fourth century. The earliest papyrus manuscripts come very close to the time when the New Testament was written. Of course, manuscripts on papyrus were known before, but these dated from a much later period and tended to be rather fragmentary. For almost all New Testament books we now have manuscripts earlier than the fourth century.

    How do we know these manuscripts are so very early? How do we know their dates for certain? Some of you may think "scientific" tests on the physical structure of the papyrus may yield such dates. In fact they cannot, because such tests are very inaccurate. No, we can date papyrus manuscripts, any manuscript for that matter, simply by looking at the way it is written. Handwriting is a product of human culture and as such it is always developing. Differences in handwriting are bound to appear within one generation. Just compare the handwriting of your parents with your own. Or look at your own scribblings of a few years ago. It is the same handwriting as today but an expert, a paleographer, can distinguish not unimportant differences. He cannot establish the exact date but he can confidently place one handwriting in the 30's and another in the 80's. Even printed texts can easily be dated according to the outward appearance of the type or font used by the printer.

    For such an ancient period as that between A.D. 100 and 300 it is of course much more difficult to be confident about the date of a manuscript. There is infinitely less comparative material. Nevertheless we are now in a fairly comfortable position to date papyrus manuscripts according to their handwriting. We do not have to rely on manuscripts of the New Testament only. We have hundreds of papyrus manuscripts of Greek pagan literary texts from this period and again hundreds of carefully written papyrus documents that show the same types of handwriting. These documents are very important for paleographers because they are often exactly dated. As a rule New Testament manuscripts on papyrus are not. A careful comparison of the papyrus documents and manuscripts of the second and third centuries has established beyond doubt that about forty Greek papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament date from this very period. Unfortunately only six of them are extensively preserved.

    Even within the period that runs from c. A.D. 100-300 it is possible for paleographers to be more specific on the relative date of the papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament. For about sixty years now a tiny papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John has been the oldest "manuscript" of the New Testament. This manuscript (P52) has generally been dated to ca. A.D. 125. This fact alone proved that the original Gospel of John was written earlier, viz. in the first century A.D., as had always been upheld by conservative scholars.

All of this points to the need for an extra-biblical sources to understand the “simple and clear” Scripture. We Catholics believe that Jesus gave the Church with its Magisterium to satisfy this need. Non-Catholics seek to satisfy that need with a variety of sources, not all honest or reliable.

In your mind, I guess it would, but, though I have never stated having a "teaching authority" is a bad thing, it must always be understood that it will always be fallible man that comprises it and Scripture must ALWAYS remain the standard authority. I fully believe Jesus' promises that the Holy Spirit would be our teacher and will illuminate the words of God to the hearts and minds of those surrendered to Him.

There is no escaping the facts that the magesterium of the Roman Catholic Church has proved itself fallible in many areas where they have ventured past the revealed word into the realm of imagination. Did the early church leaders get things right when they pontificated upon the Bible? Yes, they did on many things. Were they 100% right? No, some, whose ideas were not as strong as their influence, STILL propagated those ideas and, others who had a closer Biblical interpretation, failed to have the votes necessary to ensure their views were counted within what was called "orthodoxy". As time went by, we see this same dynamic being played out over and over again so that, when the Reformation HAD to happen (Again. As we know it was not the first one.) many of the major tenets of the standard Christian faith were unrecognized as originating from Scripture nor held by the Apostles and their immediate disciples.

I realize that the Roman Catholic answer is that the magesterium has a "protection" from error so that the faithful can be assured whatever is deemed de fide can be held without doubt. But, if we are being honest here, there HAVE been numerous errors and changes that, though euphemistically they have been called "developed doctrines", are really just one group overruling another's wrongly declared "truth" and substituting it with their more popular version. To me, that does not sound as if there can be unquestioning obedience to an "infallible" magesterium that has proved itself to be quite fallible. That is why Holy Scripture MUST be the authority over and above human institutions. It is the ONLY divinely-inspired and, therefore, infallible authority we have been given by God and the "church" is tasked with being the support of and upholder of that truth.

459 posted on 03/31/2012 9:51:39 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 446 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
"Not to be nit-picky, but there ARE manuscripts that date far closer to the first century than the 325 AD Codex Sinaiticus."

Papyrus is very perishable and possession of manuscripts was often illegal with severe penalties for those in possession. There are certainly many fragments, but none that contain intact Gospels of Matthew and Luke before the Codex Sinaiticus. Most experts believe that it predates the Codex Vaticanus by a few years.

"I fully believe Jesus' promises that the Holy Spirit would be our teacher and will illuminate the words of God to the hearts and minds of those surrendered to Him."

One only need ask why so many who so sincerely believe and earnestly seek His Truth arrive at different interpretations and conclusions to have doubts about that.

"There is no escaping the facts that the magesterium of the Roman Catholic Church has proved itself fallible in many areas where they have ventured past the revealed word into the realm of imagination."

A point of clarification; the Church teaches that Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium are inerrant. The Pope, only under very limited conditions is infallible. There have been no instances of the Church changing a dogma or doctrine, although practices have changed. I have never found any errors in doctrines or dogmas. I have had numerous difficulties with certain portions of the Church's teachings, but have always been able, through prayer and study, to reconcile those and realize the Church has been right."

"To me, that does not sound as if there can be unquestioning obedience to an "infallible" magesterium that has proved itself to be quite fallible."

Within Catholic teaching the term "unquestioning obedience" is an oxymoron. The Church defines obedience as:

CCC 144 - To obey (from the Latin ob-audire, to "hear or listen to") in faith is to submit freely to the word that has been heard, because its truth is guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself.

The Church does not compel me to accept blindly, but to grow in my knowledge and love of God. We call this "conversion".

CCC 160 - Indeed, Christ invited people to faith and conversion, but never coerced them. "For he bore witness to the truth but refused to use force to impose it on those who spoke against it. His kingdom... grows by the love with which Christ, lifted up on the cross, draws men to himself".

Thanks for the opportunity to explain my faith.

May the Peace of Christ be with you.

460 posted on 03/31/2012 11:02:21 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 459 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
there many thousands of persons crucified by the Romans so the cross itself was nothing special.

WOW!! WOW!! WOW!! Learn what happened AT THE CROSS - HE didn't just give up the ghost like your 'many thousands of persons'.

Scripture points out that there were two other persons crucified with Jesus, one clearly not deserving of Salvation.

NO ONE IS DESERVING. The one who did receive salvation knew that.

The cross became a Christian symbol because it was a way to effectively give the finger to the might of Rome.

Poor 'victim' Rome! Who the heck ever thinks of Rome when they look at the cross but pagans/deceived. They were, merely, 'used' to fulfill the will of God. They had no might.

It was a way of saying; you gave Him the worst, most excruciating (from a Latin word meaning from the cross) death that the Roman Empire could imagine and He overcame it.

The Roman Empire couldn't do ANYTHING to Jesus because HE GAVE HIMSELF WILLINGLY, He came to give His Life! It is Written.

AND "Do you think I cannot call on My Father, and He will, at once, put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?" Matthew 26:53

Everyone who was and will be conceived put JESUS on the cross because ALL need/needed a Savior. John 3:16

"Resurrection and the Life" ......Easter, the most Holy Day in the Catholic Liturgical Calendar

Christians call it and celebrate - RESURRECTION SUNDAY! Thank You, JESUS!!

461 posted on 04/01/2012 12:53:34 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Why was Christ resurrected?


462 posted on 04/01/2012 6:36:59 AM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
I have had numerous difficulties with certain portions of the Church's teachings, but have always been able, through prayer and study, to reconcile those and realize the Church has been right."

I concur,dear friend.

Nice to see you back,and I love your gentle humble demeanor in dealing with others these days

463 posted on 04/01/2012 10:12:59 AM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 460 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

The “Bible according to” each redeemed man’s renewed conscience, led and taught by the Holy Spirit, a merciful and unearned gift of God.

Read your Bible. That’s how it works. If a child can grasp the truth of Jesus Christ, you and I should be able to understand, God willing.


464 posted on 04/01/2012 11:13:04 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi
"Nice to see you back,and I love your gentle humble demeanor in dealing with others these days"Thank you, but the credit goes to God.

A while back I entered into Diaconate formation which caused me to examine my entire life. I saw what participation in the Religion Forum was doing to me and the kind of person the repeated exposure to the corrosive comments was making me become and I didn't like what I saw.

I took nearly 6 months away from FR to pray and reflect. I was prepared to abandon FR forever because it presented a near occasion of sin. But the problem wasn't FR, it was me. If I walked away from FR I had to be prepared to walk away from the whole world and that would be counter to the mission of the Diaconate, which is to serve God and His Church by serving the Gospel, the Liturgy and Charity.

I also realized that the anti-Catholic and non-Christian behavior cannot harm God or the Church and can only harm me if I react to it in a non-Christian manner. I also know that every scheme or stunt Satan devises to compromise Christians can be the stick we use to beat him if we react to it as Christians.

Gob Bless you.

465 posted on 04/01/2012 11:15:53 AM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 463 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

So was Calvin the one not ‘led and taught by the Holy Spirit’ or was Arminius?

How does that work?


466 posted on 04/01/2012 11:17:14 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; D-fendr
"Read your Bible. That’s how it works. If a child can grasp the truth of Jesus Christ, you and I should be able to understand, God willing."

If we are going to engage in dialog about God we should at least endeavor to do it honestly. I understand and appreciate the simplistic approach to Scriptural interpretation, but no one on these threads, you included, actually does this. In your posting history are numerous citations of non-Scriptural sources, not the least among them being the writings of Jean Calvin.

The reasonable man can only conclude that the point of contention is not the reliance upon secondary sources, but upon the selection and credibility of those sources and how we rationalize or justify our acceptance of them.

467 posted on 04/01/2012 11:27:16 AM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

Amen.


468 posted on 04/01/2012 12:04:10 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 461 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

No man has all the answers. Calvin was more correct than Arminius.

If you expect anything in this life to be perfect, you will be disappointed.

I never promised you a rose garden. 8~)


469 posted on 04/01/2012 12:12:02 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
"WOW!! WOW!! WOW!!"

Jesus commanded, and St. Paul reminded, to treat each other with love and respect, not ridicule, scorn and derision.

We would all do well to remember that, before the Scripture was Canonized, to address the disputes over doctrine, the Church developed the Creeds, to articulate the articles of faith. Catholics fully embrace the Nicene and Apostles Creeds, as I hope you do. I pray that you will accept Him and put your anger behind you.

Peace be with you and may you celebrate a spiritful Holy Week and a Joyous Easter.

470 posted on 04/01/2012 12:19:08 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 461 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; Natural Law

Thanks for your reply. I agree on the rose garden. :)

How does one determine whether Calvin was more correct than Arminius or vice-versa? And, if one chooses between the two views, there are quite radically different conclusions and results in one’s faith.

I think, as NL indicates, it is a question of authority. You seem to hold, like many on here, that it ultimately falls on each individual to decide and determine all these questions.

I think that is impractical and unworkable, with the result quite contrary to One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

So, as I’ve said often here: sola scriptura is both unscriptural and fails in practice.

Other than that...

:)


471 posted on 04/01/2012 12:23:17 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 469 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
I took nearly 6 months away from FR to pray and reflect. I was prepared to abandon FR forever because it presented a near occasion of sin. But the problem wasn't FR, it was me.

It's the same reason why I take long breaks away too.

But, that said ,there is a demonic presence on some threads that no responses are ever needed because they are dangerous traps,only prayer and fasting can help

The are many things on FR that tear at my heart and I bring with me to pray for at Adoration

I wish you a blessed day!

472 posted on 04/01/2012 12:33:59 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; HarleyD
The only “authority” belongs to the Holy Spirit. And it is the responsibility of the Holly Spirit to lead our understanding of the Bible as we read and study it.

I believe Calvin was more correct than Arminius because his theology lines up with Scripture more than Arminius’.

As Harleyd once said, it was only after he studied Calvinism and Augustine did the Bible make real sense. I believe that, too. Reading the Bible with the idea that God is preeminent and has ordained all that exists and occurs clarifies both the good and the bad that happen to us in this life. This is how people used to read the Bible for centuries, including children.

“All things work for the good of those who love God, those who are called according to His purpose.” — Romans 8:28

"Called according to His purpose..."

473 posted on 04/01/2012 1:45:07 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 471 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

All men are fallen and all men deserve hell.

For reasons known only to God, some men are chosen to received the free, unearned, unmerited gift of grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

If that includes you, your life should be filled with gratitude, obedience and joy.

Mine is. Thank you, God, for your free gift of salvation. Thank you, Jesus, for your sacrifice on my behalf. Thank you, Holy Spirit, for inhabiting my life and leading me to Christ.


474 posted on 04/01/2012 1:52:19 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

When i said Mary was no one’s mother but Jesus, I phrased the sentence awkwardly. I believe Mary had several other children, as the Bible tells us.

I do not believe, as the RCC teaches, that Mary is the “Mother of the Universe” and the “Mother of all believers.”

That is sacrilege and appears no one where in the Bible. In fact, it is contradicted by Christ when he corrects the crowd’s error to say his real mother and family are not Mary and his brothers and sisters, but all true believers.

Roman Catholics simply ignore those oft-repeated (read inconvenient) verses.


475 posted on 04/01/2012 2:00:00 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
"The “Bible according to” each redeemed man’s renewed conscience,..."

There is no doubt that the role of conscience plays a significant role in ones conversion, but conscience is not itself the source of the moral law. To be redeemed it must be informed and the moral judgment enlightened learning, reason and prayer.

476 posted on 04/01/2012 2:06:20 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
"I believe Mary had several other children, as the Bible tells us."

Fortunately, for you and me, this isn't a question of "he said - she said" in which the outcome will be determined based upon our individual credibilities. This is a long standing disagreement between two opposing sets of authorities. Your chosen authorities believe Scripture is interpreted one way, mine another. I don't see any immediate resolution, at last not while either of us is alive. In the mean time, lets share common ground and rejoice in the Lord. The last thing Jesus or Mary would want is for this to divide Christendom especially now that it is under attack.

477 posted on 04/01/2012 2:24:37 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
2 CORINTHIANS 1:12

"For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward."

478 posted on 04/01/2012 2:41:04 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 476 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; CynicalBear; metmom; boatbums; Iscool
"Actually, the Cross is important, but only in the context of the Resurrection.".

I then asked you "why Christ was resurrected". Which you never answered. But that's okay. I'll answer it, because it is important.

God was able to resurrect Jesus Christ because the penalty for OUR SINS had been paid IN FULL, BY THE CROSS. It is at the Cross that "we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD" (Eph. 1:7), "we are JUSTIFIED BY HIS BLOOD" (Rom. 5:9), "RECONCILED TO GOD by the DEATH OF HIS SON" (Rom. 5:10), "made nigh BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST" (Eph. 2:13) and "made the RIGHTEOUSNESS of God IN HIM" because "GOD HATH MADE HIM TO BE SIN FOR US" (2 Cor. 5:21).

It IS THE CROSS that makes the Resurrection of Christ OUR GUARANTEE that OUR SINS ARE PAID FOR. If there had been ONE SIN that Christ had not died for, God the Father could not have raised Him from the dead, because the penalty for even a single sin is death. The FACT that God was able to raise Christ from the dead is our guarantee from Him that IT IS FINISHED.

"For THE PREACHING OF THE CROSS is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God..."But WE PREACH CHRIST CRUCIFIED, unto the Jews a stumbling block and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." (1 Cor. 1:18,20,22-24).

Do Catholics not believe that it was at the Cross that all their sins were paid for by Christ?

479 posted on 04/01/2012 2:43:02 PM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

Amen


480 posted on 04/01/2012 2:48:12 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 478 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

Amen. Christ died for our sins and was resurrected to prove it all true.

The empty cross is the triumphant cross of those who, like Christ, are more than conquerors. The debt has been paid. We are free. Our eternal liberty has been won by our King and Savior.


481 posted on 04/01/2012 4:09:22 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 479 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
"The empty cross is the triumphant cross of those who, like Christ, are more than conquerors."

What is to be gained by chest thumping over the choice of the symbols we choose to celebrate the same Sacrifice and Resurrection? Wouldn't your time be better spent working to oust pro-abortion candidates, feeding the needy or securing the right of religious liberty to all?

482 posted on 04/01/2012 5:08:32 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 481 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
One only need ask why so many who so sincerely believe and earnestly seek His Truth arrive at different interpretations and conclusions to have doubts about that.

We have addressed this in the past and it should be apparent that there are tenets of the faith that are "inviolate" and others, non-essential doctrines, that are more flexible. For example, the doctrine of Jesus Christ being Almighty God incarnate is one of the most central of all Christian doctrines and those who hold to beliefs counter to this can be said to not be true Christians. However, on the subject of which day an assembly meets to worship together, we have Scripture that indicates this is an optional belief, see Romans 14:5. There ARE major tenets of the Christian faith that are NOT optional and where a faith tradition veers away from these clearly defined (in Scripture) beliefs, they are in error.

So, when Martin Luther, as well as many others, found fault with the how and what of the established religious hierarchy, he felt strongly moved to seek to restore them BACK to orthodoxy - that established by the Apostles as revealed in Holy Scripture. Again, I have no qualms about there being a teaching authority established to keep the church as a whole on the straight and narrow, but it should be always understood that the ultimate authority IS Scripture. That is essentially what the term sola scriptura means.

A point of clarification; the Church teaches that Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium are inerrant. The Pope, only under very limited conditions is infallible. There have been no instances of the Church changing a dogma or doctrine, although practices have changed. I have never found any errors in doctrines or dogmas. I have had numerous difficulties with certain portions of the Church's teachings, but have always been able, through prayer and study, to reconcile those and realize the Church has been right."

There MUST be an ultimate authority that supercedes human fallibility. You cannot have Divinely-inspired Scripture held equal to the human influence. What is called "tradition" by the Roman Catholic Church has come to mean anything and everything THEY deem as truth "handed down verbally" from the Apostles, yet there is no question that whatever the Apostles taught HAS BEEN recorded in Holy Scripture precisely so that the truth God intended for the church to know is preserved. Oral tradition is, by its nature, subject to a level of decay over time and anything not written down, cannot be held equal to Scripture that we know has been handed down from God.

From http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/04/ten-objections-to-sola-scriptura-2.html:

    The Protestant never denied the principle of apostolic tradition or oral instruction. It’s just that oral transmission suffers from a high decay rate. Word-of-mouth may be adequate when it comes straight from the mouth of an Apostle to the ear of a contemporary. But there’s a categorical difference between the viva voce of the Apostles and a "process of living Tradition" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶83.). Oral tradition is no substitute for a permanent record. It was never intended to supply a common norm for future reference. That’s precisely why revelation was committed to writing (cf. Exod 17:14; Deut 31:9,13,26; Ps 102:18; Isa 30:8). Human memory is too untrustworthy to rely on oral transmission over the long haul. The rediscovery of the written law code (2 Kgs 22:8ff. 2 Chron 34:14ff.) powerfully illustrates the inadequacies of unaided memory in keeping a people from apostasy—a point made by R. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Eerdmans, 1986), 66. To take another example, (a) Papias was, according to Irenaeus, a younger contemporary of the Apostle John. He made an earnest effort to collect the agrapha of Christ. Yet despite his proximity to primitive recollection, his gleanings are remarkably meager, and have an unmistakably derivative flavor. Owing to the short shelf-life of oral tradition, as well as the incentive to fabricate tradition (e.g. the NT apocrypha), no formal authority attaches to mere tradition, although some of it may afford probative evidence for past practice.

    Moreover, Sacred Tradition, as currently redefined, is not the same as an oral mode of transmission. It ceases to be a conservative force and becomes a revisionary dynamic. Again, Jesus warns us against the dangers of man-made tradition, and judges that tradition by the standard of Scripture (Mt 7:7-8,13). But when human tradition comes to be identified with a divine teaching office, it is then impervious to the correction of Scripture, and we’re right back to the situation that summoned forth our Lord’s reproof.


483 posted on 04/01/2012 5:10:02 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 460 | View Replies]

To: smvoice
What in the name of pete are you talking about?

Christianity as practiced by Christians for 2000 years.

Do you not understand that Christ has a CONTINUING mission, even in His absence on earth? Do you think He just stopped His plan when He ascended to sit at the Father's right hand? What in the world is the rest of the Bible for, if that is what you believe? It should have ended at Acts 1:9, when He was taken up in a cloud, if that is your belief.

My belief is that He left His Church here on earth to continue the mission that He gave to them. Not that any Tom, Dick or Darby can interpret novelties on their own and demand that it replace traditional Christianity as given to us from the Apostles who received it from Jesus Christ, the Lord God Almighty.

And BTW, Christ's death on the cross for OUR SINS, His burial, and His resurrection for our salvation is the pinnacle of God's word and reconciliation to man. It is ALL about the Cross. Without that, nothing else matters.

Odd, that statement. You guys object to the Crucifix, yet you preach that the Cross is the be all and end all of things.

We preach Christ Resurrected and Ascended; the Crucifix is a daily reminder of the price that Jesus bore for us. We do not preach the death of Christ (which by itself has no salvation). His death is for our sins. His Resurrection is for our everlasting life.Do you believe that Christ paid the FULL penalty for your inability?

Without Christ there is no salvation. Without His death, Resurrection and Ascension, we do not have His promise to us. But we do. We must accept it or else we do not have salvation. However, there are conditions. Those are found in both the Gospels and in Paul.

Unless, like the Calvinists, you believe in self-declaration of salvation which God must honour.

484 posted on 04/01/2012 5:32:47 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
A while back I entered into Diaconate formation which caused me to examine my entire life. I saw what participation in the Religion Forum was doing to me and the kind of person the repeated exposure to the corrosive comments was making me become and I didn't like what I saw.

There are the footsoldiers for Christ who become ungentle in their vocations.

I took nearly 6 months away from FR to pray and reflect. I was prepared to abandon FR forever because it presented a near occasion of sin. But the problem wasn't FR, it was me. If I walked away from FR I had to be prepared to walk away from the whole world and that would be counter to the mission of the Diaconate, which is to serve God and His Church by serving the Gospel, the Liturgy and Charity.

You have surpassed me, my friend. May God bless us all.

485 posted on 04/01/2012 5:36:27 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
No man has all the answers. Calvin was more correct than Arminius.

That's like saying that Hitler was more correct than Stalin.

486 posted on 04/01/2012 5:37:23 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 469 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
Post 449 was so far off the mark I’m not sure where one would start.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

487 posted on 04/01/2012 5:47:45 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
"There are the footsoldiers for Christ who become ungentle in their vocations."

God bless them if it works for them, but that approach just doesn't work for me. It more often than no hardens hearts and even when it doesn't I feel terrible.

"You have surpassed me, my friend."

Please do not read more into me than I deserve. When I compare myself to the saints I see how terribly flawed I am and how much further I have to go in my conversion. I only hope that some light shines through dirty and broken windows.

488 posted on 04/01/2012 5:48:57 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 485 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Christianity has more than one enemy.

There is only one truth.


489 posted on 04/01/2012 5:52:15 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 482 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
"So, when Martin Luther, as well as many others, found fault with the how and what of the established religious hierarchy, he felt strongly moved to seek to restore them BACK to orthodoxy - that established by the Apostles as revealed in Holy Scripture."

No one but God knows what was in Martin Luther's heart. He has been praised by Pope Benedict XVI for his deep passion and for being a "driving force" in his beliefs, but I am convinced that Luther was deeply troubled by the unintended consequences of his actions. As for Sola Scriptura we will have to continue to disagree because without a Magisterium the original meaning is still left to fallible men (and women).

Maranatha

490 posted on 04/01/2012 6:05:00 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 483 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
"Christianity has more than one enemy."

The Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ, it is not His enemy. The real enemies are a threat to us all.

491 posted on 04/01/2012 6:09:24 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 489 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
"WOW!! WOW!! WOW!!" Jesus commanded, and St. Paul reminded, to treat each other with love and respect, not ridicule, scorn and derision.

Show where WOW WOW WOW is ridicule and scorn and derision. I'll save you the trouble, can't be done. But I will show you what IS.......

RIDICULE...... SCORN...... DERISION.

the cross itself was nothing special.

JESUS GAVE UP His sinless life to become sin for all on THE CROSS.

The cross became a Christian symbol because it was a way to effectively give the finger to the might of Rome.

NO Christian EVER looks to another or Rome when looking/remembering THE CROSS! The BLOOD shed on THE CROSS saves - The POWER of The BLOOD! Shed ONCE for all.

It was a way of saying; you gave Him the worst, most excruciating (from a Latin word meaning from the cross) death that the Roman Empire could imagine and He overcame it.,

Anyone who thinks 'they/themselves' didn't put Jesus on the cross cannot receive salvation. Salvation for what? The other guy/Roman Empire did it.

Some look for love in the wrong places. Go to the pagans to fulfill 'the love and respect' you seek with such RIDICULE of the Cross, SCORNFUL and DERISION statements which must stem from deep seated anger and contempt of The CROSS.

The PEACE lives within me 24/7 and I celebrate HIS RESURRECTION EVERY DAY.

It is ALL ABOUT JESUS!

It is ALL About THE CROSS!

Now that IS the LOVE I SHARE! There is NO GREATER LOVE!

492 posted on 04/01/2012 9:54:19 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 470 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
without a Magisterium

Without the HOLY SPIRIT living within our temple.

493 posted on 04/01/2012 10:04:56 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 490 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
"Now that IS the LOVE I SHARE! "

I cannot know what is in your heart, but neither can you know what is in mine. We can only look for the evidence, the fruits of the Holy Spirit because where those fruits are absent so too is the Holy Spirit absent. Examine yourself and your conscience and look for the fruits in your conduct towards those whom you cannot accuse of not loving God, but rather accuse of not loving Him as you deem appropriate.

"For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. But each one must examine his own work, and then he will have reason for boasting in regard to himself alone, and not in regard to another. For each one will bear his own load."- Galatians 6:3-5

494 posted on 04/01/2012 10:18:32 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 492 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
lets share common ground and rejoice in the Lord.

This is no common ground with this the cross itself was nothing special.

The last thing Jesus or Mary would want is for this to divide Christendom especially now that it is under attack.

There is NO Christianity WITHOUT the CROSS. Catholics voided it with the cross itself was nothing special. And Christianity is about THE CROSS.

495 posted on 04/01/2012 10:19:45 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 477 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

The Magisterium is but an instrument of the Holy Spirit as are Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.


496 posted on 04/01/2012 10:24:16 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 493 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
"Christianity is about the CROSS....."

Christianity is about the Word made flesh. It is not a death cult, but is about everlasting life.

497 posted on 04/01/2012 10:29:54 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 495 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
Nothing new here. You state the cross isn't special - and saying it's a symbol to look on another - and think what 'they' did with their might - shows a TOTAL LACK of ANYTHING Christ!

It's ALL about JESUS! It's ALL about THE CROSS!

I like saying It's ALL about The Cross - Satan can't stand it. It's a reminder to him, he lost and THE VICTORY IS IN JESUS!! IT'S ALL ABOUT THE CROSS!! JESUS IS THE RESURRECTION. JESUS IS EVERYTHING! It's ALL about JESUS!

Posting Scripture and believing the cross was nothing special. LOL!! What wrong with this picture? Shows 'anyone' can post/read/say/repeat Scripture and IMPRESS NO ONE!!

CHRISTIANITY - IT'S ALL ABOUT THE CROSS!!

498 posted on 04/01/2012 10:41:09 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

I’m glad you posted that.

Soon we remember Christ’s passion and celebrate His resurrection.

But without the Incarnation, that incredible, beautiful, miraculous, event that changed all of creation...


499 posted on 04/01/2012 10:43:04 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 497 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
Within Catholic teaching the term "unquestioning obedience" is an oxymoron. The Church defines obedience as:

CCC 144 - To obey (from the Latin ob-audire, to "hear or listen to") in faith is to submit freely to the word that has been heard, because its truth is guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself.

You make it sound as if there are no formal "Profession of Faith" documents or proclamations of anathemas on those who do not obey and hold to those prescribed doctrines with firm and irrevocable assent. Of course today the Roman Catholic Church lacks the temporal power it once held and cannot compel assent by force, but they nonetheless hold the assumed "spiritual" power over those who desire salvation through the Church. They can no longer impose physical punishments on those who reject her teachings, but it doesn't stop them from threatening eternal consequences for those accused of "heresy". This link http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/08/magisterial-cat-and-mouse-game.html, does a good job of explaining the real "Cat and Mouse Game" of the Magesterium and its constant need to define and redefine what is Catholic teaching as well as the evolution of the Magesterium. It is not so cut and dried as some would like it portrayed.

Blessings and peace to you, as well.

500 posted on 04/01/2012 10:50:17 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 460 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 401-450451-500501-550 ... 601-617 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson