Posted on 02/22/2013 5:43:18 PM PST by NYer
yeah, but it was retroactive......when something is declared a truth, that means that it was always the truth....didn't become truth at that point.
yeah, but it was retroactive......when something is declared a truth, that means that it was always the truth....didn't become truth at that point.
not at all...I've seen Democrats interpret history and I've seen Republicans do the same....one would hardly believe they were describing the same thing. I have seen school books so distort history,that they had to be removed from the classroom.
a real basic history of the church is that for 2013 years (more or less a few) the Catholic church has been the spokesman for Christianity. Somewhere in the 1600's a revolution took place where some few people decided that they knew better than the Catholic church how things really were. They took books out of a 1,600 year old bible, denied some basic tenets of Christianity, made up their own rules as they went along and said "this is now christianity".... I know that this is pretty basic, but by and large that's what happened.
I think the Lord (who has a sense of humor) is more than pleased that His children are discussing religion. I find these discussions to be extremely entertaining, educational, and thought provoking. I learn a lot, say a lot, and never mean to demean anyone elses ideas nor beliefs. I try to understand where on earth some people come up with their ideas, but respect them nevertheless.
this certainly beats discussion of many things I can think of.....maybe except politics!!..:)
he might have known some of them...he was an itinerant magician who sought to join Chriatianity and the Catholic church because they could do miraculous things and he wanted in on the action. You have brought his name up several times and they are all basically meaningless...he means nothing to Catholics nor Protestants...
true Christians realize that thier beliefs need not be compressed into a tiny ....few hundred pages book...written around the year 0. Christ means so much more than that, He did things, said things accomplished things, that the few evengalists could have NEVER transcribed. While there is certainly no error in the scriptures, to believe that the wholeness of Christianity is contained therein is the hight of naivete'
I didn't feel like looking up each scripture so that I wouldn't misquote it. A good teacher NEVER does his student's homework....I pointed out, by reference, the passages that I was referring to. Besides being slow to look things up, I am a slow typist.
nah...we just stir them in with the "witches" that the protestants burned at the stake and hope that God sorts them out!! oops
you can name the following item...items...which have been declared "infallible"...which are indeed in error......you may number them if you wish...
How do y'all think the Lord feels about those who intentionally post provocative threads that wound and START the bickering in the first place? I have pleaded many times to those who repeatedly do this on Free Republic, but it seems to fall on deaf ears (eyes). Perhaps such persons like causing bickering and discord? Maybe if they hear from those in their own camps occasionally, it would sink in. Just a thought.
I understand that...but the chair he sits in is of no relevance whatsoever...the pope can speak Ex Cathedra from a Greyhound bus if the occasion ever presents itself. I understand formality and all that, but the physical chair does not have magical properties. If Vatican City burns down tomorrow and the "chair" is destroyed, the Pope would then speak from somewhere else and still be protected by Christ's promise of infallibility!
Incoherent? By your lights, Jesus was speechless when He did so many things that were not recorded. He said nothing, not a word, when He acted.
Who is being incoherent?
you missed the entire section concerning other churches....perhaps you missed the disagreements between Rome and Egypt or the disagreements between Rome and northern Africa or the disagreements between Rom and Constantinople.
You view history through the lens of Rome . I on the other hand have studied history....Rome claims much that is untrue and always has been. God on the other hand is truly infallible
From what I understand, the Orthodox do NOT accept many things that Roman Catholicism has stated MUST be believed to be saved. Things such as this thread castigates the "Protestants" for not doing such as obedience to the Pope of Rome, Papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception - hardly things that sound like "little" or inconsequential issues. Yet I can't remember even ONE thread that challenges the Orthodox the way "Protestants" are almost daily. Do you have an answer for why this is?
I agree. Can anyone really imagine the Apostle Peter writing things in his epistles (letters) to the church that he "made up" or were his own personal opinions, yet demanding that they still all receive and obey them under threat of hell? It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church persecuted other Christians who refused to give allegiance to the Pope of Rome. They justified their actions by citing such proclamations as those of Pope Boniface in his Unam Sanctum and so-called "heretics" were persecuted and prosecuted - some even executed - based solely on their refusal to be subject to the Pope. It sure seemed as though this teaching was incontrovertible back then, but now they say it was just a misunderstanding and he really didn't mean it the way it sounded. Peoples' LIVES were at stake here! It is stuff like this that convinces me that the Roman Catholic Church cannot possibly be THE one, true church. It is patently obvious that Jesus was speaking of a spiritual body and not an institution whose claim to fame is longevity. If what they teach is NOT verified by the sole, objective authority we have - the Word of God - then they are no more authentic than any other religion is.
I said early on in this thread that I agreed with another poster that it was a divisive post. And I posted Catholic teaching to back up my opinion. My comment about bickering referenced Catholic teaching for a reason (i.e. talking to Catholics) but if nonCatholics want to misinterpret my motives they are free to do so. I'm responsible for what I write, not how others interpret it. Peace be with you.
Don't you think there is a difference between words and action? Scripture clearly says Jesus DID many other things that IF they had been written down, the whole world could not contain all that COULD be written. That is a far cry from insisting, as your church does, that Jesus SAID many things not written down and then attributing these "sayings" to Tradition that was orally passed down and equally binding on all Christians as his words were. They produce no real proof of what these unwritten sayings were.
If you notice, the Apostle John clearly stated that Jesus DID many things not written down BUT that what he DID write down was for their belief and salvation:
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:31)
John reiterated this same thing when he wrote in his epistles:
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may believe on the name of the Son of God. (I John 5:13)
The real question here is why would the Apostles have omitted writing things Jesus said to them if it affected our eternal life? We know that after Jesus ascended into Heaven, the Holy Spirit, as he promised them, would continue to reveal truth to them and we have that truth preserved in the books of the New Testament. Did the Holy Spirit forget something or leave something out that theologians only realized centuries later? I don't buy that.
I've never started a thread. Nor am I competent to read the minds of those who do. Personally I dislike ALL threads that bash anyone's religion. Objective discussion about differences interests me. But when it crosses the line so that comments (or the original article itself) consist of mocking, setting up straw men, etc I find little use. It's not scriptural. It's not charitable. And it's not how Jesus asked us to treat each other.
Perhaps those of us who'd like to see dialogue on a more charitable level should make extra effort to lead by example? Peace be with you.
Dear friend in Christ, please forgive this humble catholic for posting this thread that has so upset you. That was never my intention. For those of us on fire with love for our Lord and His Church, we want everyone to experience that joy. Knowing how Bible christians always seek scriptural source material, in our exuberance to share that, we occasionally post a thread that meets biblical scrutiny. If I have offended you or any others with this thread, then I ask your forgiveness. We share the same love for Jesus Christ.
And I appreciate that. It’s one thing i.f, during the course of the conversation about a thread topic, the tone turns confrontational, it’s another if the thread STARTS OUT provoking the confrontation. That’s what I wish would change
I wish you peace as well.
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.