The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Thread 162
TNS Archives

[imsosickofrcbashers]

No

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Sorry, I don't mean to be rude. I have no experience with non-Orthodox approaches to Scriptural interpretation. I thought those who rely strictly on Scripture tried to get at the precise meaning of the passages. You state that the meaning of these verses is self-evident. Not only do I see a possible conflict with other parts of Scripture, but I see conflict even between these two verses:

Its because you want to see conflict

"Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife." - If "took" means "had sex with" - which is what you think it means, correct? - then he first had sex with her after he woke up.

Never said "took" meant "sex". The word "wife" means it eventually happened. Unless it was a Ricky Ricardo/Lucy relationship.

"And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son..." - If "knew" means "had sex with" and "not till" means that he "knew" her after Jesus was born, then he first had sex with her after Jesus was born.

Yes, I believe they had sex after Jesus was born. Not sure I understand what you're trying to tell me here. You say this Scripture is crystal clear, and I'm playing games. I'm trying to see it your way. Based strictly on this Scripture, when did Joseph and Mary first have sex?

I wasn't there. And again, how do you explain Jesus commending Mary to John from the cross?

Doesn't have to be explained. Jesus wanted Mary with John.

[Havoc]

Well that I can respect. But there's a huge difference between preaching the word and what we've too often seen from you.

Preaching the Word and defending the Word are two seperate things. Jesus defended using stern words and actions. Making a mess of the money changers and calling the pharisees "vipers", "Adulterous", ect. are just a few things that Leap to mind. Paul was no less restrained. I attack the philosophies and the authors of them, you attack me.

So let's go back to the "brothers" discussion. Assuming you have few serious problems with the Pentecostals, let's see who doesn't qualify as your brother...

What's this supposed to be, a reverse popularity contest? Are you trying to demonstrate, as though it were a new revelation, that I think protestants are as bad as Catholics when it comes to abusing scripture? I'll save you the trouble, I've already stated as much and have maintained the very thing practically since I arrived on these threads. You can't serve two masters - those being Christ and the philosophies of men. For "either you'll love one and hate the other..." remember the God vs. mammon scriptures. It's an example, not an only case. Why should I tell them it's okay for them to whore about in philosophy? Was it okay for Baal's followers, no. No difference - other than Baal's follwers weren't dipping their philosophy in images of Christianity and claiming to be Christian.

Need we go on? Do you have any brothers here? Or is it "just you'n Jesus"?

It surely isn't just me and Jesus; but, if it were, I'd still maintain it. My soul isn't subject to a popularity contest. It settles only for truth. Who cares how popular your belief is if it's wrong. You may find it ok being popular in hell. I don't. Nor am I going to sell anyone a bunch of philosophy. The word of God isn't philosophy, nor is it compatible with philosophy. It is a covenant that cannot be altered by men. Men didn't write it, and men have no right to add anything to it nor to remove anything from it. That's where your church brings in 'binding and loosing' to try and get by with it's philosophical fancy work. Fortunately for us, we know that Binding and loosing doesn't mean what your clergy tries to tell everyone it means. It isn't a free right to add or define anything they so choose - never has been. But that's the way it's been used. Their error, not ours, not God's and not the scripture's. I don't need a fraud, I ain't sellin a fraud and I'm not telling anyone else it's okay to do so. Anything about that unclear?

[tiki]

Could you please explain what you mean by "put Him in a box." Thank you.:)

I think I have explained this before but I'll try again.

What I mean is understanding the totality of God. Essentially, all that God has created. Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Body of Christ on earth. The Eucharist. The saints. It is through the Father that we have the Son and it is through the Son's Sacrifice that we have eternal life. To try to give back to God what is His already and to choose to respond to His Grace.

This isn't a very inclusive explanation because I'm busy right now but it is a partial one. i could get back to you later and expand it if you want me to.

[imsosickofrcbashers]

Are you afraid to rply to me for some reason, you weren't in the past.

[Havoc]

Thank you for telling the truth. What about angelo?

Yes or no, Dave. Do you respect the beliefs of the Nazis that it was okay to exterminate the millions they exterminated. Let's not forget that Aryanism was pretty much the state religion.

And yes, I respect Angelo's right to believe what he will. I actually have more respect for his faith than for the RCC flatly because Christianity is a result, in part, of Judaism. He has a real belief system. I'm not telling Angelo he's going to heaven without professing the messaiah. Nor do I respect a belief to the contrary. I respect his right to hold it. And I defend his right to hold it.

Would you respect the beliefs of the guy that fornicates with your young daughter because that's part of his belief system? Come on Dave. You have to respect them don't you? Pause before you reply, cause I'm sure you'll be offended at something here. I'm getting out my hip boots. But I can't wait to see you defend these things. I'm sure the verbal acrobatics will be quite entertaining.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

What I mean is understanding the totality of God. Essentially, all that God has created. Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Body of Christ on earth. The Eucharist. The saints. It is through the Father that we have the Son and it is through the Son's Sacrifice that we have eternal life. To try to give back to God what is His already and to choose to respond to His Grace.

Is this putting Him in a box, or not putting Him in a box? I ask only because if you left out "The Eucharist, The saints." I'd say everything you said was true:) But I don't see how they fit in. Is it because I don't believe catholic Eucharist, and in praying to the saints that you think we put God in a box?

Becky

[Havoc]

This is exactly the attitude that Dave is talking about.

Excuse me, al. But, I don't think you were present in the other thread when I told Fury that I wasn't debating him if he couldn't understand that you cannot submit an Aramaic text that doesn't exist - as evidence. He got all hot and bothered and just couldn't understand why that isn't acceptable practice. He continued on childishly and I told him to grow up and come back. Now, who tried that before in here and got taken to task for it and backed off the ludicrous argument? And where does it come from that so many could know and push it - the fount of all goofiness, perhaps? Sorry, you might educate yourself on circumstance before you jump to conclusions.

[RobbyS]

When the state puts people to death, it is called an execution. Many of the people prosecuted by the Inquisition were innocent; others, not so: they broke the law, they were in a sense,political rebels. All were executed,even the innocent: not murdered. They were executed under the forms and, in some cases, even under the provisions of Roman Law or law modeled on such provisions. I know you don't like either thechurch or the civil law. Neither do I. On the other hand, the Bible matter of factly describes genocide by the Israelis, and has a detailed slave code.

[Wordsmith]

Never said "took" meant "sex". The word "wife" means it eventually happened.

Yes, I believe they had sex after Jesus was born.

OK, thanks. Now I understand where you're coming from, I think. You believe that Joseph and Mary had sex based entirely on the "until" in Matthew 1:25. As I noted earlier from the analysis of John Chrysostom, based on Scripture there is no reason to believe that your usage of "until" is definitive. The crow did not return to the ark "till" the land dried. But after the land dried, the crow still did not return. I return to my original statement - you cannot say definitively that Scripture says they had sex - and hold by my request that we call a truce.

And again, how do you explain Jesus commending Mary to John from the cross?

Doesn't have to be explained. Jesus wanted Mary with John.

Well, you can choose to not explain it. But the arguments that Mary and Joseph had sex seem based on the presumption that "that's what all husbands and wives do." But during their lifetime, mothers also were always cared for by their living children. Thus, it seems disingenous to say on the one hand that Mary and Joseph had sex because all spouses do, and then say on the other that Mary didn't go to her living children because it was an exceptional situation and doesn't need further explanation.

If you are comfortable with this, fine. Please realize that this seems to me as much a function of "mental gymnastics" as my position must seem to you. Thus, again, my request for a truce.

Christ Bless.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Why is it important to believe that Mary never had sex? Why would that make a difference?

Becky

[Uri’el-2012]

I can't say that Calvanism(sic) is the rrot(sic) of anything, but Jesus Christ is. I remember when the conservatives started tossing aside the Christians. Even though they got Bush in, they lost a lot of others. The same would happen here. Toss the Christians and you have a conservatism that is morally bankrupt and differs very little from the Democrats.
The start to impliment(sic) the same things, but just do it a bit slower.

20723 posted on 1/28/02 2:26 PM Mountain by Viva La Homeschool

Jonathan Edwards

Jonathan Edwards, who died on this date(March 22) in 1758 at Princeton, New Jersey, was the greatest theologian of American Puritanism, or Calvinism. The Rev. Edwards accepted the central Calvinistic doctrines of absolute divine sovereignty and predestined eternal salvation or damnation. He became widely known as powerful preacher in pre-Revolutionary New England where the only entertainment was, often enough, a rousing sermon. In 1751, he left his pastorate in Connecticut and became a missionary to the Indians, at Stockbridge, Mass., where he wrote and published (in 1754) A Careful and Strict Inquiry into the Modern Prevailing Notions of that Freedom of the Will. (He didn't much believe in free will.) In 1758, he wrote The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended. (He did believe in original sin.) For a year before he died, he served as president of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University.)

Well, Puritanism is not much in vogue these days. In fact, much the opposite. In a moment in history when Howard Stern and his ilk are broadcasting their sleaze morning, noon and night, we might try a touch of Puritianism. Try to go through this day without talking dirty

1Co. 2:4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and
persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's
power,
1Co. 2:5 so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on
God's power.

XeniaSt Truth@Y'shuaHaMashiach

[imsosickofrcbashers]

Thank you for helping along my experiment.

[Havoc]

Havoc, I'm sorry I let everyone else know about your....no no no!

Let everyone else know about what? This oughtta be rich. If you're going to defame me, as you guys have been trying to do for 10 months, why be so coy. I don't pretend I'm better than anyone. And judging by the fact that I don't know you from Adam, you can't know the best juicy stuff about my life. And I'm not afraid of anyone knowing about that. So what do you "think" you know.

[Fury]

Much of the material I reference has been posted to this thread or anyone of the 160 some priors. The majority are familiar with the conversation - some just won't admit the obvious. But as I stated on the other thread, Lombardy and the councils I've quoted recently, among other things, are readily available on the web if you know how to use a search engine. I used the Catholic sources on the councils. Lateran 4, Canon 3 is of specific interest and has been posted here by Angelo originally. So, it sounds like you haven't read back very far.

Thanks for the info. To make sure there is NO chance of us not reading from the same source document, please provide me the links you used and I will refer to them to do the research on the points you make.

This is the reason on the prior thread I asked you what Bible you were using for your Scripture references. You never responded.

People try to have a thoughtful discussion with you on the merits, but you will not participate in a way that provides such an outcome. I was not upset in the other thread when we had our discussion about the Aramaic texts. It's just you claim a certain position and then when asked for sources, you have said on several occasions, paraphrasing, "find it yourself".

[RnMomof7]

Why is it important to believe that Mary never had sex? Why would that make a difference?

Why do they have celibate Priests? Sex is dirty Becky, sex and holiness are not compatible

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Hey. When I changed my name and came back in here I had the courtesy to tell everyone who I was. So consider this my last response until you fess up.

[Fury]

You guys don't believe documentation when it jumps up and bites you in the ass. For instance. You say you don't worship Mary right. Well I was TAUGHT IN A CATHOLIC SCHOOL TOO WORSHIP Mary. You guys come back and say, I was stupid and misunderstood, or I had bad teachers, or the time I was being taught was a bad time. Well guess what along with the Mary thing, my parents were taught the sames things in catholic schools, and my two nephews were taught the same things in catholic schools. My dad just went to his 65 class reunion., are you going to use the stupid excuse for my whole family, are you going to use the bad teachers for 6 people from different schools, or bad time excuse for 65 years.

Who do you mean when you say "you" when referring to people saying you were "stupid and misunderstood"? Is "you" a collective word referring to the Catholic folks on the thread; sort of like one would use the word "brother"?

[DittoJed2]

Are they considering dumping the religious posts?

[imsosickofrcbashers]

Okay, thank you very much for participating in my experiment anyway.