| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/14/2014 6:31:52 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Lunar eclipse tonight. |
Posted on 04/05/2014 5:57:23 AM PDT by Gamecock
“...change your impression of the Religion Moderator...?”
Yes, I originally thought that the RM was Alex Murphy now I think the RM is Gamecock.
insert sarcastic smiley face here
AMDG
“...he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;”
I don’t believe you will find the word “Christ” or the possessive “his throne” anywhere in the original Greek texts - I believe they are the pure invention of King James’ loyal “scholars”.
The differences in translations are significant with the KJV being the most deviant.
and you base all your beliefs on what some 16th century “scholar” thought the vaunted King James would want to see in Bible?
AMDG
HMMMmmm...
I don’t believe you will find the word “Christ” or the possessive “his throne” anywhere in the original Greek texts - I believe they are the pure invention of King James’ loyal “scholars”.
Mighty broad assumption here.
So read the relevant posts by Salvation again and observe the use of "original" in her post applied not only to Latin but also to English.
Wycliffe's is a garbage translation.
No one is called in the New Testament "κεχαριτωμενη" nor "κεχαριτωμενος". St. Stephen is "πληρης πιστεως". Jesus is "πληρης χαριτος". Difference in the original calls for difference in translations.
you are supporting Gregory as one (among others) that wrote under Divine inspiration as with the writers of Scripture.
Yes, however his texts are not canonical scripture.
Do you hold that Popes in speaking infallibly also do so [when inspired by the Holy Ghost?]
When a pope is speaking on faith and morals from the authority of the Petrine office, yes. When he chats with the reporters, for example, no. You did not know that?
variously interpreting Rome among themselves
Yes. Happens. But we know where the authority is and the Church being of living people we can ask for a definitive teaching. That is unlike Protestant charlatanism and "the Spirit tells me". If that insults you, change religion.
Yes. I know this carving, searched for it and attached my own words describing it.
now you seem to be telling me you are not saying that the Holy Spirit was dictating
I am fine with "dictating". The pope was writing always behind a curtain. A scribe or a servant decided to peek in, and saw something that he interpreted as the Holy Ghost whispering to the Pope. Depending how literally you take this story, you can also say "dictated". The use of the word does not imply "canonical" though.
Where in the "language of Art" (capital "A" art, we should all take note) is there some difference between "dictated by" and "inspired by" that could apply those meanings being so interchangeable in regards to the Holy Spirit itself?
Medieval art is concrete in its methods: it does not, for example, rely on naturalistic depiction of emotion through the features of the human face or body. So when a medieval artist takes up the task of depicting inspiration by the Holy Ghost, he will show a dove whispering in (or at least leaning toward) the ear. Likewise, for example, St. Lucy is shown holding up her eyes in her hand, as well as looking at the faithful with another pair of eyes in their natural place, -- not to suggest that she gouged her own eyes but to give a concrete representation of her voluntarily submitting herself to torture. Make a habit of looking at sacred art and avoid anything later than, say, 18 c. and gradually the art will speak to you. Good question, thanks.
I need write like a prosecuting attorney
Yes. Very common among your co-religionists: Protestantism always seeks to destroy something.
from your own mind
Of course. I have the mind so I use it. But I check back with the Church Whose mind I intend to share.
Vienna Kunsthistorisches Museum Tenth Century, Gregory with Dove of Holy Spirit Dictating, Three Monk Scribes, Ivory
Each person decides for themselves whether they believe in fact or fiction. Don’t make it sound like they don’t have control over themselves in what to believe.
Don’t say I understand, don’t say I like it. I do understand enough of my own nature to know that on my own, I would NEVER chose God. He chose me.
Mal 1:2 “I have always loved you,” says the LORD. But you retort, “Really? How have You loved us?” And the LORD replies, “This is how I showed My love for you: I loved (chose)your ancestor Jacob,
Mal 1:3 but I rejected his brother, Esau, and devastated his hill country. I turned Esau’s inheritance into a desert for jackals.”
So, do we have free will or not? If you go to the Bible, the answer is as clear as mud. It is a mystery. But we don’t like that as it leaves us out of control. But one thing about a mystery, there is always more to learn.
hi anna..
thanks for that link - need a good chunk of quiet time for that.
AMDG
wasn’t it you that said B.I.B.L.E. that’s the book for me??
And I will say in return - you put a lot of your protestant eggs in one basket which just happened to be translated by the King’s loyal subjects, where their direction wasn’t necessarily the Holy Spirit but under the direct orders of that faithful Christian, Henry VIII.
Henry’s his Bibles were like his wives - “if you can’t be with the one you love then love the one you with.”
For the Greater Glory of God
it will, I hope, produce in you a salutary fear of the judgments of God.”
My response is fear is fear, you can’t make it comfortable, you can’t redefine it. I think the essence of fear is two things, 1) your life is in the balance, and 2) you are out of control in the situation. The plane drops 3,000 feet. Someone pulls out in front of you while you are traveling 70mph.
Now, we don’t want to live in fear of the Lord, but it doesn’t hurt to visit once in a while. Thinking about it should lead one to thinking about grace, on the other hand, thinking about grace should take us to visiting fear.
RC Sproul in one of his commentaries raised the question of “what are we saved from?” Most will say from hell, but it would appear the answer is from Gods wrath.
So we are saved from God by God, now there is something to think about and back to the cocoon I go..........................
Psa 147:11 No, the LORD’s delight is in those who FEAR Him, those who put their hope in His unfailing love.
Well, I can’t tell which poster was being *anti-Christian* towards children. I never saw anything like that.
You know what? Being Catholic does not by default mean being a Christian. Nor does being Christian by default mean being a Catholic.
Nor does being a Baptist by default mean being a Christian.
One is not a Christian based on denominational affiliation or membership, or even baptism. One is a Christian by being a follower of Christ, irrespective of denominational ties.
There are saved and unsaved in every denomination. Since denominations don’t save, that is not how one becomes a Christian.
Catholics are Catholics. Whether they’re Christians too, is a different matter. One does not become a Christian by following a church, but by following Christ.
If they are directed to God the Father in the name of Jesus, yes.
Thank you.
Which (Latin) is only contextually relevant if she believes Latin is the original language Lk, 1:28 was penned in, or definitive of what the Greek states, as what Lk, 1:28 states was the issue, but she gave no reason for invoking the "original Latin," thus my response opposing both possibilities.
Wycliffe's is a garbage translation.
And translates Lk. 1:28 as per the Vulgate. But regardless of your opinion, it is held as being the first English translation of the Bible, which had two versions, one more literal and the other more coherent, and others write that it contained no heterodox readings, and thus many Catholic commentators of the 15th and 16th centuries (such as Thomas More) took these manuscript English bibles to represent an anonymous earlier orthodox translation. But this is a side subject.
No one is called in the New Testament "κεχαριτωμενη" nor "κεχαριτωμενος".
Lk. 1:28 and Eph. 1:6 both have believers as being "charitoō" = "graced." Mary was indeed.
you are supporting Gregory as one (among others) that wrote under Divine inspiration as with the writers of Scripture.
Yes, however his texts are not canonical scripture.
Once again you are failing to address the difference.
Do you hold that Popes in speaking infallibly also do so [when inspired by the Holy Ghost?]
When a pope is speaking on faith and morals from the authority of the Petrine office, yes. When he chats with the reporters, for example, no. You did not know that?
Why are you acting insolently? You really think i distinctly said "Popes in speaking infallibly" because i think they do so always? But you add "when inspired by the Holy Ghost?" to my words when that is the issue.
Rather than avoid this, and answering my questions, tell us how Gregory and popes speaking infallibly (and i understand the criteria for such) are inspired by the Holy Ghost, so that God is the author of these infallible statements, if He is, and how this "dictation" is different from the Divine inspiration of Scripture.
For what is sufficiently clear is that you were objecting to what you called my opinions that nothing else that the prelates and doctors of the Holy Church wrote [besides Scripture] is inspired, or that specifically what they wrote in Latin is not inspired, which opinions you said was not the faith of the church. And in support of this inspiration of prelates and doctors you presented Gregory "writing as the Holy Spirit dictates to him," which is how Divine inspiration of Scripture is described in Roman Catholicism (if not mechanically).
variously interpreting Rome among themselves
Yes. Happens. But we know where the authority is and the Church being of living people we can ask for a definitive teaching.
Really? It seems the line is busy, as you do not even have a list of all infallible teachings (all encyclicals, all Bulls, etc.) or of what level each one falls under, and thus what degree of assent is required, and what, if any, dissent is allowed, let alone all what all these mean. Who will give you a clear definitive teaching that precludes interpretation?
Lacking such, site such as Catholic Answer abounds with questions and opinions about such, while Traditional Catholics make a good case of modern teaching contradicting previous official teaching, while I have RCs here denying standard Catholic works that I provide based on their own unsubstantiated opinions.
That is unlike Protestant charlatanism and "the Spirit tells me".
Which problem is simply taken to an institutional level with elitists sola ecclesia groups claiming they uniquely are led by the Spirit and possess assured veracity, and as if one cannot have assurance of Truth, and know what is of God without such, versus the magisterium being instrumental but not assuredly infallible, and Truth claims being established upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation.
Meanwhile, what Rome really believes is what she manifests by what she does (or fails to do) and effects, (Ja. 2:18; Mt. 7:16) and which is that of fostering an overall liberal majority whom she treat as members in life and in death, who are far less unified in basic beliefs than those who most strongly hold to Scripture literally being the word of God - even without a centralized universal magisterium. But which is getting off the main subject here.
Digging up an old one, at that....
That one doesn't seem to want to die.
So?
A Model T is garbage compared to a Taurus as well.
Likewise...
And I will say in return - you put a lot of your CATHOLIC eggs in one basket which just happened to be translated by the POPE's loyal subjects, where their direction wasn’t necessarily the Holy Spirit but under the direct orders of ....
2 Timothy 1:7
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear;
but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
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.