Posted on 09/28/2001 1:15:53 PM PDT by malakhi
| "I have seen in the last week much ugly use of religion for chest thumping and blaming 'ragheads' and even blaming our decadence for the events of the last week. I would rather that we continue here, respectful of our unity in citizenship, in displaying how religion can be talked about without veering off into ugliness." (SoothingDave, 9/19/01) |
| Threads 1-50 | Threads 51-100 | Threads 101-150 |
Have a great weekend!
Uh oh, conspiracy nut
My dear brother in Christ, you are the only conspiracy nut participating. This little gem you offered, without any substantiation, is from Thread 001:377
The Catholic system is the only side that might truly benefit from such an exchange as they are still actively using the office of inquisition as a social monitoring tool through the Jesuit order. This is no secret either. They have actively gathered information on religious alignment of all citizens they can establish such information on around the world.Rather amusing if you ask me. Do you still stand by your assertion? I know that the Jesuits are like the boogeyman to people like you and would sincerely like to know if you have any other information on what those rascally Jesuits are up to.
Personally, my all-time favorite Jesuit conspiracy is that the Jesuits have infiltrated the highest levels of government and academia and are just waiting for the Pope to give the OK to overtly take over the country.
Pray for the Vicar of Christ
Why are you bringing the Mormons into this? (That is, are you from that background or something?)
I fear you are starting off with the wrong terminology, so I will correct you gently. The Immaculate Conception is indeed a Catholic only belief. But you are not talking about the Immaculate Conception.
You are talking about the Virgin Birth, how Jesus came to be in Mary's womb without her having sex. How Mary came to bear the Son of God, how she was "overshadowed by the Holy Spirit" and found herself pregnant.
The Immaculate Conception refers to something else completely, the conception of Mary in her mother (St. Anne)'s womb.
Back to our story
The Mormons if I remember right claim that Joseph is the father of Christ by way of the flesh but God is father by way of the spirit. Why does both Matthew (1.1) and Luke (3.23) trace Christ genealogy through Joseph back to King David unless both assumed Joseph to be the father?
The Mormon's claim many things which fall outside of what is generally accepted as "small o" orthodox Christianity.
Joseph is the adopted father of Jesus, raised as his own. Joseph made absolutely no genetic or otherwise contribution to the creation of Jesus in the womb. He served as father of the boy from birth to death.
If Joseph was not the father then it would seem that Jesus does not fulfil biblical prophecy of the Messiah being a descendant of David because the ancient Hebrews did not recognize the maternal genetic contribution of the women and no mention of Mary’s lineage is given.
This is the argument our Jewish friend likes to make to us to dispute the entire idea of Jesus being both messiah and Son of God. We Christians just accept the heritage through the adopted father Joseph.
The only reference I find to the idea of Immaculate Conception is Matthew (1.18). My Revised Standard Version says that after Joseph and Mary were betrothed but before they came together Mary was found to be with child. Which could be interpreted as before Joseph and Mary started to live together but not necessarily before they had sex, although their act would have been a sin and caused Joseph the shame described.
If you read Matthew 1:25 you see that Joseph "knew her not" till she had given birth. This is the clearest statement of the Virgin Birth. Joseph's shame was that he would be accused of fornication (if he did it) or that he selected a woman of loose morals (if she was sleeping around) for his betrothed.
SD
Becky
Didn’t figure you would. It would have to be someone after Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, or Wesley.
Sorry, don't idolize church fathers the way you guys do so haven't been on the lookout for much of the "who believed what and when stuff".
Matthew must have been a protestant. He said it. But I doubt he was around in the 17th century.
Matthew was not a Protestant and there is no debate on what he said. It’s the interpretation.
Believe me, I'm not the one debating what he said.
Yes. Because He obviously has. Duh.
So the promise of Christ to protect his church wasn’t to be in effect until after the reformation? I can’t believe that since Christ said he is the way, the truth and the life. It is inconceivable he would allow error to be taught in his church.
He isn't allowing the error to be taught in your perefect church. Really shouldn't blame him.
You assume the catholic church is the only one. I don't. He's certainly protected me and others from that heresy. So I guess he's protected part of His church.
Beginning when and what church is he protecting?
You're asking me? You answered this for both of us in your previous post. Remember? You part of the church. Me not.
If you can answer this it will provide the answer of who first interpreted Matthew the way you do.
I have a hunch that Matthew would be extememly disappointed in the way your church has twisted the Lord's words thru him.
What, only a hunch? I thought you Proddies had the infallible ability to read the thoughts of a 1st Century Jew about whom we knew next to nothing just by reading a Greek translation of his original work.
The translation doesn't matter. It reads the same in context in everyone of them. Thanx for asking. Join in again when you feel threatened.
You really don't understand the idea of an infallible Church. You might as well ask what I would do if tomorrow the Church announced that this "Jesus thing" was just a lark. "Everyone go back to being Jews." Won't happen. Can't happen. Try to understand that for a minute. SD
------------------------------------------------------------
The "infallible Church" has never declared "infallibly" that women cannot be ordained. There are very, very few "infallible" declarations.
Can happen. May happen.
Married clergy: Can happen. Will probably happen.
There is no biblical prohibition to women clergy. It is nothing but "tradition".
I wonder how you view the fact that Peter is mentioned 191 times in the New Testament and the other 11 combined, a total of just 130 times. I think there is a message there,don't you? Furthermore, Peter is virtually always listed first, I think that is quite significant, don't you? If not, why not? I'd be very interested in your opinion. Thankyou.
The message is; Peter was very important and probably a leader. Even first among equals if there is such a thing.
On the other hand, Peter never rebuked another Apostle, yet Paul soundly rebuked Peter. Would he dare to rebuke the Pope?
Except that ypu are the one who is supplying the context. Never mind, Luther was under the same delusion-- that he could read the minds of people who had been dead 1400 years without deferring to what anyone else had said during that time.
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.