Free Republic

OH YEAH I remember that story whoa

"Who is going to save our Church?
Not our bishops, not our priests and
religious. It is up to you, the people.
You have the minds, the eyes, the ears
to save the Church. Your mission
is to see that your priests act like priests,
your bishops, like bishops, and your
religious act like religious.”

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, before the
Knights of Columbus, June 1972.

If the material world is all there is, the bottom line is that your personal thoughts on how to live are no better, or no worse, than anyone else’s.

You may say that they are because more people tend to agree with you, that the advantages to living a certain way outweigh the disadvantages, or for whatever reasons you care to offer. That is only rationalization, not proof. They can also sit there and offer their rationalizations for the way they want to live. Whether or not it’s practical or the majority of people prefer one thing over another doesn’t automatically make one way ‘right’ or ‘moral’. If most people wanted to offer a sacrificial virgin to the volcano god, that doesn’t make it right or moral. Simply having a majority of people agreeing with each other doesn’t make things right or wrong, or moral. At best they can make things illegal or legal. But I would hope you know the difference between ‘legal’ and ‘moral’ and that quite often they aren’t the same.

There’s nothing you can offer to convince someone your way is morally better.

Second, God is the CREATOR of all. We were created by Him. He cannot murder. And as His creations, He may do as He wills. You cannot apply YOUR laws and morals to Him

Thanks, Blood of Tyrants! I don't know why you consider this a rebuttal. I am in complete agreement with you!

Oh, I see. You didn't read the whole post. Well, to be less long winded, it was entirely my point that one cannot question a moral standard when that standard is considered absolute, and all the more so when it is considered transcendent wrt the creaturely realm, i.e. when that standard is God.

He walked all over Judea too, Kosta mou! :)

But we don't say that either the Garden or Judea were bigger than the heavens because of it, Kolo mou. :)

Oh, by the way, I learned yesterday (to my disappointment) that the Feast of Dormition of the Theotokos goes back only to the 6th century...oh well. So, it's a 6th century innovation and I was told by many in the Church that it was one of the most "ancient" of liturgical feasts, going back tot he "very beginning."

I'll see your Butters and raise you..

Richard Dawson !

I don't have an "absolute" standard. Which is a good thing. Your "absolute standard" is God, in particular God's Will and Commandments. But as we have seen, God can, and has (at least according to authorities such as the Bible), and therefore may in principle once again, command things -- like genocide -- which are manifestly immoral by any objective (as opposed to "absolute") secular moral standard.

I don't need to read any further to rebut you. First, if you have absolute standard, the you are no better than Phillip Garrido who decided it was okay to kidnap an 11 year old girl and hold her as a sexual slave for 18 years. You just haven't decided to ignore the rules, yet. Second, God is the CREATOR of all. We were created by Him. He cannot murder. And as His creations, He may do as He wills. You cannot apply YOUR laws and morals to Him because you would think that YOU are fit to judge your Creator, and you are not.

yes

for my life, romans 8:28 is still operative. . .

or they bone up an be men... free men.

i am glad you found your way.

:-)

this nation was indeed founded in Christ, the Bible, and faith in the God of Scripture.

when it backslides from that, it is doomed. a nation without God is doomed.

obama, marxist muslim, leads the nation to the pit unless divine mercy intervenes.

From Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament:

His friends (oi par’ autou).
The phrase means literally “those from the side of him (Jesus).” It could mean another circle of disciples who had just arrived and who knew of the crowds and strain of the Galilean ministry who now come at this special juncture. But the idiom most likely means the kinspeople or family of Jesus as is common in the LXX. The fact that in verse 31 “his mother and his brothers” are expressly mentioned would indicate that they are “the friends” alluded to in verse 21. It is a mournful spectacle to think of the mother and brothers saying,

He is beside himself (exesth).
Second aorist active indicative intransitive. The same charge was brought against Paul (Acts 26:24; 2 Corinthians 5:13). We say that one is out of his head. Certainly Mary did not believe that Jesus was in the power of Beelzebub as the rabbis said already. The scribes from Jerusalem are trying to discount the power and prestige of Jesus (3:22). See on “Mt 9:32”-34; see also Matthew 10:25; see also Matthew 12:24 for Beelzebub and Beelzebul. Mary probably felt that Jesus was overwrought and wished to take him home out of the excitement and strain that he might get rest and proper food. See my The Mother of Jesus: Her Problems and Her Glory. The brothers did not as yet believe the pretensions and claims of Jesus (John 7:5). Herod Antipas will later consider Jesus as John the Baptist redivivus, the scribes treat him as under demonic possession, even the family and friends fear a disordered mind as a result of overstrain. It was a crucial moment for Jesus. His family or friends came to take him home, to lay hold of him (krathsai), forcibly if need be.

-— http://www.studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?book=mr&chapter=003&verse=021

in the battle of armageddon, the Christ will level to right and left, winning the fight with glorious victory. his redeemed and a host of angels will be with him.

obama thinks he has it all sewed up per his “I WON.”

he, above all mortals, will be stunned to the ground. of course, countless others will be there with him.

Christ is risen from the dead; those who know Him are the victors present and future tense.

America ans its success was founded in Christianity. What would a little boy who spent learning how to recite the Koran in Indonesia know about this?

As he said himself, if the winds of war turn ugly, he will stand with islam.

That also means that we are slowly fading into being instrumental in supporting and being subject to their cause.

Unwittingly and unknowingly the American people have slipped into bondage.

On the count of three you'll wake up refreshed, and all of the papacy's sad superstition and anti-Scriptural tyranny will just be a distant memory. One...two...three...

Another of the sad, dishonest, non-Christian parlor games of Orthodox Calvinism.

"Aren’t you getting a lttle personal there?" boatbums asked, as a preface to her groundless, vicious personal attack.

The following was posted to me in another thread, with emboldened emphasis upon the words, “for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”

But Christ said this. When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 16:14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

My friend, I think, wanted to insist that sometimes people pray a prayer to be saved, and then sometime afterward the Lord reveals to that one who He is. Well, of course, that has no Scriptural warrant since Calvary and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The whole passage in Matthew chapter 16 has to do with what we now call the Second Coming of Jesus Christ as Israel’s Messiah/King to establish the Millennial Church, the Church built on that Rock. There was never a preceding revelation of the Church which is the Body of Christ, and it is not revealed in Matthew 16.

ISRAEL, the head and not the tail (Deuteronomy 28:13) of the nations of the earth. That is the grandest subject of the whole Bible outside of Redemption of sinful man by the Blood of that same One Who will be the King and universal benevolent Dictator of the entire world for a 1,000 year period of time specifically spoken of in Revelation chapter 19.

This was the Gospel that the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb preached beginning in Matthew chapter 10; and not the Gospel of the Grace of God which we preach to a predominantly Gentile world today.

The Gospel of the Grace of God is based upon the death (for the sins of the world), burial, and resurrection (for our justification) (1 Corinthians 15:1-4; Romans 4:25). This was not preached by the Twelve at any time prior to Pentecost, and actually was not preached in its worldwide aspect until after the conversion and calling of the Apostle Paul. The ministry of the Twelve was restricted to THAT NATION ISRAEL through Acts chapter 7. Peter did not have any revelation from God to go to any Gentiles until Acts chapter 10, AFTER the conversion of the Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul.

During the earthly ministry of Christ, the understanding of death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ was hidden from the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb. They knew nothing of it, they didn’t understand, and it was hidden from them. (Luke 18:34).

The very first time our Lord brought up the issue of His ascent to Jerusalem to suffer (Matthew 16), Peter REBUKED Him and told Christ that these things would NOT happen to Him. This is the proof that the Gospel that the Apostles were sent to preach in Matthew chapter 10 did NOT concern the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ to make and end of sins and to justify the sinner. Thus, to my friend mentioned above, Matthew 16:17 has nothing at all to due with the sequence of New Testament salvation or the preaching of it.

“But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for HAD THEY KNOWN IT, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE CRUCIFIED THE LORD OF GLORY.” (1 Corinthians 2:7, 8)

If a Bible-believer studies the correspondence between the principalities and powers in the heavenly places with earthly human rulers, one can see who God intended to keep in the dark concerning the Cross of Calvary. God did not reveal to His own disciples the purposes of the Cross in order to prevent that knowledge being known to the devil’s angels. Had they known, they would not have taken part in hounding the unbelieving Jews into demanding from Rome’s henchmen the Crucifixion of the Lord of Glory. That Death is the defeat and destruction of Satan’s entire sphere.

The Gospel during the earthly ministry of the Lord was THE KING IS HERE. The Kingdom concerning that nation, Israel was at hand, and this was preached by John Baptist, the Twelve, the Seventy, and by Jesus Christ Himself. That is the subject of Matthew’s gospel, and that is the subject of Matthew chapter 16. Peter was given keys to a Kingdom which has no connection to the Church of the current dispensation; but to a Millennial Church.

The Second Coming of Jesus Christ, and the establishment of ISRAEL as the head and not the tail of the nations of this earth. This is coming soon, thank the Lord!

The establishment of that nation ISRAEL under her true King will not be with the permission of the United Nations Organization. It will be taken by force and violence carried out by armies from Heaven with Jesus Christ at the fore as their Commander. He will shed blood, He will smite and kill. That’s that soft babe on the front of your Christmas cards. He will take territory and never again allow it to be relinquished.

Watch how you deal with Israel. The King is watching and will judge accordingly. The UNO nor Obama understand anything about this.

I’m glad to hear this. She has always struck me as a good-headed, good-hearted, courageous woman.

I don’t think our Democrat controlled Congress will care too much - at least in public. And Obama (in public) will act as if he doesn’t know about it.

But the Dems in Congress are trying their dead level best to pass laws that are counter to what the authors and signers of this Manhattan Declaration have detailed.

Normal people in Congress (Dems are not acting normal these days) would react to the knowledge that 10 million people have just vowed in writing that they would not obey laws pending legislative action.

Members of Congress will not admit it in public - but in private it will be on their minds. They will hear about it - even at church.

But mostly it reflects voter sentiment - if 10 million people will sign it - another 10-20 million probably believe the same way and will be influenced.

Except for the extreme ideologs - members of Congress pay attention to trends in voter sentiment. A strong public display of voter resistance can and will have an effect.

OK, let’s say 10 million people sign the declaration from all walks of life. How’s that going to impact our laws anyway ?

They may have arrived and called for Jesus, but that doesn’t mean that they, too, thought He had lost his senses.

He calls her Woman for a very significant reason; literal, allegorical and analogical. Scripturally, Mary is recognized as His Mother, which cannot be denied. What He called her in the 30 “hidden years” we don’t know, there fore we can’t arbitrarily assume that He never called her mother. The absence of that proof does not make it a negative. Calling her Woman at His entry into public ministry and from the Cross has a much deeper significance.

I see you are using various commentaries.

The use of the word “hour” is also significant in ways literal, allegorical and anagogical. When Jesus uses the word “hour” in Scripture, it indicates His time of suffering; when He uses the word “day” it indicates His Victory.

I see that you refer to various commentaries.

So do I.

That they don’t agree is not surprising, but it does show, as other posts do here, that interpretations do differ and even with the very words of Scripture.

I can’t respond with numerous Biblical quotes and long references in response to your post. It’s just not my way to write on endlessly what could be tiring for anyone to read. (It’s like talking too much, too long or too loud).

I have expressed my belief in my previous post and that satisfies what I wanted to say.

I almost clicked on the link that would have taken me to "treehugger.com".
Whew! That was a close one!

The “Second” Coming of Christ to establish Israel as the head of the nations and not the tail . . . ah! The true meaning of “Christmas.” That was exactly what was announced surrounding His birth as God manifest in the flesh, and that is what many were awaiting. That was the purpose of John Baptist’s ministry, and that was the Good News (Gospel) that His apostles were sent to preach in Matthew chapter 10.

Christians today hardly give it a thought. Many must think He came to be a perpetual clay baby in a plastic manger.

I remember that Christ Hospital was where Jill Stanek saw the little baby aborted alive, and then left squirming and gasping until it died.

Correct. Jill Stanek and I are also members of the same Church. A nicer, more grounded woman in Christ you'd never meet in your lifetime.

“The most accurate translation of Jesus’ response is “Woman, what is to me is to thee”. (Woman in that time and culture was a term of respect). He then said, “My hour has not yet come”.

“What have I to do with thee? (Ti emoi kai soi;).
There are a number of examples of this ethical dative in the LXX (Judges 11:12; 2 Samuel 16:10; 1 Kings 17:18; 2 Kings 3:13; 2 Chronicles 35:21) and in the N.T. (Mark 1:24; 5:7; Matthew 8:29; 27:19; Luke 8:28). Some divergence of thought is usually indicated. Literally the phrase means, “What is it to me and to thee?” — Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament

And example of the ‘divergence’: “Just then there was a man in their synagogue with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, saying, “What business do we have with each other, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us?”

From Barnes:

What have I to do with thee? See Barnes “Matthew 8:29”. This expression is sometimes used to denote indignation or contempt. See Judges 11:12; 2 Samuel 16; 1 Kings 17:18. But it is not probable that it denoted either in this place; if it did, it was a mild reproof of Mary for attempting to control or direct him in his power of working miracles. Most of the ancients supposed this to be the intention of Jesus. The words sound to us harsh, but they might have been spoken in a tender manner, and not have been intended as a reproof. It is clear that he did not intend to refuse to provide wine, but only to delay it a little; and the design was, therefore, to compose the anxiety of Mary, and to prevent her being solicitous about it. It may, then, be thus expressed:

“My mother, be not anxious. To you and to me this should not be a matter of solicitude. The proper time of my interfering has not yet come. When that is come I will furnish a supply, and in the meantime neither you nor I should be solicitous.”

Thus understood, it is so far from being a harsh reproof, that it was a mild exhortation for her to dismiss her fears and to put proper trust in him.

From the NAB footnotes:

This verse may seek to show that Jesus did not work miracles to help his family and friends, as in the apocryphal gospels. Woman: a normal, polite form of address, but unattested in reference to one’s mother. John 19:26. How does your concern affect me?: literally, “What is this to me and to you?” - a Hebrew expression of either hostility (Judges 11:12; 2 Chron 35:21; 1 Kings 17:18) or denial of common interest (Hosea 14:9; 2 Kings 3:13). Cf Mark 1:24; 5:7 used by demons to Jesus.

For my own part, I fail to see any indication that ‘Woman’ is “a term of respect”, particularly towards one’s mother. However, Jesus never calls her “Mother”. Even at the Cross, He calls her ‘woman’, and then tells John, “Behold, your mother!”

You write, “I don’t see where you are seeing that she came to “fetch him (sic) because He is mad”. She knew better.”

I get it from Mark 3:21/31. “When His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, “He has lost His senses.”...Then His mother and His brothers arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him.”

I sympathize with your bronchitis, really I do. But if its foulness inspires such ardor, I would like you get reinfected— episodically. Occasionally. Mildly. Within reason. :o)

““...according to Catholic Popes, it was her HUSBAND that came upon them at Pentcost!”

The Catholic Church has never taught what you have said here.”

Actually, your Popes have called her “Spouse of the Holy Spirit”.

Pope John Paul 2:

“The Holy Spirit, which comes down upon Mary during the Annunciation, is the one who, in the Trinity’s relationship, expresses in his person the marital love of God, the “eternal” love. In that instant he is in a special way God-the Spouse. . . . For this reason, especially since St Francis of Assisi’s time, the Church calls her ‘the spouse of the Holy Spirit.’ Only this perfect marital love, deeply rooted in her total virginal self-gift to God, could have brought it about that Mary became the “Mother of God” in a conscious and worthy fashion, through the mystery of the Incarnation.” In the Encyclical Redemptoris Mater I wrote: ‘The Holy Spirit had already come down upon her, and she became his faithful spouse at the Annunciation.’” (http://www.miraclerosarymission.org/hs130.htm).

“Let us turn our gaze to Mary, Christ’s first disciple, Spouse of the Holy Spirit and Mother of the Church, who was with the Apostles at the first Pentecost, so that she will help us to learn from her fiat docility to the voice of the Spirit” (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/laity/documents/rc_pc_laity_doc_27051998_movements-speech-hf_en.html).

“But, Kolo, by that logic we can say that the Garden of Eden was broader than the heavens, because God walked in it. “

He walked all over Judea too, Kosta mou! :)

“All things considered, I think it is pretty obvious that both the Trinitarian naturen of God and who is Mary had not been settled or believed uniformly for at least the first 300 years of Christianity, but gradually “evolved.””

The Church doesn’t say, Kosta mou, that these beliefs were uniform. It says they were believed always and everywhere (the Church was). I do believe that these beliefs spread and were certainly very widespread by the early 2nd century since we have the Protoevangelium of James then relating what seems to be an established, well developed oral tradition.

The earliest Fathers, and to some extent even the Post Nicene Fathers, were concerned with the development and spread of The Faith and the preservation of its orthodoxy against heretics. The role of Panagia in all of that, aside from the importance of establishing her as the Theotokos which, I submit, the NT does, is limited. So far as I can see, they had “bigger fish to fry”. After, say, the 3rd century, her role as an example, especially in comparison to Eve, grew. She, like the saints, points the way to Christ. At any rate, the fact that the Ante Nicene Fathers speak very little about her to me means nothing. Neither she nor beliefs about her were the source of heresy in the early Church. Its only since the past 200 years or so that that has cropped up.

“Monks who see into people’s souls and monks who are in two places at once?”

Absolutely serious. “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

lol... yo... don't leave reality out when your watching politics or playing “religion” like Jesse Jackson does.. you might know the truth of it alland it might set you free. (John 3:18-21)

I can’t believe they didn’t interpret it as a sign from God that they should NOT do what they did anyway