The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 139

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

[malakhi]

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

Threads 1-99

Thread 100	Thread 101	Thread 102	Thread 103	Thread 104	Thread 105	Thread 106	Thread 107
Thread 108	Thread 109	Thread 110	Thread 111	Thread 112	Thread 113	Thread 114	Thread 115
Thread 116	Thread 117	Thread 118	Thread 119	Thread 120	Thread 121	Thread 122	Thread 123
Thread 124	Thread 125	Thread 126	Thread 127	Thread 128	Thread 129	Thread 130	Thread 131
Thread 132	Thread 133	Thread 134	Thread 135	Thread 136	Thread 137

The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 138

[RobbyS]

Posit: Jesus did not have to die and his death was the reductio ad absurdum of the sacrifices of his own people.

[SoothingDave]

They're probably pre-cooked, steamed most likely. Sometimes we boil the brats in beer before putting them on the grill and they turn that nasty grey color. But they still taste great. As a dislocated cheesehead, I feel qualified to chime in on this topic.

Thank you. I do recall the "boiling in beer" bit, I just didn't put 2 and 2 together. I'll admit that waiting 20-25 minutes for the regular ones to cook seems excessive. Kielbasa is smoked, hence pre-cooked, so you only need a few minutes to char it up on the grill. That's less time to drink beer and get distracted and forget about them. Very important for tailgating. :-)

SD

[D-fendr]

"Why do you think Jesus said on the cross "Father why hast thou forsaken me."

Another explanation offered is that he was reciting a psalm as prayer (remember?), and that his hearers would know it by its first line.

In this case it is Psalm 22, which is quite interesting to read with this in mind.

[D-fendr]

On your chart: I realize and use "convert" as a description, but I don't consider joining the church as a conversion, converting from one thing to another, but as a choice or continuation in the direction or following where I was led. It was not going from one thing to a different thing, converting in that sense. I didn't choose to stop one thing and substitute another in its place.

[AlguyA]

"That is a love that is hard to imagine for me, being a mother. I could not let my son die for a bunch of slime balls, like God did for us. Could you?"

I'm not sure I can answer your question. But one thing I do know. Mary did. Mary let Her Son die for a bunch of slimeballs. This is precisely why Catholics honor her so.

[trad_anglican]

Jesus did not have to die

Could be true in the cosmic sense, but then there wouldn't have been a Jesus at all, as the "other method" would have been in play. Once there was a Jesus, He had to die.

[AlguyA]

Thanks for the kind words.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

You guys arent going to believe this. I just answered some silly trivia question on a radio station and won 2 tickets to the Monday Night game between the Giants and Broncos. Praise the Lord.

[gracebeliever]

This is exactly what I have been asking here for the last two days about the misunderstanding that surrounds the issue of rather or not catholics worship Mary. Everyone here says they don't, but the actions of the church suggest otherwise. If Mary is not to be worshipped why doesn't the church come out ans say so plainly instead of using words like venerate in the catechism, which is very close to the same thing as worship. It is such a common illuison among people that I would think the church would want to clear it up. Since they don't I can only surmise that worshipping Mary is what they intended to begen with but the people here just don't go along with it.

Becky,

Part of the issue is the RCC defends veneration in the abstract, but what we see is concrete. People bow in obeisance, or out of respect, and people kneel in fealty. Yet we are told that kneeling to Mary or the saints is out of respect not out of fealty. At the same time, the bowing to God and kneeling to God is out of fealty and worship. Go figure!

The praying to, seeking the intervention of, the crying, the reliance on for favor, the treks to shrines for healing and for blessing, etc., are all indications of worship. Somehow these actions and behaviors are justified as being acts of veneration. That's really hair-splitting.

The challenge we have in our faith is that we cannot see the object of our faith. Of course, that's why we have to have and live by faith. We do not have signs and miracles and visitations and visions and any other type of visible manifestation today. As a result, people want something they can touch, feel and embrace. That's exactly what happened at Sinai when Moses stayed for a while on the mount and the people made the golden calf. Today we have statues, icons, shrines, images, and the like to give people something tangible. Unfortunately, these are worshipped rather God, just like in Romans 1 where they "worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever." Or should I say they "venerated" the creature more than the Creator.

[D-fendr]

I would modify that. The divine incarnate as man will be killed. Man has this reaction to pure truth lived.

Jesus did not have to die, unless he chose to remain true. And, as a man, this took great courage, faith and compassion. Compassion… It is useful, I think, to think about His sacrifice as out of compassion for others, even those who mocked him.

Without this great measure of compassion, He could have run away, could have just left, or looked for a more friendly environment; but, in the end the result would have been the same, if he remained true they would be angry at him, mock him, punish him and kill Him. Just as they would today.

[SoothingDave]

I just answered some silly trivia question on a radio station and won 2 tickets to the Monday Night game between the Giants and Broncos. Praise the Lord.

Cool. You lucky dog. First real game in the new stadium. I'd start looking for parking now. It's never too early to tailgate.

SD

[malakhi]

MOVE
TO
THREAD 140!!!

At your own pace...

[SoothingDave]

And also this Jesus would have immortality without sin. So He could have just lived on earth from His birth till forever. It is a much more dramatic moment to die and to shake it off. Teaches the lesson about not being afraid of death that we to this day shirk from truly understanding.

SD

[trad_anglican]

Jesus did not have to die, unless he chose to remain true. And, as a man, this took great courage, faith and compassion. Compassion… It is useful, I think, to think about His sacrifice as out of compassion for others, even those who mocked him.

I agree. That is why I referred to His sacrifice as the supreme act of love. I didn't mean to imply that Jesus had no choice.

[SoothingDave]

The praying to, seeking the intervention of, the crying, the reliance on for favor, the treks to shrines for healing and for blessing, etc., are all indications of worship. Somehow these actions and behaviors are justified as being acts of veneration. That's really hair-splitting.

It is "hair splitting" to you because you are blind to the True Worship, the Only Acceptable Sacrifice, which we give to the Father and Him alone.

As you do not have this to offer, all related activities we use to honor Saints are the same thing you offer to God. So you think we are being clever or deceitful, or "word splitting." We are merely using two different words to explain our truly different two different activities.

The challenge we have in our faith is that we cannot see the object of our faith. Of course, that's why we have to have and live by faith. We do not have signs and miracles and visitations and visions and any other type of visible manifestation today. As a result, people want something they can touch, feel and embrace.

How sad that your God doesn't work in this world any more. No miracles, no signs. And how cruel of him to make a people who long for signs and long to touch and feel and smell and taste. And then give us nothing to satisfy these desires.

SD

[the808bass]

all the elements of catholicity

As you evidently noticed, catholicity looks a lot like your church name, Catholic. They are not, however, the same. Thought you'd want to know.

My soul magnifies (brings closer) The Lord..." Mary: Luke 1

While magnify can mean to make something to appear closer or larger, in this case magnify is used in a different sense. In this case, glorify or exalt would be better ways to understand the word that some translations use. At no time (except in the CGTGOC Bible) does the word megalunw mean "to bring closer." (Perseus)

[al_c]

Congrats, Steven! Have fun at the game.

BTW ... what was the trivia question?

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Here is Becky's solution to the contradiction: Acts says "they" -the rulers in Jerusalem- laid Jesus in His tomb. Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin who were the 'rulers of Jerusalem' ipso facto it was 'they' who laid Him in His tomb.

First, this is very deep. I see your points, (1)we all have a responsiblty for Jesus' death (2)Pilate is as much to blame as the Jews. Some times after being shown something like this I wonder just how spiritual I am because I take things so much at face value, and very seldom on my own get past that:)

Any way a few points I want to make now. I am going to read through this several more times, not to just pick it apart:) but because it is very deep. But these are my first thoughts. When you say " here is the solution to the contradiction", it makes it sound as if there is a contradiction to solve. There is NO contradiction. Acts 13:27 does not say "the rulers of Jerusalem" It says "For they that dwell at Jersualem, and thier rulers." In context he was speaking of Jews so it is not even an assumption, that he is still speaking of Jews. It's very clear that is who is referring too.

When you say Joseph was acting on behest of the Jews so taking away the love of his act, that is wrong. When you read all the accounts in the gospels, especially in Luke 23:51, it clearly shows Joseph did it because of his love and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. He was probably in a certain amount of danger from the Sanhedrin becasue of it. But because he was a Sanhedrin he could go to Pilate and beg for the body so he used his postion to do that.

The whole focus of Pauls teachings in Acts anyway is on the fulfillment of the resurecction. Not the burial.

On the whole you make some very good points, but I don't think we should label anything in God's Word as a contradiction that needs US to figure out the solution for. That is opening the door for doubt to set in or for people who are not believers to use against someone trying to win them to Christ.

Becky

[AlguyA]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Actually, I never would have thought much deeper about this except someone brought it to my attention a few years ago.

Now, as to your response:

"but I don't think we should label anything in God's Word as a contradiction that needs US to figure out the solution for."

In one sense I agree. Indeed, I'm sorry if a sloppily referred to this as just 'a contradiction.' Most of the time I tried to get across the notion it is only a 'seeming contradiction.' In other words, it only seems to be a contradiction but isn't.

With respect to the need for US to figure it out, well, I'm afraid here I have to disagree. Occasionally I will find something in reading scripture which seems to be a contradiction and I do have to stop and figure it out, I have to find 'the solution.' First, because, well, I'm human and I like to find answers. And second so that when someone asks me about it,(as angelo did) I have an answer.

"When you read all the accounts in the gospels, especially in Luke 23:51, it clearly shows Joseph did it because of his love and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ."

Yes, that's sort of my point. If we take Paul's account only, it makes it sound like 'the people who had Jesus killed, the Jews, were the one's who buried Jesus.' That would make Joseph, one of the Jews, one of the ones who had Jesus killed. Thus denying the reality he loved Jesus.

Again, thanks for your thoughtful post.

[RobbyS]

He came unto his own , and his own received him not.

The words suggest that the Jews--and by extension,we--could have chosen to accept him for what he was. Instead Jews and Gentiles collaborated in his death.