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

[RobbyS]

And we all wonder why catholics have so much trouble with the simple Word of God. :) And we see why Protestants amd others steeped in the Reformers theories cannot see that the search for a "primitive" Christianity "uncorrupted" by history is doomed to failure because such a Christianity is only imperfectly captured in the New Testament. After disposing of a thousdand years or more of Tradition, they were obliged to create a new one based on their own reconstruction of the past. If Catholics saw Peter with a triple crown on his head, leading a band of Apostle-bishops and a ready-made priesthood under their direct rule, Protestants(generally) saw Paul as the only Apostle really worth listening to and the Early Church as like the establishments spontaneously created by 15th Century scholars and Burgers and artisans unrestrained by the bishops and priests. As though Jerusalem in the First Century bore any resemblence to the Geneva!

[malakhi]

Hi Titanites, thanks for jumping in here. Feel free to stick around! New posters are always welcome.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

15th Century scholars and Burgers

Was that the drive in burger place where all the cool kids went?

[Titanites]

"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?" (Mt. 13:55-56).

Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children. (Matthew 27:56)

Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the [wife] of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. (John 19:25)

There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome (Mark 15:40)

15 Matthew and Thomas, James the [son] of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes, 16 And Judas [the brother] of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor. (Luke 6:15-16)

I've seen the case made that Celophas and Alphaeus are the same person by the fact that the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas. So although James and Joses are the sons of Mary, it is a Mary other than the Virgin Mary (her sister), and one who is married to Cleophas. Also, James and Judas are shown to be the sons of Alphaeus (Cleophas). Therefore, I'd be reluctant to count James, Joses and Judas as blood brothers to Jesus. Which reduces the 500+ brethren somewhat.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Its a duck, no its not a duck, but it walks like a duck, no it does not walk like a duck, it quacks like a duck, no it does not quack like a duck, its a duck, no its not a duck.

BigMack

[Titanites]

A well thought out reply, for you.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Thank you.

[RobbyS]

In modern times they read the New Testament to suit the people in the 'burbs. So so I call these people in the mega-Chuches, "Burbers" is it "Berbers, like the carpet onside?

[hopefulpilgrim]

You guys always want to have it both ways. Does your body ever hurt from the constant contortions you go through?

nah...'cos they practice the Limbo a lot......(ooooh, was that bad?)

[hopefulpilgrim]

Mary was very busy and had a lot more than these few children, didn't she? "After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once... "(1Cor 15:6).... And that doesn't even include all his sisters.

Now THAT is funny!

[IMRight]

"What was all that gibberish you posted about? I could not recognize a response to anything that I have posted - although you addressed it to me. Don't bother trying to rephrase it.

That's OK. I didn't expect you to see the connection (no offense intended). I just felt it was rude to comment "behind your back" if you will. This new "self search" option makes it easy to miss related posts that are not directed to us (accepting that you don't view it as related)

Anyone that might think Baptists would accept or agree to "infant baptism" is truly ignorant. Thousands of Baptists (Anabaptists and other Baptists by other names) have been martyred for resisting this heresy. Independent Baptists believe in Scriptural baptism of Believers, as did ALL early Christians, and NOT infant baptism. This website clearly explains why.

Believe me. I'm well aware of Baptists views on infant baptism (I married one and have attended a similar church for almost a decade now - similar that is, to Southern Baptists. Your church seems slightly more...fringe).

I did not read through the whole site (you do an adequate job of explaining their views). I was merely pointing out that Calvin ang historical Calvinists would not have identified with your church in the slightest (yet you identify with him). He was, in fact, one of the main reasons so many were "martyred for resisting this heresy". You are also at odds with virtually every major Protestant denomination.

I would have liked an explanation on one point: You mention much earlier references to "Anabaptists" as your historical forbearers (and I have recently been educated on some very early Anabaptists - most historical texts refer to them solely as part of the radical-reformers part of history). If you were there first... Why did you call yourselves "anabaptists". Who were you re-baptizing? And who had performed the original (presumably infant) baptism that was invalid?

Take your time. I'm out all day.

[Havoc]

English! Oh, that's my problem, I've been reading the oldest extant versions of the Holy Scriptures, the ones in Greek. Gee, isn't it wonderful God corrected those errors when the Bible got translated into English. Fancy that He didn't mean eidolon or homoioma, he meant eikon, which are all radically distinct notions in Greek, and finally got it straightened out when it was translated into English. Gee, we're so lucky to be living now. All those supposely holy folk before the 1600's are damned because they based they're doctrines on a faulty text. /sarcasm

Ooh we are dense aren't we. English, the language in which we are communicating. The language which you feel free to butcher retro to your butchery of word use in greek and hebrew. Or, praytell, would you wish to make the argument that we are conversing in Aramaic and no one realized it but you in the midst of all the confusion - what with Catholic answers firing salvos on it's own beliefs and all.. LOL.

[Havoc]

Not just images of people, but images of anything can be objects of great adoration.

Oh, no kidding Dave? I had absolutely no Idea. LOL. I mean I'm just a mere artist here, and art isn't *just* an ability to draw, sculpt or create. Art requires in the nature of the person: perception, feeling and understanding.

How do you do your art? What is an acceptable subject?

I usually do my art sitting down - it's more relaxing that way. As for subjects - Get your own ideas.

[Havoc]

I'm not dumb. But you don't recognize that God does indeed use matter.

The things used of Christ were commonalities - things that were practiced of the Lord prior (the oil use), things used before in creation *(the dirt), and finally, the cloak of Jesus which bore no power, it merely clothed him that had the power. Crosses have no power, not even with prayer. Candles have no power - even with prayer. Little wax impressions and the like have no power. God's power resides with him - not a man. God's power is release of Him and in His direction and Will. Wizards and Witches 'enchant' items by attaching demons to them through incantations (requests of the demons to do as they are bid). God does not work in this way. Jesus didn't bless the dirt and heal the man with dirt. He didn't bless the robe and heal anyone with the robe. He didn't bless anything and use it to heal with. He called upon the power of His Father, who's will He worked, and healed directly.

You're 'enchantment' of relics is witchcraft.

[Havoc]

Actually, it was the woman's faith.

Thank you al_c. That is the other half of the equation. The first half is the power of God working to finish faith. The clothe had zero to do with it.

[Titanites]

How do you do your art? What is an acceptable subject?

I usually do my art sitting down - it's more relaxing that way. As for subjects - Get your own ideas.

I don't think SD is the only one here having trouble understanding your logic. I'm a little bumfuzzled, too, and can't understand why you are afraid to explain. How can you be the artist you claim to be and not make an image of something in Heaven, on Earth, or in the seas?

[Titanites]

The inside of a black hole possibly doesn't reside in our heavens. Maybe you could specialize.

[SoothingDave]

If it hurts you know you are not saved.

I'll pretend I didn't hear that.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Reggie, please clear this up for me, did allend actually give you a link that proves the Catholics know Mary had children after Jesus by their own CE website?

You people all amuse me. You can't even read a simple article for comprehension, then you claim it attacks our own position then guffaw over our "stupidity."

If you people insist on being this dense I'm afraid we'll have to stop. What in the world is so hard to understand about the idea of a language/culture which lacks a specific word to refer to closely related family members who are not actual "from the same womb" brothers and sisters? Well? Do any of the Protestants here even have any idea what I am talking about? Can any of you actually paraphrase the Catholic argument given in the article?

What in the world is so hard about understanding that the word "Brother" could mean either a person from the same set of parents OR could generically mean "kin"?

What in the world is so hard to understand about this statement you people are all gloating about, naming Jesus' "brothers"? Can any of you understand the argument that other sections of Scripture give the parentage of these alleged "brothers" of Jesus? And it isn't the Virgin Mary? So we know for a fact they are not co-uteral brothers?

Anybody?

SD

[Titanites]

Can any of you understand the argument that other sections of Scripture give the parentage of these alleged "brothers" of Jesus? And it isn't the Virgin Mary? So we know for a fact they are not co-uteral brothers?

Careful, SD. Once you start to demonstrate this fact, all you'll get in response is a bunch of duck talk. Payno likes to extract one little piece of Scripture to make his point, at the exclusion of the context from the whole. And once confronted, he quacks out.