Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
| 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 |
Is this anymore than a statement of the purpose of the book: to persuade and/or confirm?
What is there to not understand about being ADEQUATE and EQUIPPED by having "the sacred writings"? All those extra accouterments just dull the effects of your primary equipment.
RobbyS, tell me this: What else do you NEED, which the holy writings lack?
Whoa, back up a bit. They didn't disagree. *Some* of them disagreed. It was shown here within the last 200 posts that a fair number of those you wish to call early fathers made specifice note of the natural kin of Jesus (Children of Mary and Joseph). So, it's not that they disagreed, The Catholic Church just seems to have decided to take sides with an idea that goes against what the scriptures tell us.
So, indeed, why would they lie? Why is it the scriptures and those who quoted and agree with them are wrong and the ones who agree with your doctrines are right? It's a rhetorical question - answer it to yourself.
Uuummm, to organize and fulfill the mission he gave his disciples---to go to all nations, making disciples, baptizing, and teaching them to observe ALL THAT HE COMMANDED THEM, perhaps? End of story.
When John, Mark, and Paul and the others wrote these books, they had no idea they would one day become as important to the New Testament church as the Old Testament scriptures had once been to those of the old covenant, they were simply writing down what they had witnessed and saw, under the direction of the Holy Spirit.
It wasn't until these epistles were collected and canonized that man was able to see that everything Christ had told us we needed to find salvation,.. was in these books, and along with that, how to live that Christian life.
That is why the apostles never said, "all religion will be based on these scriptures", because they didn't realize from their small part they played, that combined, it would contain everything we needed.
What has the RCC's added to their doctrine of salvation that was not obviously avaliable in the canon scripture?
RobbyS, tell me this: What else do you NEED, which the holy writings lack?
From JH
What has the RCC's added to their doctrine of salvation that was not obviously avaliable in the canon scripture?
Sometimes we Non's do think alike, huh?Lol (*g*)
So, I think we are in agreement here. The written Word is not "all" that God intended.
No, you are looking to a translation of Scripture
I find no reference to Mary as "full of grace" in any versions available to me except Douay-Rheims. Without exception, all modern versions, including the NAB, use different language.
The Latin Vulgate is the only authoritative translation for the whole Catholic Church. So, for me, what the NAB might say, insofar as it conflicts with the Vulgate, is irrelevant.
In regards to Protestant translations, is it not conceivable that the Protestant biases of the translators might influence their translations?
Once again, in my ignorance, I must look to Scripture. If you are more qualified than all modern authorities, so be it.
Sadly, I don't give a damn what St. Jerome says...
Considering that the Latin Vulgate, translated from the Greek and Hebrew by Jerome, was THE translation of Scripture used by the Western Church for the better part of a millennium, I think that it is unwise for you to just dismiss outright Jerome's translation.
I don't pretend to be more qualified than all modern authorities, I am only standing on the shoulders of giants and because of that, I'll take Jerome over any modern translator every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Pray for John Paul II
Did I miss something? why are you narrowing this down to John's writings?
No one man could have written the New Testament scripture and had any authority in it's valility, other then it was the writings and ideas of one man.
If Christ himself had written it, history would have thrown it out as unsupported facts.
It took all the writers, writing from different times and places, and prospective to make it a legally acceptable group of writings, showing the same results from many different angles, and the picture always comes out the same, only in 3 dimension.
According to Jeffrey A. Rydberg-Cox's, Overview of Greek Syntax:
Active Voice: The active voice denotes that the subject is the agent of an action.
Middle Voice: The middle voice denotes that the subject is both an agent of an action and somehow concerned with the action.
Passive Voice: The passive voice denotes that the subject is acted upon.
With that said, your comment that "No emphasis is placed on the character of the person visited; instead, the emphasis is on the disposition of the visitor." makes no sense. Mary is the subject acted upon by grace, not the Angel. In other words, the word kecharitomene is completely about Mary. She is the subject of the verb, not the Angel.
Pray for John Paul II
Hmmm, maybe. I responded to Old Reggie's #1635, who took a passage from John and asked "Does this indicate we need anything beyond what is written?" In turn, I asked "Does this indicate we need only what is written?" And you responded "Yes, it is all we need to find salvation."
...yes, and more often than not...It's just that we hardly ever discuss what we agree upon; we all seem to focus on our disagreements. Human nature? or a tactic of the enemy who wants to divide us?!!!
So, I think we are in agreement here. The written Word is not "all" that God intended.
Back up. As for the "ALL THAT HE COMMANDED THEM," the N.T. writers included all that we need to fulfill that mission in their writings to the various churches of the day. They didn't include the extraneous RC practices that we see today because......well, some are false and all are extraneous, IMO. 8 : )
That is what I said in Post 1651, "Mary is the subject acted upon by grace". It seems we are in agreement on this point. If I caused you confusion as to what I was saying, then I apologize.
The fact that kecharitomene is in the perfect tense, I think, is the rub. If you want to explore that aspect of the grammer with me, I would be more than happy to.
Pray for John Paul II
They were collected and canonized? What book is that in? Can you give me a reference?
The act of canonization itself is extra-scriptural (i.e. there is no "table of contents").
So your second question answers itself: What is one thing the Church has added that is not contained in the canon of Scripture? - The canon of Scripture.
Naw, your last sentence in 1651 threw me off: "She is the subject of the verb, not the Angel." She's the object of favor, or grace. At any rate, yes, we agree (?) that there was nothing in Mary which made her deserving of this privilege; the privilege of bearing the Son of God was a gift from God. Correct?
OK. You start. Tell me the significance of the perfect tense of this participle. (Note: I won't be at the computer for a couple of hours.)
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.