The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

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

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

It is becoming a minority position because too many people are wanting to the church to conform to the world's point of view instead of the other way around.

It is becoming a minority position because people don't know what the bible says now a days. They leave it to others to tell them, a result of people being told that scripture is too hard for lay people to understand:)

Becky

[al_c]

What do all you TNSers believe about Satan? Is he real? What is his nature? What power does have really have?

Thanks for doing the legwork, angelo. I knew that thread was out there, but I just didn't want to go diggin for it.

I believe Satan is real. His nature is sin. He's the ruler of this world and does his best to tempt us into becoming of this world. His powers, however, fall way short of the power of God and he will never overcome that.

[SoothingDave]

Many Protestants seem to think that the Catholic position is that Mary had somehow "earned" Christ by being the best person (works righteousness), or that we believe that she could have gotten to Heaven on her own (again because she was such a "good" person. Neither of the above is true (quasi-Catholic voodoo types in Brazil notwithstanding).

We believe that, or something similar, to be the Catholic position because Catholics keep telling us that she was born without a sin nature and that she ought to be "venerated" because of her lofty position as the "Mother of God" or "Queen of Heaven."

And we close our ears to their further explanations. Don't forget that. After seven months here there are still people who won't put 2 and 2 together to call Mary theotokos because of what they think it means, instead of what it actually means. Despite repeated clarifications.

SD

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Jesus is God

Mary is the Mother of Jesus

Answer the question.

I did answer it go back and read the post again. You just can't stand the idea your wrong.

Someone pee in your coffee this morning?

BigMack

[al_c]

Rom. 1:20

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

What's your point?

[OLD REGGIE]

It all follows logically from the concept of grace and what being "full of grace" means. This, of course, hinges on the Greek meaning of "kerichrom" of "kodachrome" or whatever word that is.

Why would it surprise me that you are as selective in choosing your Bible translations as you are in the teachings of the Early Church Fathers?

Do you deny the validity of the modern "Approved" NAB? You will not find "full of grace" in any modern translation. Why?

[SoothingDave]

I did answer it go back and read the post again. You just can't stand the idea your wrong.

Please tell me which statement, number 1 or number 2. Excuse me for looking for simplicity.

SD

[al_c]

Rom. 1:20 doesn't answer his question. Rom 2: 13-16 does.

Indeed, it does.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Rom. 1:20 God's creation reveals two things about Him: his eternal power and God head (GR. theiotes, "divine nature" "divinity") Creation reveals that God is powerful; hence, man is obligated to Him and the fact that He is God. Without excuse: No man is able to stand before God and say that he turned away from God because God did not give any light. All men have had the revelation of God; therefore, all men are accountable to Him.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Please tell me which statement, number 1 or number 2. Excuse me for looking for simplicity.

Dave your like a dog chasing his tale on this one, better give it up while your only a mile or so behind.

BigMack

[SoothingDave]

Do you deny the validity of the modern "Approved" NAB? You will not find "full of grace" in any modern translation. Why?

The NAB is notoriously crappy as a translation. That is, it is not a literal translation, but rather an "idea by idea" translation.

The point is that we are not to take a translation, any translation, and treat it as definitive, as authoritative, as the source for developing our own theology. It is the underlying original Latin which is authoritative. We have to trust the translators to get it right and sometimes they don't. Because they are going for "readability" or "modern idiom" instead of trying to relay subtle theological points found in the original tongue.

SD

[al_c]

It is becoming a minority position because people don't know what the bible says now a days. They leave it to others to tell them, a result of people being told that scripture is too hard for lay people to understand:)

The Catholic Church will probably be the last to ever allow female priests or deacons (but probably never will). Hmmm ... I guess the CC does know what the bible says afterall, doesn't it? ;o)

[JohnnyM]

Maybe I can clarify the viewpoints here. PNAMBC is not saying that Jesus was not God in the womb. She is saying that Jesus received his humanity from Mary and his divinity from the Holy Spirit at conception. When a baby is conceived it gets traits from both the father and the mother. So Jesus received His humanity (trait) from Mary and His divinity (trait) from the Holy Spirit. Jesus is 100% God and 100% man. He was 100% man and 100% God in Mary's womb as well, but He did not receive His divinity from Mary, but rather from the Holy Spirit. Receive here may not be the best term as it presupposes not having, but I hope you see what I am getting at.

JM

[the808bass]

I don't find this linguistic argument very compelling.

To be perfectly honest, I don't care if you do. I was merely correcting dignan3's post about the linguistics, the last sentence was just a "shot across the bow." No amount of wrangling will make Mary the one who deserved the favor she received. And if she didn't deserve it then, why does she deserve veneration now?

[SoothingDave]

Please tell me which statement, number 1 or number 2. Excuse me for looking for simplicity.

Dave your like a dog chasing his tale on this one, better give it up while your only a mile or so behind.

Why can't anybody answer this question? At least Becky had the honesty to say she agreed with both statements but didn't like the conclusion. What about you?

What about all you Protestants? Care to take on the Catholic teaching on Theotokos, or do you like cuddling with your straw men?

SD

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Wilma was the mother of Pebbles not Fred:)

Mary is the mother of Jesus not God.

[the808bass]

So Jesus received His humanity (trait) from Mary and His divinity (trait) from the Holy Spirit.M

I guess it's helpful on some level to try to rationalize as to how the incarnation took place. In the end, Jesus was fully God and fully man. I don't think you can make nice neat lines as to how that happened.

[al_c]

Based on the wording of your response, it seems you are saying that everyone, saved or unsaved, are in the Body of Christ. This is not correct.

That's my belief ... yes. But remember this, we were all "saved" the day He died for us on that cross.

Jesus did die for everyone, but only those who have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior are members of the Body of Christ, His Church.

At this point, I must again ask what of those who have never been exposed to any of this? Are they destined for eternal death?

[OLD REGGIE]

". . . For also JAMES, THE BROTHER, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, OF CHRIST OUR GOD, to whom the throne of the church of Jerusalem first was entrusted, and Basil, the Archbishop of the Church of Caesarea, whose glory has spread through all the world, when they delivered to us directions for the mystical sacrifice in writing, declared that the holy chalice is consecrated in the Divine Liturgy with water and wine. And the holy Fathers who assembled at Carthage provided in these express terms: "That in the holy Mysteries nothing besides the body and blood of the Lord be offered, as the Lord himself laid down, that is bread and wine mixed with water." Therefore if any bishop or presbyter shall not perform the holy action according to what has been handed down by the Apostles, and shall not offer the sacrifice with wine mixed with water, let him be deposed, as imperfectly shewing forth the mystery and innovating on the things which have been handed down"

(Philip Schaff, Ed., The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, Vol. 14; The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, The Canons of the Council in Trullo; Often Called The Quinisext Council, A.D. 692, Canon 32, p.716) (Emphasis not in original)
------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, it wasn't a valid council.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

theotokos

You may already have, but could you define this word?

Becky