Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
Jesus lived 33years and died
God is dead.
Maybe thats how Nietzche got there.
Maybe it is very important to keep one's relationship with Jesus and the angels and the saints in heaven and Mary,the Mother of God and the Holy Spirit and Satan and God,the Father,in the context of the worlds we live in,both the natural and the supernatural lest we forget. And in forgetting,man loses sight of the fact that Jesus came to bring us to the Father. Maybe that is why Jesus gave Peter the name,the keys and the promise. Maybe the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth does guide the Church and leads Her in ways inexplicable to us. Ways that ensure the faithful,or sheep,do not stray too far from God. I am just developing this idea because its clear that the West(Christendom) is just about to become totally secularized and many are trying to introduce a "spirituality" that is not of God.
So what do you think about that?
The point, I think, is that it gets rather frustrating seeing the same people, time and time again, build up the same giant strawmen, knock them down, and then think they have accomplished something.
SoothingDave has hit the nail on the head. If our Protestant brethren wish to deny the dogma of qeotokos as it was properly defined at the Council of Ephesus and thereby abandon the historic teaching of Christianity, fine. But that is not what they are doing. They are denying what they have built up in their minds that which has no basis in reality. In the process of these denials of their completely false understanding of the doctrine, they spout off one Christological heresy after another. It is that which truly grieves me the most.
For the edification of all those reading, I give you the teaching of the Council of Ephesus:
"This expression, however, "the Word was made flesh," can mean nothing else but that he partook of flesh and blood like to us; he made our body his own, and came forth man from a woman, not casting off his existence as God, or his generation of God the Father, but even in taking to himself flesh remaining what he was. This the declaration of the correct faith proclaims everywhere. This was the sentiment of the holy Fathers; therefore they ventured to call the holy Virgin, the Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word or his divinity had its beginning from the holy Virgin, but because of her was born that holy body with a rational soul, to which the Word being personally united is said to be born according to the flesh." (Second Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius - Approved by the Council of Ephesus)"1. If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (qeotokos), inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written, 'The Word was made flesh': let him be anathema." (Twelve Anathemas Proposed by Cyril and accepted by the Council of Ephesus)
Pray for John Paul II
I agree.
The RSV ( with the Apocrypha) was developed in cooperation with, and is approved by, the RCC.
And the RSV, Catholic edition, retains the traditional(1600 years old) translation. So I guess we do have a modern translation that renders kecharitomene as "full of grace"
The NAB is an Official, Approved, RC version. Is it not conceivable the Jerome version has RC biases?
First of all, the NAB is not the authoritative translation for the universal Catholic Church. Only the Vulgate is. For instance, the Pope doesn't quote from the NAB when he writes his encyclicals. Second, the NAB is a translation which uses so called "inclusive" language and dynamic equivalence as a translation method. For those reasons, I hold the NAB, as a whole, in rather low regard.
With Jerome, sure he had his biases for no translator works in a vacuum. But that would mean that the "Roman" Catholic Church was pretty well entrenched by the end of the 4th century; something some of our friends on your side of the aisle, and perhaps you(I don't know for sure), might not be willing to admit.
(Me)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.
What a surprise! You are part of a very small group; even within the RCC.
Since that small group includes the Pope, I think I'm in rather good company.
What a shock that you would prefer a version which has a few of the "magic" words so helpful to your case.
I prefer the Vulgate, not because of a few "magic" words, but because it has proven its worth through 1600 years of venerable service. If the NAB is still being used 1600 years from now, then you can give me a call.
Have you ever questioned why your Church found it necessary to correct the myriad errors contained in the Vulgate?
From what I have read, it was to employ textual criticism to the various MSS of the Vulgate to correct various errors which crept in through copyists and publishers over the years, nothing more.
Pray for the Vicar of Christ
No 808bass. No salvation for 808bass. Therefore I play a role in my own salvation.
Or let's take it the next logical step. No Mary. No Jesus. No monkeys in the graveyard on a cold dark night. (After all false hypotheses imply any conclusion)
Disregarding the specific issue in question, let me ask you this: are you saying that, in general, if something is not in scripture, then it is not true?
OK, I'm going to get into this game too:
God is eternal; He cannot die.
Jesus died.
Therefore, Jesus was not God.
OK, here is my proposed language which both sides should be able to agree on:
"Jesus, the son of Mary, is God".
It looks like this quote is from someone summarizing his letter. I'd suggest reading the original to see what he really says.
Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio
I believe that there is One Truth. For Faith to be true, it must point to that Truth. For Reason to be true, it must point to that Truth. Ultimately, therefore, faith and reason must be compatible. This does not mean that reason can prove to you everything that you know by faith.
Oh, but they did. They made very few of them and they are quite the collectors items, if you can find one. I've seen only one, and the idiot was actually using it as a truck ... hauling bags of cement and some lumber home from a lumber yard where I used to work. I'm searching the web for an image and I will post it when I find one.
Well, I guess we are all have hair triggers when it comes to our wives. Again, I meant no offense (frankly I presumed that for an ex-Catholic, not being a very good Catholic would be a good thing).
I believe that I have stated on more than one occasion that this is a failing of the Church, not of your wife or other similar ex-Catholics. If those posts were not addresses to you, I'll say it here again: If people come away from the Lenten celebration with the impression that it's just a bunch of rules to follow to avoid sinning and going to Hell, than the Church has failed that person, other Catholics have failed and the parents have failed (presuming they intended to raise their child Catholic - and don't go assuming that I'm insulting her parents. If you consider raising her Catholic a bad thing, than they did a good thing by that failure). I do disagree that Protestant churches are substantially different (as evidenced by that study that is being commented on here) but what good is there for us to argue that one church's failings are "less worse" than anothers. Collectively we are doing a lousy job. This is a challenge to the people on this board since I suspect that we generaly take our faith(s) more seriously than the average Christian and it is an indictment against us.
Also, you got into all this by defending the church when I said meatless Friday was a tradition with no Biblical backing, and a useless law, and that is still true.
I agreed that it is a tradition, and that there is certainly nothing in the Bible about meatless fridays (although I seem to remember something about not giving people of weaker faith a hard time about not eating meat :-)). I disagree that it is a useless law. We (I) spent too much of our days away from the things of God. I work in a bank and might go all day just doing my job. At least during Lent (or at other time of fasting) I have a continuing reminder of His sacrifice by this tiny little thing I do in rememberance. My quite times are wonderfull (except when the kids don't understand "quite" time), but I am more united to Christ by this simple rule. I think it is one of the Church's better ideas.
Now you're just putting words into my mouth.
The next logical conclusion of your way of thinking is to totally remove all evidence of God and of Christ. Burn all the Bibles. Tear down all the churches. Remove all the Christians. Totally remove all evidence of God and His Son.
Whatever.
Because, if you beleive that people who have never heard the good news, who have never had God revealed to them will go to heaven, then we should remove all evidence of His existence, so that all may share in the bounty of heaven. But you know that is clearly not the case.
Didn't He once say, when talking to a non-believer that knew Christ but didn't follow Him, that it would be better for those in Sodom and Gamorrah than for him because he had knowledge of Christ but chose not to follow?
The only to the Father is through His Son, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar.
When did I ever argue that point? Why do you limit the "through the Son" to a time period on this earth?
Have faith in the God that saved you from sin and death.
I do.
He says that no one has an excuse.
Explain Rom 2: 13-16.
So are you going to believe Him or the rationalization of man?
I'll believe Him, not the rationalization of JohhnyM.
Frankly, I have the seal of God, that I have eternal life, so going to hell is not an option for me or my wife
SD
You are acting as though the hierarchy came to the people and asked them if they would please fast from meat every Friday for a good cause, and they all said, we'd love to, and you know it didn't happen that way, you had the power to "bind and Loose", and it took you all those years to have mercy on your people, you should be ashamed of your selves, and that was exactly what Jesus meant when he told those who made the law, that put grievous burdens on the people then wouldn't use a finger to lift it off of them.
First of all, abstaining from meat one day a week is not exactly a "grievous burden." Anybody to whom it would be such is exempted by law (pregnant women, children, the old and infirm).
Secondly, in this rapidly secularizing culture the removal of a weekly reminder to folks that Jesus died for us in a way that had a real impact on peoples' lives is hadly showing them "mercy." If anything it leads to a weakening of the faith and contributes to the coming of the "post-Christian" era.
SD
Don't preach to us you hypocrite!
Hello, Big Mack! Are you really that surprised that the Pope is a Catholic? Don't you think we Catholics here all take our marching orders from the Vatican? Then why does the Pope making the same arguments we make startle you?
SD
There are no "uninformed" Protestants running around doing works? Are you sure about that?
(Oh, and who exactly does have a "false sense of security?")
SD
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.