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 |
Well. If you believe that then whats all this stuff about the immaculate conception? Where Mary was born without sin?
DouglasKC If Elijah ascended in a whirlwind to the same heaven Jesus came from, then that means Jesus either didn't know about it, or is a liar. Neither of these possibitlies is likely. So therefore Elijah didn't ascend to THE heaven.
True, he did go upto "heaven" in a whirlwind (2 Kings 2:11), but it seems to me that "heaven" was the heaven of the skies, the atmosphere...he just got carried to a different place far away where he couldn't be found. The proof of this is in 2 Chronicles 21:12. Years after Elijah was carried away by the whirlwind, who does Jehoram get a letter from? Elijah the prophet.
LOL. "Heaven" doesn't mean "heaven" now? I love it. When Catholics do this kind of "deconstruction" of the text, we get called for "Spinning." Anybody out there agree?
Havoc: Incredibly good point.
Of course. Everybody come see Havoc spinning the plain meaning of Scripture.
SD
"I returned and saw that under the sun, that the touchdown is not to the swift, nor the battle along the line to the strong, nor another's lunch to the wise, nor the win to men with the right game plan, nor the close calls to the best players, but fumbles and interceptions and the clock happeneth to them all." [WKV Ecclesiastes 9:11]
As you know SD, this is at best inaccurate and at worst, coming close to mocking what Christ did at The Last Supper. There are very clear conditions on when Holy Communion may be distributed without a Priest present, but these are very clearly spelled out. As far as the Priest being able to perform "magic", that is false and is degrading to Christ, from my perspective.
Don't tell me. These are Havoc's words. I don't know why you think they are mine.
SD
Some NC's claim a descendency from the earliest Christian Church. Do you reject their claims simply for lack of documentation?
I would like to be pinged on the answer to this one.
A good question. The difference is that Catholics have a history that is continuous, at least back into the first few centuries.
The history of the Baptists can only be traced back to shortly before the Reformation.
If you can not see the 1000 year or so gap in Baptist history and how this differs from gaps in antiquity, I am sorry.
SD
Was Peter rebuked for what he was teaching or what he was doing?
Distinction without a difference. Theology is by nature practical. If we make a strict division of "doctrine" and "actions" we are missing the point of the Gospel. Right theology doesn't save any more than right actions. If this doesn't make sense, I can try to clarify my thoughts on the matter.
Excuse me? Are you saying that Truth can not be told of, even if in practice we can't live up to it? A man who commits adultery can know that it is wrong and can preach against it. Man's words will never live up to his ideals, but that does not mean that ideal should be abandoned?
SD
Wether your word comes out "highly favored" or "full of grace" the word among, IMO, shows that Mary was a normal human as any other women. If Mary was "sinless" as catholics believe the verse would have read "blessed art thou "above" women. But it says "blessed art thou among women." Among, same as the rest.
And we do believe that Mary was a normal human as much as any other woman.
We don't teach that her sinlessness made her other than human (a goddess, for example) nor do we teach that it was anything other than a special favor of God's. So we would not boast of Mary being "above" women.
SD
It is true that Rome does not officially recognize Anglican orders, but this has nothing to do with the papacy. And they do not question the validity of the Eucharist in Orthodox churches. The doctrine of the Eucharist has nothing to do with Peter and the papacy. The doctrine has clear scriptural support and has been the principle worship service of all catholic (little "c" intended) and apostolic churches since the very earliest days.
Very few Jews were Roman citizens and unless one was a Roman citizen, they were personna non-grata in Rome, visitors only.
I can't comment on the accuracy of this statement, but I believe Josephus and other historians mention fairly large and well established populations of Jews in Rome.
Yeah, but that one's a given! ;o)
The Catholic Encyclopedia, and all other Catholic publications I have seen, list Peter as Pope - reign 32-67. I have seen no caveat suggesting he was Pope while Bishop of Antioch, while traveling, or any place other than Rome. It seems reasonable to me there must be some evidence to prove this claim. On a scale of 0-10 "Legend" is worth "0".
Well 32-67 sounds like the time from after the resurrection, or when Jesus charged Peter, until his death some years later.
I think part of the confusion here is that people seem to think that Peter was Pope because he was Bishop of Rome. Rather, the Bishop of Rome is Pope because it was Peter's office.
Peter could have been bishop of Rome for one day and it would still be true. Peter was Pope wherever he was, and he settled and was martyred in Rome. But he was always Pope.
SD
Do NC's reject this? Do they believe that the Person that Mary bore is not fully and indivisibly God? Is that why they deny to call her, in complete and reasonable accuracy, the Mother of God?
Boy, you opened a can of worms. You will find the spread of views on the subject, from accpeting the idea while not seeing the necessity of trumpeting it, to outright confusion over who Jesus was.
I have a saying: "Scratch a Maryphobe and you'll uncover a deficient Christology."
SD
Homophobe I can live with. But Maryphope. Man you've crossed the line now. :-)
I think that most Protestants (if not all, and I use the word Protestant to mean Non-Catholic, Non-Orthodox) on this thread would assent to the complete divinity of Jesus Christ our Lord. I think many's shyness when it comes to the term theotokos is due to the vehemence with which we are asked to accept it by our brothers in the Roman Catholic church. Is Jesus God? Yes. Is Mary his mother? Yes. Is she God's mother? In the sense that she bore the eternal Logos as her son, yes. Is she superior to God? Of course not. No RC or Orthodox would say that she is superior to God. And yet we think that the term might bring some confusion and so we avoid it. That's my opinion. Looked at the term in the context of history, I understand its origin (at least I think I do) and agree with it in that context. For there it affirms the fulness of Jesus divinity and humanity, against those who would claim otherwise.
Always reasonable, bass. I think you might not speak for all NC's here. Remember, if someone can believe it, they will. We've had people here claiming that Jesus didn't become God until He was baptised.
SD
Did Jesus pre-exist His human Incarnation as the Logos? If so, who was His mother then? What we object to is the idea that a human (mother) could bring God into existence, thus making her some kind of a greater God. Mary had nothing to do with bringing the Logos into existence (because the Logos had no beginning), thus, she is NOT, in the true meaning of the word, the mother of God.
Iowegian here rejects a false conception of what Theotokos means. I wonder if he would agree with us if he knew what we mean by it.
SD
Matthew 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Mark 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
If Luke 1:28 is interpreted by Catholics to mean that Mary was born without sin [immaculate], then to be consistent, don't you think they should say the same about those who Paul is referring to in Ephesians 1:6 . ??
Those new Christians were baptised, so they had the stain of original sin removed. That is, they became the same as Mary was from birth. So it isn't surprising that the same word is used.
Did I blow you mind?
SD
By this term it is impied that Mary is the mother of the Father God, t the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit. Did she give birth to triplets, or am I missing something?
You are missing any understanding of what the definition of Theotokos means. Are you sure you reject it? Why don't you find out what it means first?
Mary is the mother of the Person who is Jesus. This person is fully human and fully God. There is no time that Jesus was Incarnate, no time as a zygote or embryo, when He was not God. Therefore it can be said that Mary carried and gave birth to a Person who is truly God.
Mary didn't give birth to just the human part of Jesus. She gave birth to God Incarnate.
Did God exist before Mary was a twinkle in her father's eye, so how could she precede him? Was Jesus the Son of God long before she took her first breath?
Yes and yes. You confuse the issue. Theotokos doesn't mean that Mary predates the Godhead, only that she gave birth to a person who is God.
Isn't it true that the most and highest thing that Scripture says about Mary is that she was the "mother of Jesus".? And to leap from that to RCC and OC Marian claims requires a highly active imagination?
Yes, it requires us to imagine that Jesus is a Person who is God. This may be a stretch for some, but we believe the Bible testifies to that fact.
SD
What did you think of the first e-Trade commercial?
With the monkey and the musical? Too self-referential. Too forced. Making a "bad" commercial and then talking about how bad it is? I don't want my Super Bowl commercials to be post modern.
Speaking of post modern, I got a fortune cookie in my lunch the other day. It said "You will smile at this fortune." Just what I want, hip, nihilistic post modern fortune cookies!
I also liked the Barry Bonds/ Hank Aaron spot.
I didn't catch what they said. Everyone at the cinema grill was too busy booing Barry bonds. Old habits die hard. :-)
I liked the Bud Light spot where the falcon or hawk was coming back with Bud Lights.
SD
"Heaven" in the 2 Kings 2:11 is defined by Strongs:
8064 shamayim shaw-mah'-yim
dual of an unused singular shameh shaw-meh'; from an unused root meaning to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the dual perhaps alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve):--air, X astrologer, heaven(-s).
Throughout the old testament, the same word is used to refer not only to the realm of God but to the atomosphere. In fact, most of the usage of the words seems to be referring to the atompshere or the sky, or space. Rarely does it mean THE heaven.
How would you explain that fact that Jeroham got a letter from Elijah years after he had been taken away to heaven?
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.