Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
King David said to Joab and the leaders of the army who were with him, "Tour all the tribes in Israel from Dan to Beer-sheba and register the people, that I may know their number."
Joab then reported to the king the number of people registered: in Israel, eight hundred thousand men fit for military service; in Judah, five hundred thousand.
Afterward, however, David regretted having numbered the people, and said to the Lord: "I have sinned grievously in what I have done. But now, Lord, forgive the guilt of your servant, for I have been very foolish." When David rose in the morning, the Lord had spoken to the prophet Gad, David's seer, saying: "Go and say to David, 'This is what the Lord says: I offer you three alternatives; choose one of them and I will inflict it on you.'" Gad then went to David to inform him. He asked: "Do you want a three years' famine to come upon your land, or to flee from your enemy three months while he pursues you, or to have a three days' pestilence in your land? Now consider and decide what I must reply to him who sent me." David answered Gad: "I am in very serious difficulty. Let us fall by the hand of God, for he is most merciful; but let me not fall by the hand of man." Thus David chose the pestilence. Now it was the time of the wheat harvest when the plague broke out among the people. [The Lord then sent a pestilence over Israel from morning until the time appointed, and seventy thousand of the people from Dan to Beer-sheba died.] But when the angel stretched forth his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord regretted the calamity and said to the angel causing the destruction among the people, "Enough now! Stay your hand." The angel of the Lord was then standing at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. When David saw the angel who was striking the people, he said to the Lord: "It is I who have sinned; it is I, the shepherd, who have done wrong. But these are sheep; what have they done? Punish me and my kindred."
Responsorial Psalm
Ps 32, 1.2. 5. 6. 7
R. (5) Lord, forgive the wrong I have done.
Happy is he whose fault is taken away,
whose sin is covered.
Happy the man to whom the Lord imputes not guilt,
In whose spirit there is no guile.
R. Lord, forgive the wrong I have done.
Then I acknowledged my sin to you,
my guilt I covered not.
I said, "I confess my faults to the Lord,"
and you took away the guilt of my sin.
R. Lord, forgive the wrong I have done.
For this shall every faithful man pray to you
in time of stress.
Though deep waters overflow,
they shall not reach him.
R. Lord, forgive the wrong I have done.
You are my shelter; from distress you will preserve me;
with glad cries of freedom you will ring me round.
R. Lord, forgive the wrong I have done.
Gospel
Mk 6, 1-6
Jesus went to his own part of the country followed by his disciples. When the sabbath came he began to teach in the synagogue in a way that kept his large audience amazed. They said: "Where did he get all this? What kind of wisdom is he endowed with? How is it such miraculous deeds are accomplished by his hands? Isn't this the carpenter, the son of Mary, a brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters our neighbors here?" They found him too much for them. Jesus' response to all this was: "No prophet is without honor except in his native place, among his own kindred, and in his own house." He could work no miracle there, apart from curing a few who were sick by laying hands on them, so much did their lack of faith distress him. He made the rounds of the neighboring villages instead, and spent his time teaching.
We forgive ya too Dave. :-)
Oh nevermind. That was a reading. Wow. A very good one too. I don't think we should give Al his job back.
So none of the translations in any of the dictionaries I have would render "theotokos" as God + mother. (mother of God). It would allow "Interest of God" which is what is meant by Usury. It would allow "bringing forth God", "Child of God" (wow!). I have to say I like that last one best. But, there it is..
And to think that I was nice to Havoc yesterday. I actually said that he wouldn't be foolish enough to pick up on woodkirk's silly notion.
Live and learn.
SD
What was relevant about that, other than trying to slam 2 NC's at the same time?
I think what was "relevant" is that both of these NC's are arguing the same silly thing about what "Theotokos" really means. If you act irrelevant, you will be deemed so.
Are you going to join up with them, too? Will you defend their interpretation about what the word means? Or are you sensible?
SD
For the last couple weeks we here have been trying to reconcile, with help from all religious backgrounds, the Mary of Greco-Roman Theological Tradition and the Mary of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Those of the former have admitted that their Mary has a surname or last name of "Theotokos", while those of the latter find no such thing. Mary Theotokos is a different person altogether from "Mary, mother of Jesus, and and James, and Joseph, and Judas, and Simon, and their sisters." Mary, mother of Jesus, ... is the Biblical Mary of history, while Mary Theotokos is a creation of the imagination.
In order to find the father of Mary Theotokos, we endeavored to find the meaning of the word "Theotokos" . One Orthodox Church expert and one Roman Catholic Church researcher here claimed that it meant "Mother of God", but that is clearly an imaginative rendering of that word that defies logic. When these experts were asked to go to the Greek source of the word, they declined. They subsequently deferred to a resident Greek scholar here, who, with some encouragement, concluded that "tokos" does indeed mean "usury or interest on money loaned". With "Theo" indisputably meaning "God, or deity", in combination with "tokos", "Theotokos" means just what you said: "God of usury . . . "
Scripture says that in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every matter be established. That "Theotokos" means "God of usury ..." and is the surname or last name of the Mary of Greco-Roman Theological Tradition has been established here by experts in their field, from the contextual approach to word meanings and Strong[er] source : Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and the Work of those great Greek and Hebrew scholars assembled by RCC monarch King James in the early 17th century.
Greco-Roman historians tell us that when the Roman Empire fell, public buildings where taxes were collected, money exchanged, loans made, financial matters conducted became the basilicas of the Roman Church where it subsequently carried on its worship of Mary Theotokos.
Mary Theotokos and her father will help shed light on the woman riding the beast in Revelation 17. After all a harlot is a woman who does what she does for money. It also sheds light on what Jesus meant in the Gospels by the two masters. It also explains why the CIA Directory of corporate enterprises lists the main business of the Vatican as "banking and finance" not religion.
In order to further assist our Greco-Roman friends here in identifying the father of Mary Theotokos, experts in Hebrew have been consulted. This is from them:
Hebrew word "nashak" from the word "nasha" [lead astray, mentally delude, deceive as well as lend on interest, exact debt] means "to strike with the sting of a serpent, to bite (like a serpent)" as well as "lend on usury, oppress with interest on a loan". The Hebrew word "nasha" dovetais with the Greek word "tokos", and the deiinition links the activity of moneylenders, banking, and finance with the father of Mary Theotokos, and goes a long way to explain why her worship is entwined with the financial affairs of the Vatican.
If we can be of further service in helping Mary Theotokos worshippers with her geneology, please don't hesitate to ask. .
Havoc - I apologize if I'm not understanding your point. Are you proposing that the for the past 1500 years the Orthodox have been mistaken about what they're talking about when they say "Theotokos"? Or are you defending the other poster's interpretation just to be contrarian? Or something else?
I'm saying that, context or no, looking at definitions: one that would render theotokos as "investment of God" would be completely valid. Usury is after all an investment that draws interest. And modern dictionaries actually invoke the word "investment". I'm not saying it to be contrary. I'm saying the obvious.
Havoc, wake up! The definition that is "completely valid" is the one that has been in use for over 1500 years. Theotokos = Bearer of God. Ay Carumba!
SD
The Decretals were used by the Roman church to usurp authority it did not by right have any claim to. The system that developed from there on was developed from fraudulent authority based in lies. Now if you want to say that isn't an invalidation, then you are deluding yourself. Non-authority doesn't become authoritative just because you believe it. As regards myself, I'm certainly not stupid enough to buy into it. Knowing the truth ahead of time, there is no way I can ever view the Roman Church as having any legit authority. The Orthodox have their own problems. They are closer to Christianity than Romanism; but, I'm not buying into either. I have the real thing. I have Jesus living in me and the Holy Spirit operating in my life. I don't need to look to false doctrine to find what I already have. I can command demons in Jesus name because I have that authority as a child of God. I have done so. When you've seen creative miracles, you can't accept fraud for the real thing either.
Proof, Havoc? I'm still waiting for you to prove anything about the decretals. Anything.
SD
An indulgence is an encouragement. You don't get out much, do ya?
Erasmus's NT is still on Rome's forbidden book list.
You were told already by at least two people that the "forbidden list" no longer exists. That you contimue to make reference to it as if it did displays your character. It is the character of one who is unteachable and will say anything to advance his cause. That cause being, of course, the white hot hatred of all things Catholic.
SD
Foxes Book is a joke. And you have an awful lot of gumption to bring up to an Irishman the poor treatment that Protestants received under Mary. An awful lot. Why don't you look up the Penal Laws and Cromwell and then come back and whine.
My anscestors were forbidden to worship, own property, arms, etc. etc. for the sin of being Catholic and in the way.
SD
And being "apparent" to a first reading of Scripture is a necessity? If something is not absolutely contradicted by Scripture, can it still be believed?
1. That Mary was always a virgin. Not to be indelicate, but the birth of Jesus would have shattered the physical sign of any virginity. I too have only a rudimentary grasp of Jewish society, but as I understand physical signs of viriginity in all cultures has always been the acid test of whether someone was virginal or not. Her physical purity would be the only outward sign to others that she actually had conceived and bore as a virgin. Once that was gone, through childbirth, then there would be no physical evidence that she was and thus no reason why they wouldn't have sex.
Jesus' birth left Mary intact. It was miraculous. Secondly, virginity is not lost by childbirth. It is lost by intercourse. If a young woman loses her hymen through another manner (as many do) she is still a virgin if no man has entered her.
2. That Joseph was married before and had kids from a previous marriage. Again, in order to support the idea of perpetual virginity, an entire family history of Joseph that exists nowhere but in a belief has to be read into scripture.
Does Scripture tell you Joseph was not a widower? Does it tell you he was? Neither. Then accepting the idea is not contrary to Scripture. And the belief is ancient. And it is not read into Scripture, except for those who think Scripture is everything.
3. That greek lacks a way to express "half-brother" or "cousin" and that the original writers of scripture were not expressing themselves exactly as they wanted.
It is the Hebrew that lacks this wording. The Greek was expressing the idea that the Hebrews put forward. The original writers may not have thought that 1800 years later people would start to use their texts to deconstruct the stories that were passed down as true.
SD
Well, I'll give you credit. You would make a great used car salesman. You can push anything, even though it's not accurate! ;)
The Book of Martyrs is propoganda in behalf of a queen who was busily hunting down Jesuits with her secret service. I dare say that no country was ever worst ruled by foreigners than the Irish were by the English. You might throw in the slave-catchers who took the "wild Irish" from the West to be sold as "servants" in Virginia and in Jamaica. The average life-span of "servants" on the Virginia and Carolina plantations was about 7 years, and in Jamaica even less. The depredations did not stop until after Queen Anne's War when the English gained the monopoly over the African slave trade. I gather that the Irish will forgive the English for their crimes about the same time that the Greeks forgive the pope for Constantinople.
"Push" is exactly what you would have to do with any car he sold you.
This brought up something to ponder, for me anyway:)
The passage about Jesus in the temple made me think of the time when he was twelve and stayed behind, Luke 3:41-47. The people there were astonised at his knowledge.
Do you think he was born with that knowledge, or were his parents good parents and taught him well. (Deut 6:7)
Were the people astonished because his knowledge was that of an adult, or just that of a 12 year old. I know from experience that adults are facsinated by a kid who even has a little knowledge of the bible.
One time when my son was 6 and my daughter 3, Charlie was learning the books of the bible for Sunday School, we practiced in the car on the way to town alot. Of course Jenny was sitting there the whole time. One Sat. we went to the airport to pick my parents up from a trip. A convention in Tulsa of Church of Christ preachers was ending and the airport was full of preachers catching flights home. One was sitting next to us. Jenny, 3 was sitting there singing "Jesus Loves Me," the guy next to her (the preacher, I didn't know he was a preacher) started asking her if she went to church, and what else she knew, suddenly she started reeling off the books of the NT, some were pronounced wrong, but there was no mistake what she was saying. The man almost fainted, it was real funny, I didn't realize how much she had picked up, There were several other preachers and such there they were Amening her and praising God. It was kind of funny. But see how people can react to a child with a little knowledge. I wonder if that was how it was when Jesus was 12, or if He was born with all knowledge. Just something to think about.
I have a feeling people were not that much different back then from what they are today, about being as diligent to teach their kids about God. If they had I think more of the Jews would have recognized Jesus.
Becky
Have you been here for the last couple weeks? Or does it just seem that way? Anyway
Those of the former have admitted that their Mary has a surname or last name of "Theotokos", while those of the latter find no such thing.
LOL. Theotokos is not Mary's surname. You're kind of funny. The things you say are very amusing.
Mary Theotokos is a different person altogether from "Mary, mother of Jesus, and and James, and Joseph, and Judas, and Simon, and their sisters." Mary, mother of Jesus, ... is the Biblical Mary of history, while Mary Theotokos is a creation of the imagination.
A different person? I don't think so. What makes you say that? We are talking about the woman who carried God in her womb. Who are you talking about?
In order to find the father of Mary Theotokos, we endeavored to find the meaning of the word "Theotokos" .
Joachim. That's her father. Anna is her mother. Everyone knows that. Sheesh, why don't you just ask someone who knows?
One Orthodox Church expert and one Roman Catholic Church researcher here claimed that it meant "Mother of God", but that is clearly an imaginative rendering of that word that defies logic.
It means "God bearer," literally. As in a woman is said to "Bear" children. "Mother of God" is a workable substitute, which conveys essentially the same information. Mary is the mother of a Person who is God.
When these experts were asked to go to the Greek source of the word, they declined.
It wasn't a declension as much as an amazement that someone could seriosuly be so thick. You are pulling our leg still, right?
They subsequently deferred to a resident Greek scholar here, who, with some encouragement, concluded that "tokos" does indeed mean "usury or interest on money loaned".
The resident scholar we asked was the808bass, who clearly pointed you to a Greek dictionary online which clearly showed that "childbearing" is the primary definition of tokos. That you don't have a grasp of yesterday makes your purported grasp of the meaning of theological terms even more slippery, if that is possible.
Now Havoc is not exactly our resident Greek expert. He is not accepted as reliable by half of the population here. Bass I accept as honest, especially about something as silly as your contention.
With "Theo" indisputably meaning "God, or deity", in combination with "tokos", "Theotokos" means just what you said: "God of usury . . . "
No it doesn't. If you coined the term today, it would. The term is already defined. In case you missed it we showed you the definition from dictionaries and it didn't faze you. The term has meaning already. You can't redefine it based upon your sloppy "scholarship."
SD
I think that He was born with an innate wisdom, but I think that He had to learn things just like a regular human does. Which means that he learned from His parents and His extended family. If Jesus Incarnate had from day one all the knowledge of God, I don't think that's fair. He wouldn't be a man like us.
Were the people astonished because his knowledge was that of an adult, or just that of a 12 year old. I know from experience that adults are facsinated by a kid who even has a little knowledge of the bible.
I think he probably asked and answered some questions that displayed a much higher, adult level type of understanding. I don't think he was being patronized.
Your story reminds me of a commercial where the same thing happens. Except the kid is learning the state capitals. The little sister spits out "Montpielier" when the the older brother is stammering on "Vermont."
I think it interesting that you recall teaching the books of the Bible, when today wordsmith talked about teaching his kid the Nicene Creed.
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.