>
Guess it depends on who you ask.
Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
>
Guess it depends on who you ask.
"Vegetable soul"???
Saturated or unsaturated?
Wasting your time bump.
Genesis 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth,
and upon every fowl of the air,
upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you;
even as the green herb have I given you all things.
No offense taken. :-)
No, since the Geneva has 'freely beloved' (and King James had no love for the Geneva)
Moreover, the King James translators had a footnote 'or graciously accepted or muched graced,)
The Reformers actually held a much higher view of Mary was warrented by scripture.
Now as for Mary being a type of the church, where does that come from?
'favored' simply means blessed anyway The intent is to trivialize the blessing. "Grace" is a theological term that has specific meaning of cleansing of sin. "Favor" does not have such connotation. Besides, you are right, "favored" is roughly synonymous with "blessed", but she is also called "blessed" directly in the same phrase, so King James' translation of "favored" is flat redundant.
No, she was favored in that the Lord picked her to bear the Jewish Messiah.
That is exactly what she refers to in vs. 48, when she states that 'the Lord has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden'
The choice of Mary had nothing to do with the Mary being born special, but God making a sovereign choice, just like choosing the Apostles.
NASB and the NIV Yes, many translations follow King James Version. So, avoid them too, and read Douay-Rheims if you cannot read Greek or Latin.
Well, the point is that the verse can be translated that way.
Actually I do read both, and compared to most modern translations the Douay-Rheims is not as bad.
However, the perfect translation is the King James.
The real issue is did Mary need a saviour That is not the issue at dispute; of course she did, and Christ is her savior too. He saved her at the moment she was conceived. This is why it is called Immaculate Conception.
Scripture please? (LOL!)
Mary was saved like everyone else, by believing God (Rom.10:7)
A Roman Catholic talking about a Protestant lying about the Gospel! Protestantism began with a lie about the Gospel (Roman 3:28, to be precise, was intentionally mangled by Luther, because the only way he could "prove" his Sola Fide fantasy was to commit fraud).
Now you know that is not true.
When Luther wrote the phrase' faith without works' he had also Gal.2:16 and Rom.4:5, 16 in mind as well.
Salvation is by faith alone in the saving work of the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom.5:1-2).
Works are a result of salvation, not a cause of it. (1Cor.3:10-15)
what does Mary have to do with any Gospel She has everything to do with it (Luke 11:28).
Funny, I read that verse has negating Mary's influence.
Mary was blessed for bearing the Lord, but 'rather' (instead) blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it.
Christ shifts the emphasis away from Mary giving birth to the Messiah, to the word of God, where it ought to be.
John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
1 Corinthians 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
She may or may not have had a family, scripture says "household", which could be family, could be servants. At any rate, it wasn't unheard of to have women doing things besides cooking and cleaning. Women as we know, traveled with and supported Jesus and Paul. Martha's sister Mary, "chose the good part", became a disciple as did other women. We Protesant types don't have a domestic meltdown just thinking about it either. :)
The blessing had to do with bearing Christ and raising him.
Now, as an adult he had to be 'about His Father's business'.
Now, where does 'rather' mean that. It means a preference or choice of one thing over another.
I'd rather have ice cream then spinach.
The 'rather' here is very clear, Mary is not the way of blessing, the word of God is.
This is your spin. The scriptural fact is that St. James urges to call in the priests so that the sick could be annointed; from this it is evident that the members of the household could not do so themselves.
He is talking about the 'love' feast that followed the Lord's supper. [...] It seemed that some had more then others and it was not a true case of fellowship (1Cor.11:20-22)
Again, this is your spin. St. Paul clearly distinguishes between eating for physical nutrition, done in homes ("What, have you not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God", 1 Corinthians 11:22), and the Eucharist done "to shew the death of the Lord, until he come" (v 26). S.t Paul states what the problem is, and it is not that some had more than others but rather that some eat and drink unworthily, " not discerning the body of the Lord".
That clergy class does not exist in the New Testament. [...] There are no subjects!
I showed you the clergy class in the example with the annointing; there is nothing in 1 Peter 2:5-9 to indicate he is talking of priesthood of every believer. Once more, you spin it that way because of the Protestant traditions of men that spinned the Gospel for you in order to obfuscate its meaning.
It is interesting that you bring up Hebrews 4, because having usrged the believes to go in confidence before the throne of grace it goes on to describe a priestly class (which you say does not exist) thusly:
"every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins: 2 Who can have compassion on them that are ignorant and that err: because he himself also is compassed with infirmity. 3 And therefore he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. 4 Neither doth any man take the honour to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was"(Hebrews 5)
Where is the grace in what you are saying? It sounds like you believe that when you witness to a seeker that you make a free will decision to obey/persevere and the seeker makes a free will decision on whether to believe what you are telling him. Under this view, I would agree that the seeker's decision would NOT be a no brainer.
But I don't see it this way. I would characterize your witness as God using you in order to grace the seeker. That grace, most likely combined with the witness of others, will lead to an easy decision for the seeker, if he is of the elect. God not only uses other people as a method of grace, but He also personally touches the hearts of seekers of the elect. We experience this as "faith", but it really comes from God. If God simply elects those He foreknows will choose Him, as I think you have said, then God only gets an "A+" because He peeked at the answer sheet. I would say that God earns an "A+" because He made the answers be true.
I am only relating what Paul says of himself, sorry if you disapprove:
"If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless." Phil 3:5-6
Paul is talking about self-righteousness, a confidence in the flesh. He confirms this and calls it all rubbish in verses 8-9. Paul is criticizing himself for what he once did and thought. I agree with him. :)
[continuing] The OT is full of stories of men who killed in the name of God and were considered righteous.
But Paul is not talking about this kind of righteousness. When Joshua went out and killed, that really was righteousness and I'm sure Paul would agree. Paul does not think what he did in killing Christians was righteous in the same way at all.
Intentionally twisting the meaning or the words yields the same results, does it not?
If I twist the meaning of words, then you will not be fooled if you have discernment. You will know that it doesn't match Catholic teaching. But, if I twist the words themselves, and add a Catholic interpretation, then you are much more likely to be fooled. For example, if I tell you that the correct interpretation of the crucifixion scene was that He was never crucified really, but feigned death only to "rise" later, then you would know immediately what to do with that. But, if I tell you that "Christ was indeed crucified and died at Golgotha, in Bethlehem (the place where he grew up)", then you have to be much more on your toes to see what I am trying to do. "You" will still get it because you are you, but think about the average Christian.
For example, consider the parable of the workers in the field all day. ... Man's justice would say that there would be a sliding wage, or that each man should receive proportionate wages. God's justice says He will reward everyone how HE sees fit - AND IT EXCEEDS OUR IDEA OF JUSTICE! NEVER can you say that God's justice does not even meet man's justice!
You are right, I am not getting your point. :) This example seems to perfectly illustrate how God's justice "falls short" of man's justice in the way I understand you to be using the concept. Here, under man's justice, doesn't the man who started in the morning get ripped off? For that man, he thinks he got less than he should have, based on the work done by all. From his POV, God's justice fell short. You will say that the man simply got what he bargained for, and the others just got more. The first man will never buy that argument, though, based on his sense of man's justice.
Which human would call a person just for condemning someone for not being able to do something that they have NO ability to accomplish?
Well, I can just say that God was EXCEEDING man's justice here too. Under man's justice, all men are guilty and deserve to go to hell. Perfectly just. God exceeds that justice and saves some anyway.
Which person would consider another just for condemning a cripple because he couldn't run a marathon???
Didn't many men do just that back in the day? IIRC, many saw physical infirmities, including leprosy, as a sign of sin for which God was punishing them. Many were "condemned" based on this belief. -- But I don't think your example is on point. God never says that all disabled people are condemned because they can't run marathons. God does say that all sinners are condemned.
Your version of Protestantism says one thing and believes the opposite. HOW can God expect a man to obey His commandments if God only gives graces to the elect???
As I said in the other post (on a different line), I don't think God expects everyone to obey. He expects the elect to obey, and He expects (predicts) the non-elect to sin.
FK: "Think of the different vantage points of authority. How would you compare the authority God has over man to the authority a jury and judge have over a defendant? There is no comparison, right?"
Why would you say that? What leads you to believe that? In both cases, the judge has authority over the judged. Of course, in God's case, He has ULTIMATE authority, but the concept is similar.
How important is the issue of eternal destiny? In that judgment, God has 100% authority, and a human judge has 0% authority. Man's system of justice is flawed because judges and juries are flawed. God's is perfect, and thus very different.
And by the way, which one of us receives a trial from God before our death?
Yes, that is my point. We don't get a trial in the human sense. This "appears" to fall short of our justice system. God's sense of justice is different than man's.
And then someone gets hungry, hits the drive-thru at KFC for a bucket of canola-fried Original Recipe, and all that "Catholic distinguishing" just goes to heck in a handbasket....
The so-called Protoevangelium of James is a 2 century text describing the events leading to the Nativity of Christ. It is not canonical, but serves as historical evidence of early Christian beliefs on the subject.
Collard greens and black-eyed peas?
So?
Nonsense! The Jews did/do not have a concept of Christian heaven and hell. They only know a "depository of the souls," Shoel, or the Hades in Greek. David knew that he would die one day and 'go' to his son.
The real message is that David repented and humbled himself; that is the recurring theme in the Bible. God forgives those who repent. The rest is fluff for local cultural and ethnic consumption. As Nikitas Stithos (a hesychast) says, the incorruptible and imperishable are "tears of repentance, acts of charity, compassion, prayer, humility, faith, love." Those are things of God we learn through Christ.
Veggie Tales?
"It is not canonical, but serves as historical evidence of early Christian beliefs on the subject."
___________________________________
Thanks for the reply and info.
I was wondering where all the info about Mary came from. I rely on SCRIPTURE and Mary is not referenced a great deal. Why wasn't the Protoevangelium included in the Bible if it was reliable?
No 'spin' since no priests were called in.
All believers are priests (1Pe.2:5).
What were called in were spirit filled men (elders/pastors) to administer oil, a sign of the Holy Spirit and a form of medience of the ancient times.
Nothing mystical about it.
He is talking about the 'love' feast that followed the Lord's supper. [...] It seemed that some had more then others and it was not a true case of fellowship (1Cor.11:20-22) Again, this is your spin. St. Paul clearly distinguishes between eating for physical nutrition, done in homes ("What, have you not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God", 1 Corinthians 11:22), and the Eucharist done "to shew the death of the Lord, until he come" (v 26). S.t Paul states what the problem is, and it is not that some had more than others but rather that some eat and drink unworthily, " not discerning the body of the Lord".
What does vs. 21 say?
For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper and one is hungry and another drunken'
Then Paul states that that type of eating and drinking can be done in their own personal homes.
They were coming together in someone else's home to worship and fellowship.
That clergy class does not exist in the New Testament. [...] There are no subjects! I showed you the clergy class in the example with the annointing; there is nothing in 1 Peter 2:5-9 to indicate he is talking of priesthood of every believer. Once more, you spin it that way because of the Protestant traditions of men that spinned the Gospel for you in order to obfuscate its meaning.
And once again, you do nothing to explain what Peter means when he speaks of the priesthood of the believers-twice in the same chapter.
You have not shown that the anointing of the elders has anything to do with a special clergy class.
The sick called in his pastor to pray for him and anoint him with oil.
Yet, it is the prayer of faith that shall save the sick individual, not the anointing of the oil by the elder. (vs.15)
It is interesting that you bring up Hebrews 4, because having usrged the believes to go in confidence before the throne of grace it goes on to describe a priestly class (which you say does not exist) thusly: "every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins: 2 Who can have compassion on them that are ignorant and that err: because he himself also is compassed with infirmity. 3 And therefore he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. 4 Neither doth any man take the honour to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was" (Hebrews 5)
What it discusses is the priestly class that existed in the Old Testament with the Levites and the special High Priest of Aaron.
Now, there is no special Levite priesthood (every believer being a Priest) and the Jewish High Priesthood has been replaced by the permanent Priesthood of Christ, who ever liveth to make intercession for us.
The book of Hebrews is a book about Christ being better then angels, better then the Law of Moses, better then the priesthood of Aaron, better then anything that existed under the Old Testament.
The very things that the RCC would have man return to.
LOLOL!
Certainly not wasting my time bump. 8~)
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.