BigMack
Posted on 02/06/2006 1:02:10 PM PST by NYer
sounds good man. have a good weekend
I'll try. I'm fighting a brutal cold I thought I licked on Wednesday. Let's just say it contributed to my ornery, less than "Christian" attitude yesterday.
Have a good one...
Arian is precisely what I call you. Have a good day.
Babylon was already destroyed. Why can't you accept this?
I accept the fact that the Babylonian empire was destroyed and no longer a viable entity by the time of the Apostles. I also know that Atlanta, the backbone of the Confederacy, was destroyed by the time I first visited....but I still went there. (It was only a shell of its former self.) When Peter says Babylon he means Babylon as there were descendants of Israelites still living in the neighborhood at that time. Josephus, early Jewish historian, tells of Israelites living beyond the Euphrates, beyond the control of the Romans during the first century. Josephus Book XI Chapter 5 Paragraph 2...first 6 lines
Now, I'm aware that Josephus is not scripture....and I do like to quote scripture....but we can all agree he was a very respected historian.
Feeding "my sheep" implies the entire flock, not just the lambs ("the little ones" Jesus refers to in the Gospels). Why aren't Gentiles included?
Because Jesus specifically tells the Apostles that their commission is to not go to the Gentiles but rather to The Lost Sheep of Israel.
What about the Samaritan woman Jesus approached at the well?
In John 4 the trip through Samaria happens very early in the ministry of Jesus (shortly after his baptism). The Samaritans were not Israelites. They were placed in that country in about 720 B.C. by Shalmenezer after the 10 northern tribes were taken into captivity. They brought with them their pagan gods and at the time of the Apostles paganism still reigned in Samaria. II Kings 17:24 If you notice in John 4:4 Jesus had to go through Samaria and he had not yet at this time instructed the Twelve not to go there. The Samaritans were Gentile, Pagan and Jesus specifically instructed the Apostles to go elsewhere.
Sounds like Paul couldn't "quit" them, could he? Given your methodology, Paul was overtly disobedient to Christ in preaching to the Jews when he was supposedly betrothed to the Gentiles. Do you really think that's the case, or are you perhaps interpreting Scripture much too narrowly?
I never said Paul could not preach to the Jews....I said Paul was appointed an Apostle to the Gentiles. As you can see here and here he is allowed to do both. It would be very natural for Paul to visit the Jews on the Sabbath as Christians also worshiped in the synagogues.....and on the Sabbath as well.
As I have said in my earlier posts....if you want to believe that Peter was in Rome and was the 1st Bishop of your Church, that's fine with me. I would prefer to look at scripture to determine what really happened. If you would rather heed your Tradition....so be it.
Whatever... thou worshipper of the Baalim.
OOOH....that was so painful! (SARCASM)
BigMack
Lol.
And the angel being come in, said unto [MARY]: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Luke 1:28 (Or did you conveniently mis-translate this from the Greek to "highly favored"?)
Ummm, the creation of the New Testament...was written by the Apostles (and Luke), long before Christianity had anything to do with the Empire, and was in fact a persecuted minority. Even the recognition by the Church (long before the invention of the papal supremacy of Rome) was done BEFORE Emperor Constantine accepted and favored the Church.
You are right though, Roman Catholic "tradition" did not give us the bible, the Holy Spirit inspiring the First Century writers did that, and the Holy Spirit inspiring the Church's recognizing the various books authenticity (RECOGNIZING, NOT CREATING) later in the 200s+ finalized the canon.
The inability of RC's to distinguish between recognition and creation is astounding, IMHO.
BUT:
It's Da Vinci Code fiction to think "The creation of the bible and the federalization of chirstanity in the Roman Empire was done so to consolidate power by the Roman Emperor," however.
I have not read the Da Vinci Code, nor do I wish too. And I was stating 'politics 101' in 'consolidating power'. It is your fault you don't understand that.
What the author fails to admit though is even the term "deuterocanonical" means "secondary canon"....meaning that before Trent all Christians agreed these books had secondary importance and authority, and the name still used today reflects that. Should they be bound up in the same book as the canonical scriptures? That was the issue.
The Roman Church hadn't finalized whether to include those books or not until Luther took the scholarly side of the debate and recognized them as not inspired and inerrent like the cannonical books...a position many Roman Catholic scholars shared with him at the time AND before the Reformation. But hey, when Luther took a position on something BAM, he MUST be wrong, so the RC curia took the opposite opinion in Trent, contra past competing traditions.
Just read Tobit, and honestly tell me its NOT a fairy tale.
The deuterocanonical books are nothing like the character of inspired scripture, though still useful to understand the ancient Hebrews and the culture of bible times.
"And the angel being come in, said unto [MARY]: Hail, full of grace, "
Thank you for proving my point!!!
It isn't in there.
It's a fashionable, neo-gnostic (often feminist) and even marxist trend to suggest the identification of the New Testment was about "consolodating power by the Roman Emperor." It is also aparently an argument made in the Da Vinci Code.
The careful scholarship and councils that did discern what was in the canon and not, have well recorded histories (for that early time) and their criteria and proceedings don't appear to be anything about propping up the Emperor.
Your "politics 101" and Church history must have been at a major State university?
No, it is oldfashion politics. It you want to take direct control of something, you federalize it and then issue a state sanctioned document justifing your actions. Most of the Roman Emperors were political experts, barring Nero and a few others.
The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. The greek word Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence. Moreover the latin "plena" is the root word of the word plenary meaning complete. If one is completely full of grace, they are without blemish, hence immaculate. Exactly how am I not proving my point?
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.