Posted on 12/20/2006 9:42:50 AM PST by NYer
Well, you lost me when you called the Church a sect.
Seems like a righteous fellow.
Nice to see St Thomas is bringing some folks back after all these years.
And again you avoid the question, Wagglebee.
If you cannot defend your faith or deign not to, I will just let it go and I will forgo pestering you for an answer. I just hope that in the future you will not make statements you cannot or will not defend. I would prefer that you DO defend your faith, as it makes me work for my mind and forces me to learn more.
But alas!
May this coming day of the celebration of Christ Jesus' birth find you and yours blessed.
Otto
Ottofire, the translation given by the NAS here is not good. (Usually the NAS is much better than the KJV or NIV, but not in this case.) The direct object of the clause in verse 4 is the Greek word "asphaleian", which is used three times in the NT. It means "assurance", "certainty", "firmness", or "security". It does not mean "exact truth". A better translation of verse 4 is: "so that you come to know the certainty concerning the words which you were taught [orally]." There is no Greek word there that should be translated "exact truth".
-A8
I think that's a bit short-sighted, to say the least. Look, an angel comes to Isaiah (who was a pretty devout guy and, some say, the greatest of the Prophets)--- the angel comes and puts a burning coal in his mouth to purify his sinful lips. OK: an angel comes to Mary and tells her "scrub up?" No: greets her with this unprecedented homage: "the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou amongst women." Wow.
Example two: when a person gets a new name in Scripture, it's supposed to mean something big is afoot: God is revealing something about their part in the Divine Plan. Abram---> Abraham (father of many). Jacob---> Israel (wrestles with God). Simon ---> Peter (the Rock). And Mary is addressed by the angel, not by her name, but by a new name or title: Mary ---> Full of Grace.
Now this is remarkable in itself, but even more remarkable is that ALL the ancient Churches unanimously agreed that this meant that Mary was saved ("my spirit rejoices in God my Savior") before she was even born, by being preserved from the blight which was otherwise inherited by all of the progeny of Adam and Eve. Her human nature was unblemished. This does not make her super-human. It makes her ....human. It makes her as clean as Eve was when Eve was first created, on her first lovely day in Eden.
Make sense? Well, 3/4 of all Christians--- Catholic Orthodox, and the ancient Churches of the East (Assyrians, Chaldeans, etc.) ---they ALL say it makes sense, and have for the last 2000 years.
So for you, an American who is 21 centuries removed from the Biblical scenes we're talking about, and who (I'm guessing) is not a native speaker of either Aramaic or Greek, to say to the the people who were part of the culture and who spoke the language that they don't understand their own Scriptures...
Whew.
Merry Christmas, again! To you and yours. Rejoice!
--Ottofire, the translation given by the NAS here is not good. (Usually the NAS is much better than the KJV or NIV, but not in this case.) The direct object of the clause in verse 4 is the Greek word "asphaleian", which is used three times in the NT. It means "assurance", "certainty", "firmness", or "security". It does not mean "exact truth". A better translation of verse 4 is: "so that you come to know the certainty concerning the words which you were taught [orally]." There is no Greek word there that should be translated "exact truth".
So I should state: Luke is writing to Theophilus to give him the assured, certain, firm and/or secure truth.
I am not a Greek scholar in the least, and I will accept your findings unless someone else IS a Greek scholar and says otherwise. Exact does seem like a more modern term, much like the word Magnify, can add connotations that might not be there... :o)
--I think that's a bit short-sighted, to say the least. Look, an angel comes to Isaiah (who was a pretty devout guy and, some say, the greatest of the Prophets)--- the angel comes and puts a burning coal in his mouth to purify his sinful lips. OK: an angel comes to Mary and tells her "scrub up?" No: greets her with this unprecedented homage: "the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou amongst women." Wow.
Yup. The coal thing with Isaiah is indeed impressive! Where else is it found in the Scriptures that an angel of the Lord purifies someone? I am not aware of any where else. Why did it happen? Because Isaiah said he had an impure mouth, and did not think himself worthy to be a prophet.
Did Martha get a coal to cleanse her? How about Joseph? Any other Prophets? Did the Apostles, who were to spread the inspired Gospel to the world? I cannot think of anyone else, besides Isaiah that got the coal across the smacker treatment, so that is a dead end.
--Example two: when a person gets a new name in Scripture, it's supposed to mean something big is afoot: God is revealing something about their part in the Divine Plan. Abram---> Abraham (father of many). Jacob---> Israel (wrestles with God). Simon ---> Peter (the Rock). And Mary is addressed by the angel, not by her name, but by a new name or title: Mary ---> Full of Grace.
So when in the Scripture does Mary get the new name used besides when the angel is talking to her? When she and Jesus' brothers are waiting outside trying to see Him? Nope, Mary is still called Mary. Peter is called Peter from that day on, with occasional references to Simon or Simon Peter. Indeed the changing of names by God is a sign of big changes, but again, no where else is she called by anything other than Mary...
Matthew 12:47Someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
48But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?"
49And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers!
Is that the reverence found in the Gospels for an immaculate being? No, Jesus gives her no reverence at all, and makes her wait outside and calls the people which He was teaching His brothers and mother. No, this still does not indicate an immaculate Mary.
IF she was she should have been given a special place in the Scriptures, no? Since she is not, can we only assume that the writers of the Gospel did not think so otherwise they would mention it?
It doesn't matter whether you say he is infallible or not. Either the Bible is all you need, or it isn't. If the Bible is all you need, you don't need John Calvin.
I do not hold to many of his teachings, much like I enjoy the writings of Augustine but do not agree with all.
I can imagine that you wouldn't "agree with all," given that you're a Baptist and Augustine was a Catholic.
I can claim just as much as to hold to Augustinianism than Calvinism.
Okay. Why do you add the writings of Augustine to the Bible?
My first bet would be Eastern Orthodox, my second choice would be a rebound to Pentecostal.
"Well, right next to P for Photography is R for Religion. I saw a book of sermonettes by Thomas Aquinas from Sophia Press."
I can't find any evidence that the Photography book exists.
The whole story sounds like a crock to me.
Good post, 1Cor 2:4-15 sums my first thoughts.
both by my doctrine and by my preaching were not persuasive words of wisdom (such as Aristotle's empiricism or Socrates' rationalism) but were in demonstration of the Spirit, and His Omnipotence....
I have my hands full renewing my mind and keeping it on the thinking of Christ continually. I don't see Christ asking Mary for assistance in performing His duties to the Father.
You know, these words mean what they say. If you abandon your bias you can hear this truth. Jesus prayed for unity not 28,000 denominations. Whatever shortcomings the Catholic Church may have we have the Word of Jesus, who is the Word and cannot lie, that the "gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
And I should add that we should "Honor our Father and our Mother." Jesus is our brother, Mary is not a vessel that has been discarded, she is our mother. She is the Queen of the saints in Heaven and as such she can pray for us along with all the saints in Heaven.
You do believe that there are saints in Heaven don't you?
Sounds like a new name to me.
Thank God he has become Catholic! I am very proud of him. He was in darkness and saw the light! Congratulations!
Otto,
As long as you show respect for my faith, I am happy to discuss it. If you refer to the Church in disparaging terms like "sect" then I will not. However, we will probably have to continue this next week as I am going out of town for Christmas and will likely not be online.
Merry Christmas to you and yours.
Blessed Mary had an incomparably more intimate relationship with God than Isaiah did: she was overshadowed by God's colossal generative power. Eternity broke into time, infinity burgeoned into space, and she impregnated with the Word. The Blood spilled for our salvation was formed of her blood only; and the Flesh crucified for the redemption of the world was formed in and from her maternal flesh, with no other human source or contact.
Now. Think this through with me. Isaiah needed to be cleansed with a hot coal to speak the word of God: "thus saith the Lord" --- because his mouth was unclean. Can you not see the contrast with Mary, who was to incarnate the Word of God in her flesh? If she had had a sin nature, and was not only to "carry" the Eternal God in her womb, but to give Him flesh out of her own substance, wouldn't that "substance" have to be purified as were Isaiah's lips? Because her substance doesn't just "touch" or even "represent" Christ, her substance becomes Christ.
Not all the prophets were cleansed with a burning coal, but Isaiah was; and you know what? His prophecies are often called the "Fifth Gospel" or the "Old Testament Gospel" because more than any other prophet, he speaks of the coming Messiah. He was given "pure lips" to speak of His coming in the flesh.
But Mary doesn't just "speak of" His coming: she actually gives her flesh to become His Flesh. And wouldn't she need an extraordinary purity, infinitely greater than Isaiah's?
--Example two: you wrote: "So when in the Scripture does Mary get the new name used besides when the angel is talking to her?"
Not everybody who is given new names or titles is referred to as such every time they are spoken of. Just as one example: after his name is changed, Simon Bar-Jonah is sometimes called Peter, or Cephas, and sometimes still called Simon or even both: Simon Peter. (I'd look up more if I had time.)
Mary, filled with the Holy Spirit and with the Lord of the Universe literally growing in her womb, prophesied "Behold, all generations will call me Blessed" --- and yet she's not called "Blessed" at any other time in the Bible! Except once: when a woman calls out to Jesus, "Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts that nursed You," Jesus says, "Yea, rather, blessed is whoever hears with word of God, and keeps it." So, was Mary's prediction a false prophecy?
Not at all. First of all, as long as there has been a Church, all generations DO call Mary "Blessed." Catholics call her the Blessed Virgin Mary (you can find it in Roman catacombs: "Beata Maria Semper Virgine") and Immaculate Mary and other such titles; Orthodox call her Panagia (All-Holy One), which refers to the same privilege as the angelic exclaimed, "Full of Grace!"
And Jesus' remark to the woman in Luke 11:27-28 ("Yea, rather, blessed are they that hear with Word of God, and keep it") indicates his Mother and many more. Because who more than anyone, "heard the Word of God" and "kept it"? While we cannot receive the Word in our wombs and keep Him there, we can receive the Word in our hearts in fidelity to Him, loving Him and doing His will.
Be it done unto me according to thy Word.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us.
And so for 2,000 years the Church --- led and instructed by the Holy Spirit, as Christ promised ----has greatly honored her who was so greatly honored by God.
Whoah. Please reference any previous statement of mine which you are referring to, if you are. I have three different people that I am answering and this is just a bit off the topic of each separate conversation, and I really do not want to start a completely new one on the Peter and the Papal succession, AND the saints AND merit and purgatory (which is where all this will end up wandering off to), on top of Mary, Sola Scriptura and whatnot. There are only so many RCC heresies one man can tackle at once! :o)
--As long as you show respect for my faith, I am happy to discuss it. If you refer to the Church in disparaging terms like "sect" then I will not.
I do not think that stating an opinion is disparaging, but if you wish, I will stop referring to it as a heretical sect. That is what I believe and I assume you think my Reformed Baptist faith is also a heretical sect, and I do not take offense if you call it such, as long it is what you believe. I find nothing wrong with not candy-coating opinion as long as it can be discussed fairly and without personal attack and strawman arguments. I would not have you lie to me, and would rather you tell me exactly what you honestly think, and I expect you to challenge my thoughts. Am I wrong to assume you would want the same from me?
--However, we will probably have to continue this next week as I am going out of town for Christmas and will likely not be online.
May God keep you safe on you travels!
Otto
Sorry, but I just do not hold to the Traditions. If you can just find me something in the Scriptures that would indicate support for your assertions, but they just aren't there.
Yes, Mary is Blessed among all women! Having the intimate relationship to Jesus is indeed a blessing beyond my understanding. I am blessed simply having the children I have, but to be honored to raise the Son of God is awesome. But it doesn't mean that Mary is immaculate. It doesn't mean she is sinless. It doesn't mean she didn't have other children. It doesn't mean she is a intermediary for us. That is all stuff that is not seen in the Scriptures. And if it was true IT WOULD BE. It is too big of a story NOT TO BE.
Again, as Luke claims, the certain, secure, and firm truth is stated in his Gospel (thanks A8...). He painstakingly researched this. He was trying to combat traditions which might lead Theophilus astray, and trying to keep Theo on the right path. Mary is just not found to be such a perfected and angelic creature in his writings. Blessed and full of grace, yes. Honored beyond what any parent is, certainly. Sacred, as in set aside for Gods purpose, definitely.
And the traditions have led to many, and yes, not held as true by the RCC officially, but many do worship her, and see her as the source of salvation. The distinction between worship and veneration is simply not clear to many, and is not see at all by the Protestants. Either you pray to none but God, or you pray to any AS gods for their assistance.
Still in the bounds of that Protestant tradition of 'sola scriptura'.
-A8
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.