Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.
The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.
It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.
One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.
First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.
The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.
The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.
All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.
Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.
How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.
I'm going to call foul here, purely on your logic.
One can foreknow results according to a devised plan to accomplish the end results without controlling each and every in-between variation. Even humans do this all the time.
Genesis 37:9-10 And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me. 10 And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?
Genesis 1:16-18 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Isaiah 42:5-7 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: 6 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; 7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.
Are you implying that the Companion Bible is that Bible or are you implying that I am a racist? Either way, you should be ashamed of yourself P-Marlowe. I can take dispute over scripture but I don't understand your apparent meanness of spirit.
If you would like to discuss the ideas and the scripture I have given I would love to discuss it with you. Except for what you see as an error, with "was" and "became", you haven't yet tried to disprove or agree with any of it. Why?
....Ping
The first is that Adam was the first to be ensouled. Other men existing on earth at that time were not specially created in that sense. They were just another kind of animal.
This is a highlight of Bullinger’s commentary [see: LiveJournal message board
It is also not an unusual belief. For instance, that Adam was the first ensouled man is also Catholic teaching accepting both special creation and evolution.
I also recall see it in some Jewish mysticism I’ve read along the way.
But racists wield this belief to mean that all but Adam (presumed to mean ‘white’) are inferior. Adamic man should not interbreed, yada yada.
The second is preterism – that prophesy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. and that Christians have replaced Israelis altogether in God’s promises.
Again there are a lot of Christians who believe in full or partial preterism or replacement theology and are not racists.
But racists wield this belief to mean that either the nation of Israel or the descendants of Isaac deserve no special respect from Christians – or, that the Jews are inferior and to be shunned, yada yada.
Of course, racism is not tolerated anywhere on this website (contrary to O’Reilly’s false accusations) – so I’m confident that any Freeper holding to Adamic man as first ensouled along with the replacement doctrine are under the watchful eye of the Religion Moderator just to be sure no white supremacists are trying to get a foothold here, e.g. "wolves in sheep's clothing."
Thank you Alamo Girl for your clarification of this issue. I do study from the Companion Bible which is just a KJV with notes by a wonderful scholar, E.W. Bullinger. If racist people use it to further their beliefs then so be it. They use anything they can. Satan also uses the Bible and twists scripture. The only way we can know them is to know the Bible ourselves and be certain of His word.
There were other men existing on earth before Adam as God tells us in Genesis - mankind. Adam came about after God had rested, on what I assume to be the 8th day. Nowhere are they said to be just another animal. Quite the contrary as God said, after their creation:
Gen.1:27So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created he them.
28.And God blessed them, and God said unto them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
Two things we find there. One, if anyone can interpret that to mean they were as other animals they have a twisted mind. Two, God said to "replenish", not plenish earth. What did that mean? There was a creation, an age, before they were created and it had been done away with, destroyed and they were to replenish it.
But racists wield this belief to mean that all but Adam (presumed to mean ‘white’) are inferior. Adamic man should not interbreed, yada yada.
Adam does mean: Strong's #119, to flush, to turn rosy, etc. Also see 120, 121, 122..
So...to me that states that the Adamic race, from whom Christ came are part of the white race (rudy complected/blush). As far as the rest of "mankind" that were created on the 6th day. Mankind means ALL races.
But racists wield this belief to mean that either the nation of Israel or the descendants of Isaac deserve no special respect from Christians – or, that the Jews are inferior and to be shunned, yada yada.
Hopefully, if anyone has read any of my posts they know that I have always said that the Jewish people are our brothers and sisters. I mean that quite literally.
Thank you again.......Ping
The early Christians understood this very well
“Our Lord Jesus Christ, however, who came to liberate mankind, in which both males and females are destined to salvation, was not averse to males, for He took the form of a male, nor to females, for of a female He was born. Besides, there is a great mystery here: that just as death comes to us through a woman, Life is born to us through a woman; that the devil, defeated, would be tormented by each nature, feminine and masculine, since he had taken delight in the defection of both.”
Saint Augustine, Christian Combat (22,24) 396 A.D.
Lets take a look at Genesis 3:15 and Isaiah 7:14...
“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” Genesis 3:15
“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and his name shall be called Emmanuel.” Isaiah 7:14
“And Jesus said to her, “O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” John 2:4
The use of the word ‘woman’ in this verse is a reference to Genesis 3:15 where GOD promised salvation through the offspring of the ‘woman’. He will come through her to crush the head of the serpent. Jesus reminded us in John 2:4, that He is the Saviour promised in Genesis 3:15.
“When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.” John 19:26-27
Again a reference to Genesis 3:15 reinforcing the woman of that verse as being His mother.
“What would you have me do woman?”
John 2:4
This is a pivotal verse, in that Jesus has affirmed that He is the second Adam, and His mother Mary is the Second Eve.
In order to put this verse in its proper perspective, we must first look at the word woman as used in several places in the Old and New Testaments.
GOD made woman from the rib of Adam in Genesis 2:22. In the very next verse, Adam said, “She now is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for from man she has been taken”. Notice that the first woman came from man, and after that man came from woman. Adam is a “TYPE” of Jesus Christ as shown in Romans 5:14 and 1Corinthians 15:44-49.
In Genesis 3, the word woman is mentioned eight times. In Genesis 3:15 we have the Protoevangelium, the promise of a redeemer after the fall of man, a woman, whose Son (he) will crush the head of the serpent. Did you notice that the Messiah and His Mother are together there in Genesis 3:15?
“...Just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all. For just as through the disobedience of one person (Eve) the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one (Mary) the many will be made righteous.” Romans 5:18-19
I have posted the following typology many times.
Here it is again.....
Mary is the “New Eve”
Old Testament Eve- Verses New Testament Mary
Created without original sin, Gen 2:22-25 = Created without original sin, Luke 1:28,42
There was a virgin, Gen 2:22-25 = There is a virgin, Luke 1:27-34
There was a tree, Gen 2:16-17 = There was a cross made from a tree, Matt 27:31-35
There was a fallen angel, Gen 3:1-13 = There was a loyal angel, Luke 1:26-38
A satanic serpent tempted her, Gen 3:4-6 = A satanic dragon threatened her, Rev 12:4-6,13-17
There was pride, Gen 3:4-7 = There was humility, Luke 1:38
There was disobedience, Gen 3:4-7 = There was obedience, Luke 1:38
There was a fall, Gen 3:16-20 = There was redemption, John 19:34
Death came through Eve, Gen 3:17-19 = Life Himself came through Mary, John 10:28
She was mentioned in Genesis 3:2-22 = She was mentioned in Genesis 3:15
Could not approach the tree of life Gen 3:24 = Approached the “Tree of Life”, John 19:25
An angel kept her out of Eden, Gen 3:24 = An angel protected her, Rev 12:7-9
Prophecy of the coming of Christ, Gen 3:15 = The Incarnation of Christ, Luke 2:7
Firstborn was a man child, Gen 4:1 = Firstborn was a man child, Luke 2:7, Rev 12:5
Firstborn became a sinner, Gen 4:1-8 = Firstborn was the Savior, Luke 2:34
The mother of all the living, Gen 3:20 = The spiritual mother of all the living, John 19:27
The Early Christians saw this very clear...
“
He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto me according to thy word.’ And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.” Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 100 (A.D. 155)
“In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.’ But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise ‘they were both naked, and were not ashamed,’ inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; s so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:22 (A.D. 180).
Lastly,it is Mary That is the Women Clothed with the sun in the book of Revelation
We have seen that there is no sun as seen in the heavens as we have in our earthly sky, but yet we do see a woman clothed with the sun in heaven in Revelation 12:1.
The Book of Revelation speaks of souls and spirits as being in heaven (Rev 1:4,6:9,20:4), but in verse 12:1, it does not say the soul, or spirit of a woman as being seen does it? No, it says a woman. The Greek word used for woman here is gune which means a woman. If you check the definition of the word “woman” in a dictionary, you will find that it defines the word as, “an adult female human being”. A human being has a body, a soul, and a spirit (1Thess 5:3). Souls and spirits are gender neutral, so the fact that Saint John saw a woman adds gender to the equation, and gender can only come from the body. Therefore, what Saint John saw in heaven was a female human person, and that person had to have a body, a soul, and a spirit.
I Wish You A Blessed Day!
Adversus Haereses (Book I, Chapter 30)
Doctrines of the Ophites and Sethians.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103130.htm
This should sound somewhat familiar to what you have been mislead into believing
The Apostle Paul may have had better data than Ireneaus.
[2 Corinthians 11:2-3] For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
"Beguiled"....Strong's #1818. exapatao (ex-ap-at-ah'-o) "to seduce wholly"
This may be why the Holy Spirit inspired these words that follow the incident itself: [Genesis 3:13-16] And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.........and.......... Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
I don't see the inconsistency. If we go back to verse 11 God has created grasses and trees. If these were growing the light they must have been growing by must have been the light of our LORD. IOW, the progression of what was created first was at GOD's pleasure, not what we believe the progression must be.
You may well be right, but there is nothing wrong in trying to understand GOD's creation and how the process was done. The more we learn the more the truth of Scripture is supported.
Girl, you do a much better job of articulating this than I can!
IOW, the harder science works to explain everything and disprove GOD, they actually do the reverse. Ultimately, all we have to do is insist on objectivity.
I have noticed that you seem to include “Ping Pong” in a lot of your posts on Free Republic
You know....I'm not exactly sure just what he did.....but I do know it involved more than some "Apple Cobbler".
What do you think Satan did that would cause the Holy Spirit to record the evidence of his (Satan's) seed?
Ping-Pong and I agree on quite a bit....we also disagree on quite a bit......but she always remains agreeable. I am ashamed of some of you (not necessarily stfassisi) inferring she is some type of racist!
Dear Friend,
Perhaps this might help you understand Genesis 3:15
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm
I wish you a Blessed day!
I understand that the idea of Eve having a child by Satan is difficult for everyone who has never been taught that, especially Catholics, as you believe Eve and Mary are the same. However, scripture does point to the fact of Cain being the son of Eve and the "serpent".
I also read your next post where you believe the idea of "serpent seed" came from. I don't agree. It's biblical, not mythical.
Christ Himself tells us about the children of Cain, who was a child of the serpent:
Matthew 23:33. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
35.That upon you may came all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the Temple and the altar.
Who shed the blood of Abel? Why did He call them "serpents" already condemned to hell?
Christ tells us again in John 8:
38.I speak that which I have seen with My Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father"
44. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
The first murderer was Cain (from the beginning) and he was the liar when he answered God, "I know not, am I my brother's keeper?" So...We know Christ is speaking about Cain and his offspring and at the same time Christ tells us their father is the devil.
There are other scriptures that point to this too. It isn't taken from a mythological, pagan, mumbo-jumbo writing but from God's word.
I also wish you a blessed day.......Ping
I don’t believe that stfassisi said “Mary was Eve”.
You seem to have misinterpreted what was written.
Yes, there have been bad people throughout history in a variety of powerful positions who attempted to retain that power through oppression and violence.
If I misstated his belief, please excuse the error.
I first stated: Even in vs. 3 that "light" isn't the sun. The sun wasn't formed until vs.14.
And you replied: I disagree. I believe the lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night are stars. We see stars at night but not during the day.
To which, I replied: That would make more sense but it doesn't fit with 1:16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: He made the stars also......Wouldn't that, on the fourth day, be the sun and moon, as well as stars?
And this brings us to your last statement: I don't see the inconsistency. If we go back to verse 11 God has created grasses and trees. If these were growing the light they must have been growing by must have been the light of our LORD. IOW, the progression of what was created first was at GOD's pleasure, not what we believe the progression must be.
I don't understand exactly what you are saying. On what "day" do you believe the sun and moon were brought into existence? (I agree that He decides when and what comes first, at His pleasure).
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.