Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save
?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live
There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ
(ASV) Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him.
(DRB) Him, who knew no sin, he hath made sin for us: that we might be made the justice of God in him. Sin for us... That is, to be a sin offering, a victim for sin.
(ESV) For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
(Geneva) For he hath made him to be sinne for vs, which knewe no sinne, that we should be made the righteousnesse of God in him.
(KJV) For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
(YLT) for him who did not know sin, in our behalf He did make sin, that we may become the righteousness of God in him.
HA! Our friend Kosta doesn't even believe in the existance of the full Septuagint as he just posted. Are you willing to take that stand?
Kosta is absolutely correct. While I don't agree with our Orthodox brothers on their theology, they tend to be consistent and there are reasons why they believe the way the do. I like consistency and I can appreciate their view. That being said, they don't agree with me either. :O)
Catholics on the other hand would like to move from a western model to the eastern model, but it's difficult-especially given all that "infallibility" nonsense of the Pope. Their writings for the past 800 years have slowly been trying to get them there but it is a muddle mess. Why don't they just say, "Oops, we were wrong and the Orthodox were right." and be done with it. It certainly would make my life easier. :O)
" The penances performed upon earth are very acceptable and pleasing to God; and hence we should be most anxious to do penance here . Therefore, after performing the penance the priest gives you in the confessional, it is wise to impose upon yourself other light penances in keeping with your age and condition, but never undertake severe penances or make religious vows and promises without consulting your confessor. In every case be careful first of all to perform the penance imposed upon you in the reception of the Sacrament. The penance given in confession has a special value, which none of the penances selected by yourself could have.that we may have less to suffer in Purgatory
because the Purgatory is not something where men pay for their sin. Christ paid for their sins already by the time they are in there.
Semantics
The second branch of the Church is called the Church Suffering. It is made up of all those who have gone through this world and are now in Purgatory.
Some of them while on earth fought well, but not as well as they could have done; they yielded to some temptations, fell into some small sins, received some slight wounds from their spiritual enemies, or they have not satisfied God entirely for the temporal guilt due to their great sins; therefore they are in Purgatory till they can be completely purified from all their sins and admitted into Heaven.
It is a good idea to know the subject matter of which you opine.
Indeed it is
Very good, Kosta mou!
Ἔλεον εἰρήνης, θυσίαν αἰνέσεως.
“”Kosta50? The same kosta50 who is a self-professed agnostic?””
Dear sister, many people who suffer a crises in faith turn out to be the strongest in faith through such trials, and if you ever read the lives of many of the saints you would see this.
So, perhaps your intent to publicly castigate Kosta could end up being a millstone around your neck?
The KJV does have flaws. . . . though I was raised on it and most of my memory of Scripture is KJV. . . . and I love much of the language.
Yeah, the RC’s don’t take kindly to any tarnishing of their Goddess.
No,but I understand his doubt because we don't have full sets of the supposed original. I accept these things on FAITH because I trust the Church.
First, it was not important to write Mary's biography. The Evangelists were writing Christ's biography. That is the principle throghout the New Testament: if things pertain to Christ and His teaching, they are written down. Everything else is only sketched as necessary or not mentioned at all. Second, it never occurred to anyone that everything we know had to be written down till the latter fundamentalist spinoffs of the more traditinalist Protestants started to claim that Bible in not merely the sole rule of faith, but that it even contains everything there is to know.
Lastly, to say "brothers" is good writing in this context, even though it lends itself poorly to English translations in the society where there is one home per family and the family has 1.9 children. The inspired writer sought a way to describe a group of people Jesus's age who are related to Him somehow or simply share the household. The correct word, in 1c. Greek to describe literal brothers, cousins, half brothers, milk brothers, step brothers, adopted brothers, and playmates, -- a typical composition of a Semitic household -- is "adelphoi".
I have a vague feeling someone already asked this exact question. I run about a week behind in answering, because there is one me and about a dosen you. If you ask a question and don't see the answer, that is because I haven't gotten around to it, not because I don't want to answer. If you see me overstep your question and answer more recent ones, send me a link to the overstepped question.
Why make a doctrine and teach it as fact
It is a fact.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
We can read about them in Matthew 5-7 or Matthew 25:35-40.
There are things that I know about my parents and grandparents that are a fact but I cannot prove it to you. I bet, you, too, know something about your family that cannot be proven to outsiders. You just know it. This is what Christian faith is: belief in the factual nature of the events teh memory of which was retained by the Chruch since these events happen.
But Protestants killed their own faith. They want to turn the Church that nse was theit home into a police station with evidence filed away. That is the chief damage that Sola Scriptura does to a Christian soul.
But Protestants killed their own faith. They want to turn the Church that nse was theit home into a police station with evidence filed away. That is the chief damage that Sola Scriptura does to a Christian soul.
Outstanding!
Reading the scriptures was the motivation for leaving Rome.. The more i read the more I realized the less Rome was anything like the church of the NT ...Same here. I couldn't reconcile (wrap my mind around really) the differences between the plain, un-reinterpreted reading of Scripture with what the Catholic church actually, in practice, taught. Not their alleged *official* doctrine either. What was taught at the local parish level.
However, once my eyes were opened, I saw the disparity between Scripture and *official* doctrine as well.
SAME HERE!
First, it was not important to write Mary's biography
If it wasn't important at that time, then why later did it become so important as to merit "Holy Tradition"?
Everything else is only sketched as necessary or not mentioned at all.
Apparently it was germane to Matthew and so was mentioned. What is disturbing here is that what is contained in the Sacred Scriptures are described by the RCC as inaccurate "sketches". Since Matthew 1:24-25 said that Mary got laid by her husband and had other sons, and "Holy Tradition" contradicts that statement, then this portion of divinely inspired writing gets tossed into the waste bin of erroneous "sketches" and is replaced by the "unimportant" doctrine of Mary's sin against God in refusing the role of wife. (1 Corinthians 7:2-5; Matthew 19:5) What is clear here is the belief that "Holy Tradition", of suspicious origin and definition, has greater authority than the Divinely inspired Word of God. In other words, the utterances of men chosen by cast lots thousands of years beyond the events have greater authority than the words of eye-witnesses of and those who were direct understudies of Jesus Christ Himself.
There was a reason why Rome burned down so many libraries and killed so-many Church leaders that differed from her extra-biblical proclamations. We see that reason here, as Matthew's Gospel is held in contempt.
Lastly, to say "brothers" is good writing in this context, even though it lends itself poorly to English translations in the society where there is one home per family and the family has 1.9 children.
I didn't know that in 1611 (the KJV's publication) that the average English speaking family had 1.9 children, I foolishly thought it was considerably greater. The problem I see with your theory, other than the fact cultures have indeed changed over time, is that there are good words to use for "cousin". A relevant example is here the word 'άνεψιός' which, means "cousin", or if you are a 1611 KJV translator, means "nephew". (compare Col 4:10 between versions).
Your "brothers" means "cousins" statement is hogwash. There is a perfectly good word to use in the context that you are constructing, and that word is 'συγγενίς', and that it is a malleable in meaning as needed, yet is commonly understood to be "cousin" or "kinsmen". I submit that the Gospel authors meant "brothers" and thus used 'άδελϕός' when they meant "brothers" rather than "cousins". Furthermore, and quite important, is the word used in Matthew 13:56 and that is for "sister" or 'άδελϕή', and it never means "kinsmen" or "cousins" but is either referring to natural sisters or ecclesiastical sisters.
My question for you is, if the Gospel writers wanted to convey the idea of actual brothers and sisters, what would they have actually said differently than what is already there?
I know the temptation to rewrite dictionaries is there because Rome has no problems rewriting history and the Word of God.
Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it.
Easy for you to understand, almost impossible for a dummy like me.
Could I ask for your list please?
Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say Honorius "...must have made such an ex cathreda definition...". I did say he was convicted of Heresy by an Infallible Ecumenical Council. Further, I said the "ex cathreda" definition was not yet invented and was conveniently applied as required on a retroactive basis.
IOW, your Honorius argument is based on a fraudulent argument.
You and I are wasting our time on this subject and I am perfectly willing to drop it. Good luck with the Kool-Ade.
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.