| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/14/2014 6:31:52 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Lunar eclipse tonight. |
Posted on 04/05/2014 5:57:23 AM PDT by Gamecock
Not quite; aws the money would be going to a THIRD party; who has NOT put any skin in the game.
Likewise; no money is being put at risk by anyone other than the first person.
DANG!
I shudda read ahead AGAIN!
You said “For Catholics the Mass is first and foremost”. That has nothing to do with this discussion. It could however be taken as an admission that scripture does indeed take a second place if not worse in the Catholic religion.
>> Impossible to speak for all Catholics, but the Sola Scriptura part is immensely foreign to them<<
You don’t say! Of course it is. They have been taught it is secondary to the voice of the “magesterium”. Why would they then believe that the very words of God should be the sole source for doctrine? For that matter, why spend time reading scripture when it’s secondary to what the “magesterium” says? It would be illogical to think that greater time would be given to scripture in the Catholic Churches then in Protestants who hold scripture as the sole authoritative source for doctrine.
>> just as tradition is foreign to protestants.<<
Tradition isn’t foreign to Protestants. They have many traditions and understand the concept fully. They simply understand that doctrine comes from scripture and tradition is simply a customary practice not relevant to salvation.
You keep saying “For the Greater Glory of God”. I sincerely doubt that. Catholics give the glory to the Catholic Church much more often as evidenced by their incessant insistence that all should give glory to the Catholic Church for the very existence of scripture. They give glory to the Catholic “magesterium” over the very words of God contained in scripture as you just admitted. With all due respect your use of that phrase rings eerily hollow.
Already cited:
medieval theologians and scholars understood that Jerome had intended to express a glorification of Moses' face, by his use of the Latin word for "horned."[6]:74–90 The understanding that the original Hebrew was difficult and was not likely to literally mean "horns" persisted into and through the Renaissance.
The metaphor may have been clear in the day, but today it looks to you "puckishly horn-bedecked". You are right that there obviously had been no objection -- which proves the point the article makes.
When I die, I’ll let you know.
Where is this different?
We see Mary in heaven in what seems like a glorified body in Apocalypse 12. For example, it is difficult to imagine “two wings” given a soul which then flies away.
First of all the woman in Revelation 12 represents the nation of Israel. Second, the apostles did NOT teach that Mary was assumed into heaven nor did they teach veneration of her. On the other hand the concept of the “queen of heaven” is paramount in paganism. The apostles did mention something about “another gospel” didn’t they.
No, but the suffix "μενη", "μενος" indicates, in combination with the aorist, an action that has been completed on the subject.
since charitoō only occurs once
LOL. The word to look for is "χαρις", "grace" -- not first person present "I grace".
possibly seeking to be faithful to the Greek
There is nothing faithful here. "χαρις" means grace; "favor" is a kitchen term those mariophobic bastards would not use in any other theological context.
does not answer the question of why these are canonical as regards any difference btwn Divine inspiration of Scripture and Holy Spirit inspired, "dictated" statements by doctors and prelates of the church.
In the inspiration part there is no difference. The difference is in the historical value of the canonical New Testament as direct witness to Christ. I thought that was clear already.
"Inseparable" does not mean they are equally inspired of God. Scripture is that of the very words of God, being wholly inspired revelation of God, who is the principal author of it. Are you saying statements by doctors and prelates of the church also are the wholly inspired revelation of God
No, there is no such claim. When a theological work reflects the mind of the Church it is inspired by the holy Ghost in that part. There is not claim that the entire theological output of a doctor of a church (for example) is equally inspired. I gave you two examples, of Aquinas and Origen, -- did you read them or do you just enjoy repeating the same question four times hoping for a different answer?
Are all infallible teachings inspired of God, if not wholly?
If a teaching is wholly infallible obviously it is wholly inspired by God.
You are certainly not to engage in objective examination of evidences
Who said that? It is commendable to examine the Catholic Faith; it is in fact an obligation to at least make an effort.
the Church is essentially an unequal society
Correct. See 1 Corinthians 12:14-31. Good quotes, all these.
Not the "Rome" part. I said something about the prosecutorial attitude of many Protestants indeed, and in fact I was agreeing with you on that score. Did I quote Daniel incorrectly?
selectively clipping
I clip the part I am responding to, to the size sufficient to identify it in the post. You don't like my habits, post to someone else.
Well, this is a bit semantical. Of course when I pray to Mary or to any other saint I pray to that particular saint, -- for his/her intercession, or advice, etc. However, by doing so I venerate God, "For it is God who worketh in [them], both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will" (Phil. 2:13).
You lost me somewhere after this as your sentence ran on and on. Do you have a question?
Better than contrived comparisons
Yeah, mother of Christ and all. Sure. Pure, kosher Israel. No doubt there. With or without the Left Bank?
You are entitled to your own opinions on that, no matter how fantastical it is.
Moreover, you are correct that veneration of Mary, and the belief in her bodily assumption blossomed after the time period reflected in the Holy Scripture has ended.
Why are you so eager to have me violate my conscience?
hi dan...
I am not trying to make a statement on the relative merits of tradition and scripture versus sola scriptura, nope.
As I mentioned several times I have been told by protestants I know well and trust who have said that there is more scripture in the Catholic Mass than in a protestant church service.
at first I was shocked and thought that couldn’t be true.
However, I have since be told “that yes, ‘sadly’ there is more Scripture in a Catholic mass than in their own church”.
When this young very faithful protestant said that I was truly amazed. He opined it was the watering down of protestantism - which is the same thing we discuss about the watering down of Catholicism.
So when I mentioned what I had been told several times and confirmed by a fellow who I trust explicitly I was surprised by the vitriol I received when I mentioned that on the forum.
I think there may be a disconnect between what a protestant thinks his church is and does; just like the disconnect between what a Catholic thinks his church is and does.
My challenge is simple I am challenging specifically the protestants who raspberry my even mentioning this topic - by taking ONE specific tiny insignificant Catholic Church in the middle of nowhere and comparing it with ANY protestant Church anywhere in the US.
In other words I am bending over backwards to make this contest fair and impartial for the protestants.
This will not be a survey, critique or contrast of Catholic scripture versus protestant scripture it is simply to find out who has the most scripture in their Sunday service or mass.
The unspoken thing here on the forum is the number of protestants who do not attend any formal church but church themselves at home. I included them by extending this to a family member or relative who is a Church going protestant.
While you may not agree I hope you can clearly see my intentions. If it sounds to you like I am manipulating this please be specific in your objection so it can be dealt with.
PS my dad told me when I was very young never reject a gift. While I have not heard directly from Jim I have addressed these to him, so if he had objections I assume I would have heard about it in spades. Frankly, I think he could run contests something like these to help raise funds and awareness.
For the Greater Glory of God
I feel so sorry for God. He made everything from nothing and most don’t even give him a mere credit for that. Last I heard, man is still puzzled by the fruit fly.
Do you deny that Christ was birthed by the nation of Israel?
>> Moreover, you are correct that veneration of Mary, and the belief in her bodily assumption blossomed after the time period reflected in the Holy Scripture has ended.<<
And was codified in the very city where the temple to the “queen of heaven” Diana was located.
I am wondering, do you know that satan (the father of lies) is going to end up dead?
Your verbosity and questionable language not withstanding let’s take an honest look.>p> Luke 1:28 And the messenger having come in unto her, said, 'Hail, favoured one (κεχαριτωμένη), the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women;'
κεχαριτωμένη - I favor, bestow freely on. [http://biblehub.com/greek/5487.htm]
That’s from Strong’s. You calling him a “bastard”?
Your language is offensive.
You may want to address that to Elsie who also belives it is not a wager.
If you dont want to participate - dont.
But I still belive you need to speak to an elder in your denomination for direction slong thise lines,
AMDG
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.