Posted on 12/14/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by ealgeone
The reason for this article is to determine if the worship/veneration given to Mary by the catholic church is justified from a Biblical perspective. This will be evaluated using the Biblical standard and not man’s standard.
I am saying exactly that Peter, instead of hanging close to the risen Lord, went back to Galilee
Didn’t the angel of the Lord and Jesus both instruct the women to tell the apostles to go to Galilee?
It says nothing about "purifying the soul"
It says that inferior material like hay and stubble "burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire". The allegory is of a house (verse 9) that has good material and bad material in it and through fire only the good material remains, i.e. the house is purified.
Matthew 11:18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ ”
Why would Jesus be a drunkard is all he was drinking was grape juice?
That certain grip is still among us it seems!
| John | |||
| Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000) | English: Douay-Rheims | English: Young's Literal Translation | |
| John 2 |
|||
| 3. | και υστερησαντος οινου λεγει η μητηρ του ιησου προς αυτον οινον ουκ εχουσιν | And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine. | and wine having failed, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, `Wine they have not;' |
The root word of υστερησαντος is ὑστερέω, "to come short" or "to come late". This is Strong's concordance on it: 5302.
Besides, Mary says plainly "οινον ουκ εχουσιν", -- "they have no wine".
Was it intoxicating? Wine normally is; the fact that the custom was that "Every man at first setteth forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse" indicates that the wine was intoxicating also in this case. (For those who don't have a habit of drinking wine: wine is enjoyed both for its taste and for the buzz it gives; the reason to give better-tasting wine first is to let people enjoy the taste before their senses are dulled).
Dude, if part of the house is burned it ain’t saved! Catholic analogies are so off base it’s actually comical.
LOL When every instance of the word indicates they were drunk it’s obvious it wasn’t grape just juice. There are some who have so engrained in their minds that Christ would not drink fermented beverages they don’t even search for truth.
Try this one:
Deuteronomy 14:26 and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household.
Sound like a party to me!
Pray to St. Paul and argue with him.
The Textus Receptus, Scrivener's, Trinitarian Bible Society; and eSword Bible Software TR and Robinson/Pierpont.
και And
υστερησαντος it lacking (of); aorist tense, active voice, participle, genitive, singular, masculine; "it" refers to τον γαμον = the marriage, accusative, singular, masculine. οινου wine
There is no "they" here, there is no "ran out of," and there is no "when" involved here.
οινον wine
ουκ no or not
εχουσιν they continually have; present tense,active voice indicative mode, third person plural
"And Jesus was summoned and also his disciples to the marriage, and it lacked wine. Jesus' mother said to him,
"They continually are having no wine"
or
"They are not having wine."
Look carefully. It is the marriage that has no wine, so the people have no wine.
They are not having wine because there is no wine at this marriage event.
That's point one.
=========
Point two is that the wine refreshment is a wine that has never been made before by man, that is made by a process not yet known to man, and it was made by the God-man who could not possibly be glorified by making drunk people drunker, nor would people be brought to belief in him by having "one more for the road" so to speak.
Furthermore, this "wine" (for if it were fine, sweet, pure grape juice what else could it be called in their language other than optionally gleukos) is so new, and made without any base than pure water, that by the moment it was served could not have been fermented to any degree when it was immediately served.
Unless, that is, that he went to the trouble to add all sorts of impurities, ethanol, resveratrol, and all sorts of headache-making esters, just to make it seem as though aged, according to your requirements for it to be "good."
========
And point three is that nowhere does the emcee say at all that any wine has yet been served at this event. He is remarking on the procedures commonly observed, but he says nothing for this feast except that the timing for the presentation of the libation is not only fortuitous, but tasty. And he says nothing about its alcohol content.
It is you criticizers who wish to color this with your brush, and insist that the text yields what you wish. But you cannot do that, if you are (a) honest, and (b) have no defense against the many reasons why Jesus as God need not and is never required to make, serve, or drink intoxicating beverage, no matter what you think is customary or usual, in that time or now.
And don't forget that these translations by uninspired interpreters have no better foundation than mine here, and are very slow to credit the Christ sent from Heaven with pure habits and intentions that would demand, from other Scriptures, that He be a tee-totaller from recreational man-made poison.
So go ahead, fight over it. You'll not be able to convince me, and I know from experience what "recreational" life-destroying ethanol is all about. I think it's going to be quite interesting to hear how Jesus deals with this at His Judgment Seat.
Jesus to a scribe:
"David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son?" (Lk. 20:44 AV).
To the temple officer:
"Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?" (Jn. 18:23 AV).
To the disciples, including Judas Iscariot:
"Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" (Jn. 6:70 AV).
(Lots more like this.)
==========
that the Spirit of God was upon David when he committed adultery and murder, although you have not fully developed your teaching here;
"Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel rose up, and went to Ramah" (1 Sam. 16:13 AV).
Here the verb is in the imperfect tense but the overall sense of the clause is the same as if it were in the perfect. But:
"And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice" (1 Ki. 19:12 AV).
The Holy Ghost was there, but David must have refused to hear the still small voice. As we fail to heed the still small voice when we are contemplating iniquity. To God, sin is sin, no matter how we try to regard it as small or large.
xxxxxxxxx
More later. Time to rest.
:-)
Huh? ah, neither. It’s a defense to a couple of AF’s supposed fault-finding agenda, see Post #6835. Just getting warmed up —
True believers don't pray to anyone but the Father in Jesus name as taught in scripture. And there is no arguing necessary. The clear meaning of his words are talking about more reward or less reward and have nothing to do with salvation.
:-)
I believe the first term you used to describe your own comments was "trolling" (post 6798: "I really was just trolling to get you to step in it, and you did."). Then came a defense of "trolling" because, according to you, Jesus used it as a "plot" all the time.
Ploy is defined as something that is done or said, often dishonestly, in order to get an advantage; a trick:
a marketing ploy . Have you translated your own version of the Bible to include the word "ploy" after the fashion of your other teachings, despite the fact that there was no deceit in Messiah's mouth ?
The Holy Ghost was there, but David must have refused to hear the still small voice. As we fail to heed the still small voice when we are contemplating iniquity. To God, sin is sin, no matter how we try to regard it as small or large.
This is what I expected. It seems to me a theological anomaly where one believes the Holy Spirit was always upon David, even as he committed murder and adultery. Notwithstanding it was almost a millennium before the coming of Messiah, and all the theological problems that presents.
Not dishonestly here, fellow. And certainly not twisting the Scripture, as is the habit of some. You wouldn't do that, would you? Like telling me that the RCC wrote the Bible? Nah.
The clear meaning of his words are talking about more reward or less reward and have nothing to do with salvation.
Correct, it says that both those with hay and stubble are saved and those with only stone and precious metal are saved. But it also speak that those with hay and stubble get the hay and stubble purged from them by fire. That is what Purgatory is.
Paul is dead. We are told not to contact the dead.
>>But it also speak that those with hay and stubble get the hay and stubble purged from them by fire. That is what Purgatory is.<<
No, that's not what purgatory is. There is no purgatory or purging time. That's all a figment of the imaginations of the Catholic Church.
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.