Posted on 10/11/2001 9:39:48 AM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
| Threads 1-50 | Threads 51-100 | Threads 101-150 |
| Thread 151 | Thread 152 | Thread 153 | Thread 154 | Thread 155 | Thread 156 | Thread 157 |
| Thread 158<;/a> | Thread 159 | Thread 160 |
The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 161
That's your specialty not mine. Everything I claim is true. You're the one with documentation problems.
Yes, it is something of a specialty of mine to point out where you guys have no proof. It's a dirty job, but, somebody's gotta keep it honest. LOL
From what I understand of it.... the first step is to recognize that there is a "higher power". Need an introduction?
The difference is is that we know, from John 1:42, that Christ renamed Simon, Kephas. In light of that fact, any tortured distinction that our Protestant brethren keep trying to make regarding petros/petra is meaningless and futile. A fact which more and more Protestant scholars are admitting.
Now, as to my use of Greek rather than Aramaic in John 6, or "wishing to have Jesus speaking Greek". I used the Greek because, unlike the whole kephas/petros/petra situation, there is no Aramaic built into the NT that can shed any light on an exegesis of John 6. I think it is also safe to assume that we all believe that John wrote his Gospel in Greek. Since, in this instance, Greek is all we have, I used the Greek. It would be interesting though to see what Aramaic translations say regarding John 6 and trogo. I would think that the Aramaic NT manuscript tradition, although most likely less voluminous, is almost as ancient as the Greek.
Is that satisfactory? (A question not to be taken as condescension or sarcastic)
Hopefulpilgrim, I hope to have my response to your post #264 finished tomorrow.
As an aside, you know how we say, "It's all Greek to me", to express bewliderment. I wonder what the Greeks say?
Ora pro Ioannes Paulus II
And your implication that the Catholics in here are guilty of that blind faith is telling that you know nothing about us. As a convert to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, I can tell you that my journey of faith was not, and is not, one of blindness. It took quite a lot to convince me to throw away the errors of the so-called Reformation. It was through the grace of God, prayerful reading of Scripture, and studying what great Christian minds taught down through the ages, that I was able to embrace the wonderful Truths of the Catholic Church with full confidence that this is where the Lord wants me to be. I'm sure that other Catholics on these threads can give similar testamonies of their faith.
But, by all means, continue to see us as a bunch of mindless automatans that exhibit an irrational faith. You do so to your own detriment.
Pray for John Paul II
The second rite of Christian initiation (or third for those enrolled as catcheumens prior to baptism) is understood in East and West alike as confiring the gift of the Holy Spirit (note: singular gift, not plural 'gifts'). It also in East and West alike serves as a sign of unity with the bishop, in whom the fullness of that gift is realized in terms of the order of the Church (even if not in his person).
In the West the rite must be carried out by the bishop himself, as it is performed by the laying on of hands by the bishop. It was thus, even in ancient times, separated from baptism in time for all save those baptized in the bishop's presence. This rite came to be called "Confirmation" as it was understood that the bishop confirmed what had been done at baptism.
It is my understanding that the long separation, and the requirement for "understanding" (thus classes) was an innovation in response to the protestants. It also, bizarrely, places this rite after the reception of the Eucharist ("First Communion"). To an Orthodox this is very bizarre: that one who has not receive the Holy Spirit should receive the Body and Blood of Christ.
In the East the Mystery is called "Chrismation" and the sign of unity with the bishop is the requirement that the oil used in the anointing have been blessed by the primate of the local church (whether he is titled Patriarch, Metropolitan or Archbishop). The newly baptized is immediately Christmated, and receives the Holy Mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ at the first Divine Liturgy afterward (usually the same day or next day). Baptisms are usually done at the end of Orthros, just before Divine Liturgy in Greek usage or at the end of the "All-Night Vigil" the evening before in Slavic usage.
Chrismation is also often used for the reception of converts who have been baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in a confession outside the Holy Orthodox Church which nontheless professes an orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity. (Though some may be received by profession of faith alone--Copts or Armenians for instance, and some in cases where it is unclear whether a proper baptism was done--e.g. Anglican, who nowdays might have been baptized in the name of the Creator, Sanctificer and Redeemer (Sabellius, call your office)--may be received by Baptism and Chrismation.)
Why then aren't your Orthodox? Will you claim St. Peter was never in Antioch? or that he was never Bishop of Antioch? Will you claim that St. James was never in Jerusalem? or that he was never Bishop of Jerusalem? that St. Mark never went to Alexandria to take the episcopate of that city? that St. Timothy was not Bishop of Crete?
Do you deny the succession of bishops in right line from those established by the Apostles who evangelized the churches of Corinth, Colossae, Ephesus, Laodicea,... (fill in every local Church mentioned in the New Testament save Rome) down to today?
As to separation of Church and state, the First Amendment expressly prohibits a national Establishment, but not state establishments. State establishment finally broke down because of divisions between the many Protestant sects. Madison and the Baptists made common cause, so separation of Church and state did not mean the separation of Politics and Church. A kind of "denominational" protestant almost became the established religion in the United States, except that the Catholics became too numerous to be controlled, and the slavery issue overshadowed the nativist and religious issues in the 1850s.
Actually it is Biblical, the Apostles celebrated the first Mass before they received the Holy Spirit.
What doccuments do you refer to? I assume you have some in mind, or do you just believe any we could show you are false by default?
The Matrix
I didn't even get to see it. Apparently a guy with screen name FR Special Agent (or some such combination) posted sumpin not so nice to me. It was in my self search but the post itself did not exist on the thread by the time I got back to it.
I thought you guys said that Jesus spoke Aramaic?
Very cogent. Merci
And the hist-crits echo many of your arguments against sola Scriptura in their crusade against an inspired Canon. It ain't a cliff game.
There is the interesting usage of the word phago for the same scene used in Matthew. One might postulate quite reasonably that the logia, or sayings, (the Oral tradition) would be consistent if this were a pertinent point. Matthew's "This is my body, take eat" uses the good old common phago. In addition, Matthew uses the word once in connection with something quite differently (the comparison with Noah and his times "eating and drinking") but uses it literally. And outside of Matthew's single usage, John is the only other user of the word.
The dirty little secret is that phago and trogo are used interchangably in John 6. Phago is also used of partaking of Jesus' body and blood and receiving eternal life. Does that mean that John didn't mean it literally when he used phago and did when he used trogo? And if John wanted to signify the reality of it, why not use the words that every other Gospel writer uses for literal eating (esthio or phago)?
Finally, the other place one would expect to see trogo, if it is indeed the lynchpin of the doctrine of transubstantiation, is in 1 Corinthians in Paul's discourse on the topic of the Lord's Supper. It is absent.
In short, the use of the word trogo is not a good argument for or against transubstantiation. It is a non-starter. Both ways.
Is that like Reformed Egyptian?
Of course, the Catholic church materialized out of thin air. Don't you think that the Catholic church had a human founder or founders? If not, how did it take shape? Did God write your Magisterium? And I don't mean figuratively, I mean literally. Did God pick up a pen and write down the Magisterium? If so, is it preserved? And if it's preserved, can I see it?
God's will on earth is most often acted out by individuals who have surrendered themselves to the Kingdom of God (His reign and rule on this earth). Not because it has to, but because that's the way He has chosen to interact with His creation.
Not at all. I was responding to your reply to OLD REGGIE's #317:
ALL CHRISTIANS TRACE THEIR BEGINNING TO THE FORMATION OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
Now, you can argue that there were "branches" off the original church, or that their doctrines changed, or some such thing, but the above statement is by definition true. I mean, where do you think the "human founders" you mention came from? (Hint, Luther was a Catholic--an Augustinian monk, to be precise--before he was a Protestant).
I agree that the United States is by far the best country in history in terms of freedom, liberty and democracy. All I was pointing out is what you yourself acknowledge: that our history is not spotless. Don't know why it makes me "like the liberals" to be willing to acknowledge our shortcomings.
but look at our present condition, RC's and other non-Protestant faith groups are NOT oppressed in the USA compared to the rest of the world.
I think I made it quite clear that I not referring to "our present condition".
The main character is named "Anderson" which if transliterated into Greek would be "son of man." He has some doubt problems up front and not coincidentally, has the first name "Thomas." This could be dismissed without all the other fun religious references. The crew is trying to reach Zion. Anderson, after a "conversion," is renamed "Neo" which immediately brings "neophyte" to my mind. The reality of the Matrix is more real than the "material" reality. Trinity is the girl (I'm not sure of the theological ramifications of that). And I could go on and bore everyone to tears, but I won't. Night all.
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.