Posted on 07/15/2005 11:29:25 AM PDT by nypokerface
JACKSON, Miss. - A Christian adoption agency that receives money from Choose Life license plate fees said it does not place children with Roman Catholic couples because their religion conflicts with the agency's "Statement of Faith."
Bethany Christian Services stated the policy in a letter to a Jackson couple this month, and another Mississippi couple said they were rejected for the same reason last year.
"It has been our understanding that Catholicism does not agree with our Statement of Faith," Bethany director Karen Stewart wrote. "Our practice to not accept applications from Catholics was an effort to be good stewards of an adoptive applicant's time, money and emotional energy."
Sandy and Robert Steadman, who learned of Bethany's decision in a July 8 letter, said their priest told them the faith statement did not conflict with Catholic teaching.
Loria Williams of nearby Ridgeland said she and her husband, Wes, had a similar experience when they started to pursue an adoption in September 2004.
"I can't believe an agency that's nationwide would act like this," Loria Williams said. "There was an agency who was Christian based but wasn't willing to help people across the board."
The agency is based in Grand Rapids, Mich., and has offices in 30 states, including three in Mississippi. Its Web site does not refer to any specific branch of Christianity.
Stewart told the Jackson Clarion-Ledger that the board will review its policy, but she didn't specify which aspects will be addressed.
The Web site says all Bethany staff and adoptive applicants personally agree with the faith statement, which describes belief in the Christian Church and the Scripture.
"As the Savior, Jesus takes away the sins of the world," the statement says in part. "Jesus is the one in whom we are called to put our hope, our only hope for forgiveness of sin and for reconciliation with God and with one another."
Sandy Steadman said she was hurt and disappointed that Bethany received funds from the Choose Life car license plates. "I know of a lot of Catholics who get those tags," she said.
She added: "If it's OK to accept our money, it should be OK to open your home to us as a family."
Bethany is one of 24 adoption and pregnancy counseling centers in Mississippi that receives money from the sale of Choose Life tags, a special plate that motorists can obtain with an extra fee.
Of $244,000 generated by the sale of the tags in 2004, Bethany received $7,053, said Geraldine Gray, treasurer of Choose Life Mississippi, which distributes the money.
"It is troubling to me if they are discriminating based on only the Catholics," Gray said.
I understand the statement that Jesus was the firstborn. Even if you only have one child the first is still the first. This was important because of Jewish law.
However, on the cross when Jesus gave Mary to the keeping of John that would have been a gross violation of Jewish law because she would have "belonged" to her "other children". So you (general you) mean to say that Jesus obeyed the law except for that one little bitty thing?
You are reading the Bible that is interpreted from Aramaic to Greek to English. Unfortunately, there is no Aramaic word for "cousin", so the Greek renders the word - brother. Thus, the confusion.
Rather than making the claim that Catholics believe Scripture is false, I think I will go with the Catholic tradition of 2000 years and say your interpretation is incorrect.
Regards
"Jesus was the firstborn"
"Firstborn" refers only to the male. The first son, even when preceded by four older sisters, is still the "firstborn"
Firstborn has nothing at all to due with the number of children.
A common error among those who think the Bible was written in 20th century English.
You missed the point of the post.
"You missed the point of the post."
I was simply adding a clarifying point on 'firstborn' to the discussion. When you said "Even if you only have one child the first is still the first", that is true, but it might not be the 'firstborn'. "First born" is not always equal to "firstborn"
Many people are not aware of this distinction.
Jewish custom and the priesthood that was passed from father to firstborn son. In theory.
I apologize for being snippy.
If I understand you correctly, if a person dies with an unforgiven moral sin he will go to hell?
Only a Priest can forgive a mortal sin?
I was told that to intentionally skip mass on Sunday is a mortal sin. Is this true?
You said: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Doesn’t this verse turn on our understanding of “righteous”?
Romans 1:17
For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."
Romans 3:20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
You said: They will be punished - but not eternally. We call this Purgatory. Actually the verse you cited about bridling one’s tongue does not seem to indicate that there is a punishment attached to this sin? In English common law and our own system of laws, there is no crime unless both the crime and punishment is prescribed by statute. Certainly there are punishments listed elsewhere in the Bible that fall short of going to Hell. But I get the impression that they relate to the effects of those sins on us in this world. We hardly need a Bible verse, or a Catechism to know that not following a Godly life will result in much pain and unnecessary suffering. I do stress I said a Godly life, which may well include many, many earthly pleasures that are not holy but may still be Godly. Even those who do not believe in God or follow His prescription for a peaceful life benefit the same as we who believe if they do the things that please God, even if they are not doing them for his pleasure but for some other reason. (It’s a much longer story can’t do this concept justice in such a few sentences, but I hope you get my drift?)
James 1:25But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
The corollary to this verse would be whoso does not do so will not be blessed “in his deed”. I would suggest that the context here is not the hereafter but here and now?
Maybe when Jesus expanded the meaning of adultery, he was not using hyperbole? What if he was trying to say what I believe to be true. “Look, you can’t get into heaven by following the 10 commandments. Let me show you the degree of holiness necessary to make it in on your own without accepting my free gift of salvation, if you once look at a woman and the thought crosses your mind about her sexuality, you have committed adultery already. Now how many of you have that much control over your natural emotions? None of you, so if you want to get into Heaven you had better take advantage of my death on the cross which I go to willingly so that you will not suffer the consequences of your sin. You must be absolutely perfect if you want to get in on your own merit, and I do mean perfect as I am perfect.” Of course Jesus never said this in the way I just stated it, but you can find sufficient proof that it is so if you search the scriptures.
You said: Perhaps you would be surprised if I told you that Catholics are not REQUIRED to go to Confession to a priest EXCEPT if he has committed a mortal sin!
Actually this one of the teaching that I did know about, and I do believe that confession cleanses the soul and conscience.
I don’t believe in one time confession of faith either. It seems to me that we agree on everything except the terms we use to express our beliefs. It sounds very much to me like we are saying the same thing, but using a different language to say them. For example I would not have thought to define salvation with two terms “objective” and “subjective”, rather I would have said that Christ did it all and all we have to do is accept his sacrifice.
I’m not totally convinced that the Spirit works in the community for if that were true then what need would there be for us who are led by the spirit to be good witnesses of God’s grace and love? I do not remember a verse that teaches that the Spirit of God roams the world as the devil does?
Can you give me one example of how one might place the Bible over and above the apostolic teachings? Are they not the same?
You said: In matters of faith and doctrine, we should rely on the Spirit working through the Apostles' successors, as the NT shows as a precedent. Can you show me where the Apostles say that we expect further revelation beyond the revelation given to us by Jesus? I am not aware of any such verses?
You said: We really believe that Christ was/is FULLY man and FULLY God.
I would be interested in your contrast between the Christ I believe in, who is God incarnate, and the Christ Catholics believe in?
You said it: the "world" is really our "enemy", not each other.
And for this reason, although you and I speak a different theological language, we speak the same spiritual language. I know you will appreciate the following:
Hillary Clinton said she is a Christian and the proof is that she goes to church. She recognizes that mainstream American are Christians and she wants them to trust her. But going to church makes one no more a Christian than going into Dodger Stadium makes one a professional ballplayer.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
Romanns 16: 25Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ
Catholic is not Christian now?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Good afternoon,
I would like to answer these questions as succinctly as possible, as I would like to introduce you to a concept that will help to understand the Church's point of view on different subjects. It is the theology of the Church, and it revolves around the incarnation. I'll get to it in a second post to you. But first...
"Only a Priest can forgive a mortal sin?"
The priest is "in the person of Christ". He is the voice and visible presence, so to speak, of Christ Himself. I'll get to this more when speaking of the role of the Church. But this concept refers more to sacramentalism, one of two critical concepts to understand about Catholicism. Sacramentalism is the idea that God works through creation (which Genesis says was created good vs. the Greeks) to bring us His invisible graces. We cannot see God nor His graces, His forgiveness of our sins. It is an abstract concept, and man does better when we use our senses. We tend to trust things more when we utilize our senses, rather than ONLY abstract concepts of the rationale. Thus, Catholics put emphasis on God giving the disciples the authority to forgive sins (in Christ's name - always remember that). Psychology will verify this - we need to hear that we are forgiven of wrong-doing. We need to speak, to come to terms with our guilt, and confess to those whom we wrong. The priest not only "represents" Christ, but also the people of the community. This way, the person is hearing forgiveness from God through the voice of the priest as well as the community of believers. There are many positives to this, but to keep this short, I'll stop here, and if you want, I can expound later on its benefits that I, among many others, have experienced through the sacrament.
"I was told that to intentionally skip mass on Sunday is a mortal sin. Is this true?"
It depends on the knowledge of the person and whether he willfully and intentionally did it anyways. Each case is different. It is not always so cut and dry as some would have you believe. I think the person would know in his heart.
"The righteous will live by faith."
As shown by his works, as James 2. I think righteousness is always based on God's own righteousness. But we also share in this - which I will explain better when I get to the second concept of Catholicism, the incarnation.
"In English common law and our own system of laws, there is no crime unless both the crime and punishment is prescribed by statute."
Christianity was not formed under English common law, but under Roman law, which does not rely on statutes, but more on the sense and interpretation of the judge. It is more flexible than common law. I cited James, because I couldn't remember the one that Jesus says that every harsh word out of our mouths will be subject to the punishment, or something to that effect. Ok. Here it is.
"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Mat 5:22
"Even those who do not believe in God or follow His prescription for a peaceful life benefit the same as we who believe if they do the things that please God, even if they are not doing them for his pleasure but for some other reason"
I understand what you are saying. Jesus came to give us life to the fullest. He defines what is the goal of humanity, what it means to live as a human in the eyes of God. He is our model. Those without this 'knowledge' will certainly not come to the fullest truth. Our rationale cannot come to all the knowledge that we have about God. Revelation AND Ration are needed to live life to the fullest, to come to the meaning of our lives, and so forth. Thus, by living the paradoxical life of the cross, we actually come to peace and happiness. Foolishness of the cross, right?
Regarding James 1:25
"The corollary to this verse would be whoso does not do so will not be blessed “in his deed”. I would suggest that the context here is not the hereafter but here and now?"
This would fit in with what I wrote above, but is not necessarily so. Perhaps it is similar to another James verse:
"he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins."
Again, in this life, or at judgment time? We don't really know how God will judge us and our actions, as we do both good and bad things. Our subjective redemption depends on us to a degree (which, again, I hope to make more clear in the next post...)
"...if you want to get into Heaven you had better take advantage of my death on the cross which I go to willingly so that you will not suffer the consequences of your sin."
That would be a sermon that would have no meaning to the disciples at the time it was given. I think Jesus is expanding the meaning of the law to move beyond the simple following of the letter. And as Paul says later, the Law has no power to make us follow it. Only the Spirit can help us to obey the Law - which, of course, calls for faith in Christ. We cannot do anything on our own that has divine merit. But that does not preclude our participation. More later...
"I do not remember a verse that teaches that the Spirit of God roams the world as the devil does?"
"The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit." John 3:8.
We live in the world, but are not of the world. Of course, the "world" is refering to Greek philosophy and its separation of the spiritual and physical world. I think it is safe to say that the Spirit of Christ comes to us in this world, both as an individual and as a person.
"But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal" 1 Cor 12:7
The Spirit is given not for personal gain, but for the good of the Church, the Body of Christ. And to continue...
"For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also [is] Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. (1 Cor 12: 12-14).
The community is the Church, the Body of Christ, in whom the Spirit works.
"Can you give me one example of how one might place the Bible over and above the apostolic teachings? Are they not the same?"
Some Christians believe that Jesus Christ is not present in the Eucharist, despite the teachings and writings of the Apostles and subsequent church fathers, clearly and unanimously stated for 1500 years. Some believe that the Eucharist is ONLY a symbolic meal with no presence of Christ. These same Christians believe that the Bible is clear that Christ meant John 6 to be ONLY symbolic, despite the evidence within and outside of Scripture.
"Can you show me where the Apostles say that we expect further revelation beyond the revelation given to us by Jesus?"
No new revelation is given or expected. However, we can delve into the Scriptures and the Apostolic teachings to develop those teachings for us today. We come to a further understanding of the truths given to us by Christ, who was God's final revelation - but we don't necessarily understand it perfectly, correct? One example would be to define who or what is the Holy Spirit? God? A force? An angel? Not clear until the church delved into the matter, looking at both the Scriptures and the Traditions of the Apostles.
"You said: We really believe that Christ was/is FULLY man and FULLY God. I would be interested in your contrast between the Christ I believe in, who is God incarnate, and the Christ Catholics believe in?"
I will tell you what Catholics believe, and you can tell me if it rings true with your beliefs, since I don't fully know what you believe regarding the incarnation. I hope to explain this important concept in my next post to you.
Brother in Christ
The Church is the prolongation of Jesus Christ here on earth.
I would like to try explain an important concept in Catholicism, the incarnation, and how it effects the theology of the Church. It will help in seeing why Catholics believe and act how they do.
The Kingdom of God, in the Gospels, established by Christ, is presented to us as closely united to Him. It implies an eternal presence in the midst of His own. This is shown by such verses as "I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them." Mt. 18:19-20. Or, "I was hungry, and you gave me to eat... Mt 25:35 and on.
There is a unity between Jesus and the faithful. Again, look at Paul's conversion: Saul, Saul, why do you persecute ME. Of course, there is some mystical unity between the believer and Jesus Christ. Scripture repeats this theme, especially in John's writings. Paul continues by saying Christ and His own form not two, but one - one organism, one body, one man, one only Christ. He is the Head, the Church are the members (1 Cor 12 and others). Thereafter, Paul wished to know nothing else - all else was worthless. Paul announces time and time again that Christ is in the faithful and the faithful are in Christ; and that the life, death, and resurrection and glorification of the Savior are continued in man. For example: "The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God. And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together. (Rom 8:16-17). Hopefully, you will agree with this so far, as it is nothing new.
Now. The unity of Christians, the unity of the Mystical Body (church) has its beginning and its model in the unity of the divine Persons, God Himself. God Himself is our ultimate model. God is a participated unity in which the Three Persons share of themselves totally. We, the Church are an imperfect unity and participation - BUT, it is a real participation in the Divine Person's unity. We shar in the Divine nature, says Peter, in some mystical way - through the Word made flesh. Since we are united to Christ, we are united to God Himself, in some imperfect manner. This is strictly because of what is common between us and God - the Incarnated Word.
There is a continuity between the Incarnation and the animation of Christians in the Incarnate Word. The entire Church, and each Christian in the Church, will live then a life which shall be the continuation of the life of Christ
In Christ, the two natures are most intimately united and His humanity neither acts or subsists outside of His divinity. In other words, when Christ does/did something, both natures act. The nature of man does not exist apart or act apart from the Word. Christ is everything. But His entry into our soul, His unity with us, does not drive us or our nature out. In order that He may be all, in order that our justification may neither add or suppress anything in the mystery of the Incarnation, it must be that the Incarnation is mystically prolonged in us, His Body. In Christ, the humanity is holy in itself, though NOT of itself. We must also then say that in us, also, who are in His Body, it is holy in itself, though not of itself.
This explains the Catholic doctrine of justification and the doctrine of good works and their interaction.
We can add nothing to God. Some Christians will say that good works are necessary because God requires them, but they are useless because they are infinite and nothing can be added to the infinite.
True. IF the Word had NOT become flesh! We add nothing to God, but God has joined HIMSELF to humanity. Human action is then INTEGRATED in Christ in the God/man operation of one agent - Jesus Christ. Natural activity AND supernatural activity are united within us. Thus, we explain such verses as "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (Phil 2:12-13) or "For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (Gal 2:19-20).
There is no separation between our grace-filled work and Christ Jesus. When the work is done, it has divine value BECAUSE of grace, not our own doing. Yet, it is ours, because of our operation, and it is a unit, because the grace of the Incarnation is the union of the divine and the human. We do then truly perform divine works worthy of eternal reward, because of Christ's unity with us. To deny this would be to assert that the work of the Incarnation does not proceed from the Mystical Body. Our efforts have no value of THEMSELVES in the order of salvation; nevertheless, God, Who has not disdained humanity, makes our use of our efforts to sanctify us. James 5:20, for example, which I quoted previously. Or "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church" (Col 1:24). Or "For I know that this will turn out for my deliverance through your prayer and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ" (Phil 1:19) or "I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." (2 Tim 2:10) There are a number of other verses that show how we cooperate in the work of Christ, salvation, because of our unity with Him, not our own work.
Christ, because He is united to us, renders our actions meritorious. Just as the actions of Christ were meritorious for all humanity (objective redemption), so by the internal virtue which they have from their incorporation in Christ, all meritorious acts of the faithful cooperate in the salvation of the world. We are cooperators with Christ today! This explains the communion of saints, for example.
Regarding other Christian denominations - they possess real Christian elements, such as belief in the incarnation, the union in Christ with the Father and the Spirit, and so forth. Unfortunately, some have placed a negation alongside these Christian elements. Protestantism, generally, has a natural repugnance to admitting that we, in any way, by our acts, are truly united to the divine action and internally divinized and transformed. It does not wish to admit, in Christians, that union of the divine and the human which constitutes Christ. This repugnance of admitting such a unity between God and man is aimed directly at the transcendent example of this union, at the God/Man Jesus Christ and His Incarnation. This brings a contradiction within many brands of Protestantism, an antagonism, between what they proclaim as true - and yet deny at the same time.
If we respect God, through contempt of man, or through concern for natural autonomy, Protestants end up separating the divine from the human in the Christian. No more Incarnation. The incarnation is at the heart of Christianity and when one understands the implications, one finds that only the Catholic Church takes the meaning to its fullest extent - that God became a man and that we are united with God.
I hope this all helps explain our doctrines of justification, the Church, good works, and the Communion of the Saints. It is a lot to consider, but it is crucial to understanding Catholic Christianity to the fullest.
Brother in Christ
Translators are trained to be aware of the ambiguity of certain phrases when attempting to translate from language to another...they have to study contextual usage...especially when it comes to masculine and feminine tenses. Mark 6 specifically mentions brother and sister. Are your prepared to argue that the translaors 0f some 400 years ago were completely incompetent?
There have been some modern tranlations where they went back over all the available Greek, aramaic, and Latin texts;armed with more scientific methods of translation, they still translate those passages as BROTHER and SISTER.
In Luke...Elizabeth is described as Mary's "kinswoman" or what we would describe as "cousin".(as written in the King James...other tranlations have it as "relative"). Now why did the early tranlators(translating originally fron Aramaic to Greek granted) make the distinction between Elizabeth as "kin" but not the aforementioned Brothers and sisters Christ as Kin,hmmmm? Perhaps because when they studied the methods of translation, they studied common contextual usages of the language as well...! Or are you accusing the early tranlators of the Aramaic to the Greek of blasphemy as well...these early tranlators who would have known how and when to call kin, kin and brothers and sisters as brthers and sisters in the familial sense?
No...it was Hebrew(OT especially) and Aramaic...and I know all about the issue of the so-called ambiguity of the Aramaic word when it comes to describing brothers and sisters in the familial, nuclear family sense and cousins or near kin.
It seems though that the early translators from the Aramaic to the Greek had no trouble making those distinctions and every subsequent translation pretty much makes those distinctions. Are you prepared to say the early tranlators arbitrarily wrote what-ever they felt like the Aramaic was saying, therebye officially becoming heretics in violating present day church doctrine as to how those passages SHOULD BE translated?
Mary had other children after Jesus...so what? Tell me how that diminishes her position as "favored of God"?
By the way, as a re-direct back to the original thread I think the adoption agency was in the wrong concerning its policies, and they need to reasses themselves. It is certainly wonderful to try to make sure the children go to Christian homes, but I'm uncomfortable with the notion that all Catholics are not Christians...as this agency seems to be assuming!
Oh it isn't the "firstborn" issue I am focused on. The arguement I am having with some Catholics is over the claim that after having had Jesus, Mary had no further children and remained sexless with Joseph and remained immaculate, having no sin. They base this in part on a claim that the original Aramaic texts such as Mark chapter6, which describe
the brothers and sisters of Christ in the Greek and other translations subsequent to the Aaramaic... really meant "cousins" or near kin...since in the Aaramaic the word for siblings and cousins is interchangeable. Nevermind, that first century translators knew the languages better than we did, and would have known all about how to make those distinction...having a better understanding of the contextual uses of the languages at the time...Church tradition painted Mary as being for-ever Asexual, how could the Holy womb from which Jesus sprang be violated by having married sex with the subsequent conception of other sin prone children...unless Mark 6 was really speaking of Jesus'
COUSINS....yes that was the ticket...a mistranslation of the Aramaic!!!! And thus the deification of Mary was complete!
You miss the point.
Translators were not "making distinctions" - they translated a word with a broader meaning in the original language into a word with an approximate semantic range in their tongue.
When people translate the Latin term res publica into English, they generally render it "republic."
Why?
Because in English it means a representative form of government and it means that in Latin as well.
However, in Latin it also means the general state of public affairs, within which the nature of the Roman state as a republic is the most prominent feature. Therefore when an ancient Roman writer referred to "the republic" he was sometimes referring to the general state of public affairs at the time.
Likewise, when an Aramaic speaker said brother he meant more than just the modern English sense of a male relation with the same biological parents as the referent. Translators would use the word "brother" to translate it, even if the term usually had a narrower semantic field in their own language, because the core meaning in both languages was the same.
Now, in English, the word brother is also used to refer to a biological half-brother. It is also used to refer to an adopted sibling - neither of which are exactly brothers.
Just as in Greek the term "brother" could refer to a half-brother, sometimes a cousin (although generally not a cousin by marriage - a relationship for which there are another set of terms), an adopted brother, etc. as well as a full biological brother. Latin is similar.
Therefore, the word "brother" would not strike Greek translators or Latin translators as requiring a separate, more precise use of language.
Given the ambiguity of the word brother in Aramaic, Latin, Greek, and English, it can refer to adopted brothers and half-brothers in all four languages, and blood cousins (not cousins by marriage) in three of those languages.
I had not anticipated that we might both be writing a book on this subject, succinctness does not seem to apply to either of us. No insult intended.
I do not understand how a priest can be in the person of Christ? I understand that on Pentecost the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit. Unless I have misinterpreted scripture they were empowered to do miracles, which was how they authenticated their power. Today I do not see any evidence of such powers.
I believe that creation is the evidence of God so that no man has an excuse.
There is no need to expand on how confession is good for the soul. We are taught to confess our sins to each other and if I have sinned against you I must ask for your forgiveness. I do not refer to myself as a protestant because I do not protest the Catholic Church. I do protest any theology that does not condemn abortion that does not support traditional marriage between a man and a woman that teaches that Jesus is not God incarnate, that teaches that Jesus did not perform miracles, and that teaches that the Apostles did not perform miracles, but the Catholic Church teaches none of these heretical doctrines.
You quoted Mat 5:22, I note that the language is identical to the King James Version, which is my translation of choice. Are you quoting from it or a Catholic translation?
I’ll give you my take on it. Since I am not convinced that Purgatory exists, it is not an option. Obviously we have to deal with the word “judgment”. It might refer to the final judgment? I have come to my own personal understanding of how the final judgment works. Since I believe that Christians will not be judged on their works, but will be justified by their continued faith in Christ who has the power to save us and cleans us of all sins and therefore we will not be condemned to Hell, the final judgment is for those who are not covered by the Blood of Christ and who will have to stand before Him and He will then separate the goats from the sheep. I’m not sure if my theology is fundamentalism. I do not believe the world is 5000 years old, and I do believe that there will be nations in Heaven who walk in the light of the Church. Since the church is the body of believers, the nations are not people in the church.
Revelation 21:
4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
8But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
22And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
23And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
24And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
Psalm 9:5 5Thou hast rebuked the “heathen” [NIV nations], thou hast destroyed the wicked, thou hast put out their name for ever and ever. 7 The LORD reigns forever; he has established his throne for judgment. 10 Those who know your name will trust in you, for you, LORD, have never forsaken those who seek you. 17 The wicked return to the grave, all the nations that forget God.
But the believer will not stand before Christ in judgment: 19Arise, O LORD; let not man prevail: let the heathen be judged in thy sight.
I am sure we agree that Christ expanded the meaning of the law, but I am not sure if we concur on the reason. I understand the plausibility of your take on the expansion of the law. What is your take on this suggestion? The Sermon on the Mount established an impossible task for man to achieve. There are other examples: give up everything you have and follow me, etc.
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. To enter Heaven the entrant must be cleansed of all sin, or he must not have committed sin. I suspect we agree on this point, since Purgatory serves this purpose for a man who has sinned. How clean is clean? Matthew 5: 20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
For myself, since I cannot meet the no sin test, I have chosen to rely on the propitiatory death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I’m not sure where Paul said the law has no power to make us follow it, but I am sure that he said it has no power to save us.
Romans 8:3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,
In theory we can save ourselves if we live a sinless life, but since this is not likely or even possible, Christ had to come to pay for our sins so that we would not face judgment. Believe and be saved, but you realize from our lengthily discussion on this topic, that statement says it all but does need to be understood. I once was under the impression that salvation by faith was just too easy a road, but I have come to realize that it is filled with challenges that I cannot meet on my own. I I suspect that for both of us, putting our theology aside, we have a struggle to grow in our faith and those who do not understand are not only foolish, but can even be comical. Especially when they pander to us as Christians. They do not have a clue.
Briefly, when I mentioned common law I was using an analogy. I assume that the Code of Justinian was different in some ways; I am not an expert in Roman law. But I do know about the law of Moses:
1 Corinthians 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. I submit that the commandments were never meant as a means to salvation, but rather to show us the difference between our sinful nature and the holiness and purity of Almighty God. We know we are sinners because we cannot even keep the commandments, much less the expanded test that Jesus taught us. We have no excuse because like the criminal who is convicted of crime, we have a law and we know the punishment; all that remains is the judgment.
I would like to expand the passage you quoted from John for the proposition that the Holy Spirit roams the earth.
John 3 (King James Version)
1There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
A Pharisee had to come to Jesus at night because he believed in Jesus as a teacher from God, and that was not popular at the time, but he did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah. The man was not born again and so did not have eyes to see or ears to hear. He had no capacity to comprehend spiritual truths. Jesus said that a man is born of water, ie: birth, and then born of the spirit when he receives the Holy Spirit, which is when I believe a person is saved, perhaps he can reject the Holy Spirit at some later date, the unpardonable sin, but let’s not get bogged down in that discussion. Why do I equate water with birth? Because this was the dichotomy in context. The wind represents something that the man can feel but not see, just as we as believers feel what we cannot see.
I am not convinced that Jesus or the Holy Spirit still roam the world. I believe that prior to Pentecost that might have been the case, but after Pentecost the dispensation changed. If you do not agree with me it must be because of something not found in the Bible. Based upon theologians making reasoned conclusions based upon scripture or personal revelation, such a conclusion is well founded, but I don’t consider those sources authoritative. I have come to my conclusions based upon my own independent study of scripture, religious history, and by conversing with other Christians like you, but I only believe what I can verify in scripture. There is not much to be gained by discussing God with an atheist because they have only one rational, God doesn’t exist because I cannot see him, which is the point of the Nicodemus story.
You said: The Spirit is given not for personal gain, but for the good of the Church, the Body of Christ. I agree it is given for the good of the Body of Believers, but I would add for the good of the world, so that they may come to know Jesus. The Nicodemus passage seems to suggest that the Spirit is essential for the individual to be born again and to be saved?
I do not concern myself about matters of religious practice. If you believe that Christ is in the Eucharist, who am I to say you are wrong? If I were to accept subsequent church fathers as authoritative sources, I would most likely believe as you do. But I do not understand how this example shows me how one puts the Bible over and above apostolic teachings? Are there apostolic teachings that are not in the Bible?
Ok, I understand you to say that there are no new revelations, but that we can develop new understandings from existing scripture? If I understood you correctly than I do not understand the Papacy.
I think we both believe in Christ as fully man and fully God. I don’t know how else to phrase it. I asked if you knew of any difference between Catholic and fundamental theology on the subject. I thought you suggested that there is some difference?
You have been very kind. God Bless
Street_Lawyer
The Greek word adelphos is used in the NT to refer to both blood brothers (Mt 4:21-22) as well as kinsmen/associates (Acts 9:17). So we are going to have to look at the context to find whether the writer means "blood brother" or kinsmen.
In Mark 3:31-35, Jesus used the term "brothers and sisters" in a broad spiritual sense - "Jesus said to them in reply, 'who are my mother and my brothers?' and looking around at those seated in the circle, he said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of God is my brother (Gr. adelphos) and sister and mother."
A number of times in the King James Bible, people are called each other's "brother" when they are merely "kinsmen". "And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom...And he brought back all the goods, and also brougth again his BROTHER Lot." Gen 14:12, 16). Here is obvious proof, since the term, BROTHER is defined within the context. Thus, adelphos can mean either brother or kinsmen.
In Luke 2:41-52, the story of the 12 year old Jesus lost in the Temple, there is no sense of another child there.
The biggest Scriptural argument against Mary having other children is when Jesus, from the Cross, gives His mother to the care of John. This action makes no sense at all if Jesus had blood brothers and sisters (especially considering the closeness that Jesus and Mary had for each other - as she followed Him around during His ministry).
And finally, the writings of the Church Fathers never mention a blood brother of Christ. The first person to even mention the possibility is thoroughly refuted by Jerome before 400 AD. St. Basil, about 350, said "the friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin". Even Luther and Calvin believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin.
It is a shame that you feel the need to doubt the virtue of the mother of our Lord and Savior. I wonder how Jesus feels about this?
Regards
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.