Posted on 07/15/2005 11:29:25 AM PDT by nypokerface
My fundamentalist brother once told me that 'if Mary had said no God would have just picked another bimbo'. He's one of those fire-breathing Catholic-hating fundies. He also dislikes any church that is part of a larger affiliation like, for example, Southern Baptists. He says that the church Jesus founded was the Independent Fundamentalist Baptists and they have leaflets that show this. Everything else is a cult.
That's about when the lights go out because it's not worth wasting breath or having elevated blood pressure. He used to post here... and print out all of his well thought out scripture hurling so I could see the truth. yawn. (it's all kind of funny now)
Well, that's a very gracious answer, dear; and I haven't a whole lot of time for volleying back and forth here, either. Though I must say that your good questions, and the answers they may elicit, will probably prove valuable to me and to others as well. So for this I thank you.
May Our Lord Jesus Christ bless you and your loved ones, and draw all of us-- all! --- closer to His heart.
Religious outfits should *not* be getting money from car tag sales. But they also have every right to set exclusive rules as a private entity.
Untrue. Some trace back to the first century church. I realize the Catholic church claims to *be* the same church, but that is a matter of faith, not a demonstrated fact.
Catholics are, of course, Christians. Sadly, too many don't behave like Christians (and that is not meant to be exclusionary to Catholics as I've seen mud slinging by all sides on this board). I'm glad to see two fine examples of Christian adults on this or any other thread on FR!
God Bless both of you!
"I am the Way, the TRUTH and the Life..." (John 14:6)
Frank
No one's denying it. For your own sake man, let it go.
It's coming up on ancient history. Why hang onto it?
Whereby we get the name "CHRISTIAN" adoption agency. Not Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim.
When did "CATHOLIC" become NOT Christian?
No need to shout. I'm sure PR can read your comments.
Christ stated that the Church, NOT Scripture should be the final authority: "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." (Matthew 18:17) Christ did NOT state to refer to or consult Scripture for disputes and correction. He said to go to the Church as It is the final authority in Christianity. In addition, St. Paul states that the Church, NOT Scripture is "THE pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15) Since the Church alone is mentioned as THE pillar of truth, then It alone has the right to discern the truth and interpret Scripture. For if individuals could correctly interpret Scripture, then all interpretations would be EXACTLY THE SAME as there can only be ONE spiritual truth for the plural of the word "truth" NEVER appears in Scripture. The Church is Christ's bride (Ephesians 5:29) and has no spot, wrinkle or blemish (Ephesians 5:27). Christ also stated that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18) so how can the Church commit error? Individual clergy may commit sins, even popes commit sins because in the Church there are both weeds and wheat (Matthew 13:30).
It was St. Peter alone that was the "rock" upon which Christ established His Church (Matthew 16:18). And it was St. Peter alone that was given the task of "feeding" Christ's sheep (John 21:15-17). Scripture clearly points out St. Peter as Christ's representative on earth. Christ did not ask the other Eleven to feed and tend His sheep. If you read The Acts Of The Apostles, it is clear that St. Peter leads the Apostles. Therefore, since the Apostles are to be replaced as they die (Acts 1:20-26), then it follows that whoever succeed(s) St. Peter is leader of the Church. There is only to be one shepherd of the Church (John 10:16). For the Apostles did not argue amongst themselves whether there was a "greatest" at all, but who amongst them was THE greatest (Mark 9:34; Luke 9:46).
One compelling biblical fact that points clearly to Simon Peter’s primacy among the 12 Apostles and his importance and centrality to the drama of Christ’s earthly ministry, is that he is mentioned by name (e.g. Simon, Peter, Cephas, Kephas, etc.) 195 times in the course of the New Testament. The next most often-mentioned Apostle is St. John, who is mentioned a mere 29 times. After John, in descending order, the frequency of the other Apostles being mentioned by name trails off rapidly.
When the names of all the Apostles are listed, Peter is always first. Judas Iscariot, the Lord’s traitor, is always listed last (cf. Matt. 10:2-5; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-17; and Acts 1:13). Sometimes Scripture speaks simply of “Simon Peter and the rest of the Apostles” or “Peter and his companions” (cf. Luke 9:32; Mark 16:7; Acts 2:37), showing that he had a special role that represented the entire apostolic college. Often, Scripture shows Simon Peter as spokesman for the entire apostolic college, as if he were the voice of the Church (cf. Mat. 18:21; Mark 8:29; Luke 8:45; Luke 12:41; John 6:68-69).
There are "branches" that predate Protestantism ~ Mennonites, for example, claim their origins among the Apostles themselves. So did the Cathers before they were exterminated.
At no point did I say that I think Catholicism was bad, evil or wrong. In fact, I did agree that it was a Christian faith and had no problem with it at all, it just wasn't what I believed. I have no problem with you being a Catholic. What problem do you have with my being a Lutheran? Or do you just not like me stating an opinion that is different than yours? Are you one of the people I referred to earlier that thinks I'm going to hell because I'm not like you?
By the way, the Lutheran Church of the Missouri Synod does not teach that women can forgive sins and does not ordain women.
And there are over 1 billion Muslims in the world according to some estimates. I'm sure your argument of numbers instilling legitimacy would apply to them as well as Catholics, wouldn't it?
Finally, ANYONE would acknowledge that two greatest Christians of the 20th Century were Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa of Calcutta.
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything? Yes, they were exemplary examples of how people should treat each other. Were they great Christians? One would think so because of their sacrifices for their fellow man, but only God knew their hearts, it's not for me to judge them as Christians. I'm sure you'll have issue with this because I'm not agreeing completely with you.
Why are people so uptight about their religion? Jesus wants us to have joy in our hearts for each other and for our actions to glorify God in order to bring others to Him. I hope you're not using the same technique you used here to try and save people who don't believe. You've certainly done a good job of turning me away from you; you come across as angry and defensive, perhaps I misinterpreted your use of the words "garbage", "horrible example" and "worthless"? A person's life and actions should show the light that is inside them, given to them by the awesome gift of Christ on the cross.
For heaven's man where do you get such nonsense?
There was no such thing as a Mennonite until the middle ages when Germanic tribesmen were converted to Christianity by Catholic missionaries.
For better or worse they chose to take off on their own path and remain in their chosen lifestyle to this day.
Let's focus our energy on thwarting their efforts to make the U.S. a God-free zone.
Mary was the first disciple. Not to quibble about the definition of "disciple" but is there any historical evidence that Mary was ever referred to as a disciple of Christ?
Luke, in his gospel, tells us that she and Joseph have been married but have not yet lived together. In an appearance to Mary (1:30-33) the angel Gabriel, quoting freely from 2 Samuel 7:12-16, announces that she is going to be the mother of the Davidic Messiah. When Mary asks how this is to be since she is a virgin, the angel quotes what Luke’s readers would recognize as the language of Christian preaching: “The holy Spirit will come upon you; the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and so the child will be called holy, the Son of God” (1:34-35).
Paul uses similar imagery (Holy Spirit, power, divine sonship) in Romans 1:3-4 to phrase the gospel of Jesus as Son of David and Son of God. In the same way here, Luke is presenting Mary as the first one to hear the gospel. She responds, “Let it be done unto me according to your word.” Thus she fulfills perfectly the requirement we see in Mark for the family of disciples: “Whoever does the will of God is...mother to me.”
Next the Lucan Mary acts out her discipleship in two ways. First, she hastens to go to her relative Elizabeth to share the good news. By way of full response to the gospel, Christian disciples do not simply receive and hold on to what God has revealed; they communicate it to others. Mary’s arrival causes Elizabeth, under the influence of John the Baptist in her womb, to prophesy in praise of Mary.
Like the heroic women deliverers of Israel, Jael and Judith (Judges 5:24; Judith 13:18), Mary is titled “blessed among women.” Moses had said that, if Israel heeded the voice of God, the wombs of the Israelite women would be blessed with fruitfulness (Deuteronomy 28:1,4). Elizabeth, recognizing that Mary’s womb is uniquely fruitful, blesses her as the mother of the Lord (Luke 1:41-44).
But Mary’s heeding the word of God in the Annunciation had another dimension beyond that envisioned by Moses—a gospel dimension that Elizabeth recognizes when in 1:45 she blesses Mary a second time for having believed (and thus having met the criterion of discipleship). If all future generations will call Mary blessed (1:48), they will do so in fidelity to Elizabeth’s prophetic recognition of her roles as mother of the Lord and true Christian disciple.
Second, Mary develops discipleship to the fullest by blessing God in the Magnificat (1:46-55). In that hymn Mary interprets the good news she has brought to Elizabeth. The angel told Mary who Jesus is, namely, Messiah and Son of God; but Mary translates this identity in terms of what his coming means.
"Name one.
The doctrine of original sin. Where does it arise from? The Jews didn't believe in it. It denies Free will. There's no history of it being doctrinal truth prior to Augustine. God speaks in John 9 regarding the matter at length, but does not acknowledge it, not in the least.
John 9:1-40
As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."
Having said this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man's eyes. "Go," he told him, "wash in the Pool of Siloam" (this word means Sent). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.
His neighbors and those who had formerly seen him begging asked, "Isn't this the same man who used to sit and beg?" Some claimed that he was. Others said, "No, he only looks like him." But he himself insisted, "I am the man."
"How then were your eyes opened?" they demanded.
He replied, "The man they call Jesus made some mud and put it on my eyes. He told me to go to Siloam and wash. So I went and washed, and then I could see."
"Where is this man?" they asked him.
"I don't know," he said.
They brought to the Pharisees the man who had been blind. Now the day on which Jesus had made the mud and opened the man's eyes was a Sabbath. Therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. "He put mud on my eyes," the man replied, "and I washed, and now I see."
Some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath." But others asked, "How can a sinner do such miraculous signs?" So they were divided.
Finally they turned again to the blind man, "What have you to say about him? It was your eyes he opened." The man replied, "He is a prophet." The Jews still did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they sent for the man's parents. "Is this your son?" they asked. "Is this the one you say was born blind? How is it that now he can see?"
"We know he is our son," the parents answered, "and we know he was born blind. But how he can see now, or who opened his eyes, we don't know. Ask him. He is of age; he will speak for himself." His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews, for already the Jews had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ[a] would be put out of the synagogue. That was why his parents said, "He is of age; ask him."
A second time they summoned the man who had been blind. "Give glory to God," they said. "We know this man is a sinner."
He replied, "Whether he is a sinner or not, I don't know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!"
Then they asked him, "What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?"
He answered, "I have told you already and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples, too?"
Then they hurled insults at him and said, "You are this fellow's disciple! We are disciples of Moses! We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this fellow, we don't even know where he comes from."
The man answered, "Now that is remarkable! You don't know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes. We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly man who does his will. Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing."
To this they replied, "You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!" And they threw him out.
Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"
"Who is he, sir?" the man asked. "Tell me so that I may believe in him."
Jesus said, "You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you."
Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.
Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind."
Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, "What? Are we blind too?"
Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.
Not a hint of original sin from God, only from the empty accusations in anger from the Pharisee. It's not even contained in Romans 5:12-14, because all that's contained in it is the fact that the first man sinned, that sin entered the world, because he had done so and that folks would die according to what was given in Gen 3:19:
God did not apply the sin of Adam to anyone else. It applied to Adam and Eve, because it was they that sinned, no one else. The conditions imposed on Adam and Eve apply to everyone else, because they are the progeners of man. The guilt of sin does not follow. The essence of man, as He was created in the image and likeness of God, was never broken with the first sin.
My finding is that the doctrine is a fundamentally unfair example of a flawed concept of justice and is in direct contradiction to God's justice. In particular John 9 refutes it completely! God holds Gen 1:26-27 exactly w/o change and acknowledges that in John 10:31-39
Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"
"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'[Psalm 82:6]? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.
God's gift was Free will w/o exception. Any guilt of sin is due to an individual's own choice, not that of some other person. All men are not bound with the guilt of attempting eternal life by eating the fruit of the tree. Some choose to eat the bread of life. In fact God told them to pray for it, "give us this day our daily bread." The "bread" is not nutrition for your body, it's the sign of Jonah. You were given the other "bread" when Adam and Eve got their's and were told how they would obtain it. That's Christ centered, not vain deceit, tradition of men, or something from the rudiments of the world.
Romans 5:12-14 (for ref and futher comment)
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
How did death reign from the time of Adam to Moses?
Matt 22:29-32Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'[Exodus 3:6]? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."
Just as the choice to eat the bread of the tree, or that of the Holy Spirit applied to Adam, it applies to all men. The death that reigned is death and condemnation according to Matthew 12:32,
" Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."
The death and condemnation did not include changing the essential nature of man that was created. God called His creation good{Gen] and John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. God rendered conditions to man, He did not what was and alter the original gifts.
Romans 5:18-19Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
God's act of righteousness was coming here to teach, regardless of what He knew the negative consequences were. The positive consequences infinitely outweighed the negative. What Adam taught was self centered gratification to escape consequence, and disregard for all that was rightfully not his.
Col 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."
In fact, Canon 1 from the Council of Orange, in 529AD which first declared the doctrine of original sin, is the first error that contradicts God both in the Gospels as above and in Ezekiel 18. They do so by flat out rejection of Ezekiel 18 and the Gospels.
Here is Canon 1:
CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:20); and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" (Rom. 6:16); and, "For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2 Pet. 2:19).
Here is Ezekiel 18 Where is the sin of Adam?
Ezekiel 18
1 The word of the LORD came to me: "What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:
" 'The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge'?
"As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son—both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die.
"Suppose there is a righteous man who does what is just and right.
He does not eat at the mountain shrines or look to the idols of the house of Israel. He does not defile his neighbor's wife or lie with a woman during her period.
He does not oppress anyone, but returns what he took in pledge for a loan. He does not commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry and provides clothing for the naked.
He does not lend at usury or take excessive interest. [a] He withholds his hand from doing wrong and judges fairly between man and man.
He follows my decrees and faithfully keeps my laws. That man is righteous; he will surely live, declares the Sovereign LORD.
"Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things (though the father has done none of them): "He eats at the mountain shrines. He defiles his neighbor's wife.
He oppresses the poor and needy. He commits robbery. He does not return what he took in pledge. He looks to the idols. He does detestable things.
He lends at usury and takes excessive interest. Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head.
"But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things:
"He does not eat at the mountain shrines or look to the idols of the house of Israel. He does not defile his neighbor's wife.
He does not oppress anyone or require a pledge for a loan. He does not commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry and provides clothing for the naked.
He withholds his hand from sin and takes no usury or excessive interest. He keeps my laws and follows my decrees. He will not die for his father's sin; he will surely live. But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people.
"Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
"But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live. Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
"But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die.
"Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' Hear, O house of Israel: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin, he will die for it; because of the sin he has committed he will die. But if a wicked man turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he will save his life. Because he considers all the offenses he has committed and turns away from them, he will surely live; he will not die. Yet the house of Israel says, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' Are my ways unjust, O house of Israel? Is it not your ways that are unjust?
"Therefore, O house of Israel, I will judge you, each one according to his ways, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!
Each one according to his ways, hischoices, according to God in Matt 12:32.
Your sentiments are inarguable.
Still, would you feel comfortable with some of these nutcases covering your back? ;-)
Was it ALL about the denial of original sin?
What is your idea/conception of original sin?
THere's no such thing as original sin. The post contains the reasons. It contradicts God.
Here, you need to go back to the author, St. Luke, and the original text written in Koine Greek. The following comes from Fr. William Most.
St. Luke wrote kecharitomene.
This is a perfect passsive participle, and as such, is very strong. It is of the verb charitoo. The verbs in oo normally mean to put a person or thing into the state indicated by the root. That root here is charis, which means favor or grace. But if we translate favor, we must keep firmly in mind that it does not mean God just sits there and smiles, giving nothing, so the person does something by his own power. That would be Pelagian. So it is best to use grace.
Very importantly, the word is used in place of a personal name. That is comparable to our English pattern of saying e.g., he is Mr. Tennis - meaning the ultimate in the category of tennis. So she is Miss Grace - the ultimate in the category of grace.
Perhaps a bit simplistic in its approach but, as noted, the key to understanding the term "grace" is to resort back to the author and language in which it was written.
Recently, I encountered a similar experience. Though Roman Catholic, I practice my faith in the Maronite (Antiochian) Catholic Church. Our pastor is bi-ritual - Maronite and Latin Rite. He speaks 8 languages fluently and reads Koine Greek, Hebrew, Latin and Aramaic. During the winter months, he holds a 'gospel soiree' for those of us who wish to go deeper into scripture. On this one occasion, we read a gospel passage and he allowed us time to reflect on it before asking for our understanding. As we read through the text in English, he ruffled his brow over a certain word. He then repeated the same word in Koine Greek and explained that though the translation was accurate, it lacked a certain emphasis evident in its original presentation. Those of us who lack these linguistic skills, are limited in our understanding to what we read in our native tongue.
Again, we go back to the original text in Koine Greek. Romans 3:23 and 5:12, (“all have sinned”) use the Greek word “pantes” for “all.” “Pantes” is a derivative of “pas,” which has the following meaning, according to Strong's Lexicon:
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.