Posted on 05/30/2008 10:21:34 AM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
>>The fact is, SCRIPTURE refers to Christ’s blood siblings. Scripture does NOT call them cousins, uncles, aunts, nephews, hounddogs or anything else—Scripture calls them Christ’s blood brothers<<
No it doesn’t, it never does.
It calls them brothers. And just others refer to my adopted sister as my sister (never adopted sister) and my nephew’s half brother as his brother (never half brother), other’s refered to these relatives as “brothers”. No where “Blood Brothers”
You speak for you.
I know the definition.
It has nothing to do with what we were talking about.
adjective of or concerning the Jesuits. • dissembling or equivocating, in the manner associated with Jesuits. Jesuitical |ˌje zh oōˈitikəl; ˌjez(y)oō-|
Sounds like a pretty prissy reading of the law.
At that point, Christ had fulfilled the law. Had been the blameless Sacrifice . . .
Certainly as God He could do what He thought best and obviously did.
Ahhhhh, yes, more linguistic gymnastics to insist that the
!!!!TRADITIONS!!!! of man
take priority over the Word of God.
Prottys here-bouts are used to such on the part of some RC’s.
The Word of God in that case is mistranslated.
What a clever personal snipey assault! I wonder if extra points are given for slickness and cleverness.
Welllllllllllll, Dear Heart,
the plethera of rationalized convoluted Scripture manglings we see so many RC’s offer on that score
SURE
does
NOT
PROVE anything of any substance to Prottys I know.
If anything, it convinces us all the more emphatically that taking Scripture at face value wherever remotely possible is the best and most accurate, God blessed route.
I think it's time to ring some changes:
(1)The above is stated with a link to the Pew Report, that bastion of liberal truth, to argue against the contention that some Catholics leave the Church for denominations which are pro-choice on ABC and other reproductive issues.
The argument appears to be, there are Catholics who remain nominally Catholic while doing something the Church says they ought not to do. So none leave for denomination which do not forbid what they are doing.
I think the mere articulation shows that the argument doesn't work. But for those who don't get it, a sin does not mean that one has lost ALL virtue. So a Catholic who disagrees with the Church's teaching may find in himself enough integrity finally to quit "living a lie" and seek a denomination which suits his preconceptions. But there must be some who lack that integrity, and others who have it but are still screwing their courage to the sticking point, and are, thus, in process.
In other words, that some Catholics defy the Magisterium while remaining Catholic has nothing to do with the proposition that some Catholics become Protestants so that they are relieved of the obvious hypocrisy of calling themselves Catholic while disobeying Catholic teaching.
Anecdote related to point (1)
A friend was a devout and involved Episcopalian, but a former Catholic. He was divorced from the woman he married in the Catholic Church and then married a divorced woman who was a Methodist, and they both became Episcopalians.Then, and his first wife is still living, he married again.
Is the Church to be judged by his actions?
end of anecdote
(2) Now presumably, Protestants would consider that when Catholics disobey Church teaching on ABC they do so in spite of the Church. Such cases are a sign of the weakness of the Church, and are not attributed or blamed on the Church, as such.
But when other Catholics disobey the Church by making more of Mary than the Church teaches her to be, THAT is the fault of the Church.
So if there is a principle, it is when Catholics disobey that Church in a way Protestants like, that is THEIR virtue and cannot be attributed to the Church. BUT when Catholics disobey that Church in a way Protestants do NOT like, that is the Church's fault and she can under no circumstances dodge dodge blame for it.
Let me say it again. From our adversaries' point of view, if a Catholic does something which they like but against Church teaching , that is all about the individual. When A Catholic does something which they do not like but against Church teaching, that is the fault of the Church and the teaching. Disobedience absolve the one from the influence of the Church, but confirms the other to sort of hyper-obedience to the Church, and the distinguishing factor is whether that action is one Protestants think good or not. (3) [which is really (2) warmed over] (a) Protestants claim that Catholics fear to do anything without making sure that the Magisterium approves.
(3b) Therefore, the Church is to blame for mariolatry.
(3c)But Protestants (and other anti-Catholics) trumpet, using data from an organization known to be liberal, the alleged massive defiance of the Magisterium by Catholics who use ABC or are pro-choice or what have you. (3d)The Magisterium is thus shown to be far too powerful, except for when it's impotent.
Hot and cold the anti-Catholic bigots run: either we can’t prove it or the proof is too juridical and gymnastic.
Some folks just aren’t smart enough for Catholicism, and should stick with the super-slick storefront plastic-banana happy-fun-day splinter groups.
Handlin snakes don’t need no readin’!
That is not a fact.
Or you deny that it was G-d-breathed in Koine Greek ? How do you read NAU 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God <2315> qeo,pneustoj theopneustosSo you deny that the Word is G-d Breathed ?
and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction,
for training in righteousness;
Meaning: God-breathed, i.e. inspired by God
Origin: from 2316 and 4154
Usage: inspired by God(1).
Notes: (1) Lit God-breathed (2) Lit training which is in (a) Rom 4:23f; Rom 15:4; 2Pe 1:20f
>>If anything, it convinces us all the more emphatically that taking Scripture at face value wherever remotely possible is the best and most accurate,<<
So where does it say “Blood Brothers”?
(It was what we call a “joke” This may be a concept unfamiliar to you. I think the word is related to the Italian giocare, to play, but that’s just a conjecture of mine.)
Jesus spoke Aramaic.
I have no desire to bring the authentic Mary down a peg at all.
I do have a desire that folks calling themselves Christian would avoid a lot of the hoopla, caricature, hogwash that centuries of fantasies have built up around Mary and her images.
My interest is in the truth.
Mary cannot be taken down a peg anyway. She has whatever station God has allotted to her. And I assure you, it is NOT the Queen of Heaven as construed by the RC edifice. I’ve never ever heard a hint of such from the many heavenly visitations I’ve read.
And, there’s NO Scriptural support for the RC perspective and a good deal of clear straightforward as well as a lot of inferrential Scirptural support for the Protty perspective on it.
I’ll take Protty desires to insure authentic truth about Mary over RC edifice compulsions to make fantasies dogma plastered willy nilly onto Scripture
most any day.
Hogwash.
We don’t have to do any such thing.
RC’s beat us about the head and shoulders with fiercely provocative baiting threads rather rotinely.
Then the wailing begins when we being to respond out of our perspective, Scriptural understanding and values as we’ve experienced God in our walk with Him and His Word.
It chronically seems like the RC’s hereon—many of them—DEMAND a free pass to spout all manner of nonsense with only applause tolerated from the Protty side.
LOL.
Mazol Tov Have a wonderful journey ! I'm not sure of your destination however.You reject the plain fact of the Holy Word of G-d
and prefer the Pagan Fable
You and CTrent1564 are pretty amazing.
I do not.
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.