Posted on 04/30/2010 8:03:48 AM PDT by Quix
.
|
7 “When you pray, don’t babble on and on as people of other religions do. They think their prayers are answered merely by repeating their words again and again. 8 Don’t be like them, for your Father knows exactly what you need even before you ask him! 9 Pray like this: Our Father in heaven, --New Living Translation 7And when you pray, do not heap up phrases (multiply words, repeating the same ones over and over) as the Gentiles do, for they think they will be heard for their much speaking. [I Kings 18:25-29.] 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him. 9Pray, therefore, like this: 15But if you do not forgive others their trespasses [their [j]reckless and willful sins, [k]leaving them, letting them go, and [l]giving up resentment], neither will your Father forgive you your trespasses. --Amplified Pray with Simplicity 5"And when you come before God, don't turn that into a theatrical production either. All these people making a regular show out of their prayers, hoping for stardom! Do you think God sits in a box seat? 6"Here's what I want you to do: Find a quiet, secluded place so you won't be tempted to role-play before God. Just be there as simply and honestly as you can manage. The focus will shift from you to God, and you will begin to sense his grace. 7-13"The world is full of so-called prayer warriors who are prayer-ignorant. They're full of formulas and programs and advice, peddling techniques for getting what you want from God. Don't fall for that nonsense. This is your Father you are dealing with, and he knows better than you what you need. With a God like this loving you, you can pray very simply. Like this: 16-18"When you practice some appetite-denying discipline to better concentrate on God, don't make a production out of it. It might turn you into a small-time celebrity but it won't make you a saint. If you 'go into training' inwardly, act normal outwardly. Shampoo and comb your hair, brush your teeth, wash your face. God doesn't require attention-getting devices. He won't overlook what you are doing; he'll reward you well. |
Mark Kirby: O Mother of Good Counsel, I am all thine, Most Holy Mary, There is no part of my life that is not open to thee, I want to be completely transparent with thee, Praying in this way, I can be at rest, |
.
.
.
What do you make of the ordination of Matthias?
I always think of how we speak when, say, drawing a diagram. We draw X X X and we say, "Okay. See? That's the offense."
Now IF we had a reliable Aramaic text and there were a copular verb, then we MIGHT argue that He used the copular to stress the "is." But I think the absence of a copular would go either way and I think Luke's estin does not have the same force.
It MIGHT in Attic Greek. χαλεπα τα καλα, literally "difficult the excellent [things]" usually translated "Excellence is difficult." (I know I make it LOOK easy ...)
(We never studied basement Greek.)
(This is just in my head because it was in the early chapters of my Greek text.)
But, anyway, while I of course believe that the bread IS the body,blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, and I think the text LEANS that way, I can't claim it's a slam dunk.
Exactly what the Scriptures record (Acts 1:15-26). It lays out what makes one Apostle. There are no modern successors of the Apostles, for one had to have been a witness of Jesus from the time of John the dipper until the day Jesus ascended up into heaven. That is the requirement which no man today can fulfill.
However, any church that sends out one of their own members to evangelize others can be called an Apostle of that particular church group. The Apostle Paul was an exception to the requirements laid out by Peter; for Jesus Himself chose Paul to be an Apostle, and also taught him personally for apparently quite a period of time.
Your read?
Yep about the requirement and the exception of Paul, who himself says he squeaked in.
Before I swam the Tiber I was impressed that the Catholics, when they were being precise, referred to bishops as the "successors" of the Apostles, a delicate (to me, at least) distinction.
However, any church that sends out one of their own members to evangelize others can be called an Apostle of that particular church group.
Take out the capital 'A' and Ill go with it because I think the central concept is something like a "designated agent whose actions commit the one who made him an agent."
In general I think the Apostles either appointed or ratified already appointed individuals (supervisors) or "boards" (elders) to administer urban congregations. And these agents had apostolic authority and duty themselves -- especially "the Apostles teaching and fellowship, thebreaking of bread, and the prayers."
And then, I think, this rapidly morphed into a chief supervisor with assistant elders.
Very good post, in fact, excellent thinking! When I translate from the Greek manuscripts, naturally I choose English words that best express the meaning of the Greek word - sometimes one English words will not express the true meaning of the Greek, thusly more than one English term needs to be used. You will see that in many places in most translations, even interlinear versions. I guess you could say if I was to publish what I have translated that I would probably do something in between.
But “is” is the English word the translator chose to use in place of another, another that might just as well, or even more accurately, reflect what Jesus’ words meant since it's possible/likely he was not speaking koine’ Greek here.
Yes, it is possible that Jesus may have spoke in the Aramaic or Hebrew, or even in some dialect of them. However, we do not have any record of what words in what language He spoke; we only have the Greek, so the Greek is what we have to translate. Even the Greek recorded some words that Jesus spoke in Aramaic - very little, but a few - example, while on the cross.
Were they going to eat human flesh or bread? From the wording of the verse alone it can't be answered.
It's too bad most people don't understand that! It's the context that definitely has to be considered to get an idea of what he meant by those words. Also, one has to consider the context of passages wherein others talk about it in the Scriptures. Too many think "literally", while Jesus seems to be using it metaphorically or spiritually; for He did say that "the words which I have spoken to you is/are spirit and is/are life": immediately before these words, he spoke other words that have to be considered seriously - "The spirit gives life; the flesh profits nothing" (my translation of the Greek). These statements of Jesus are an important part of the context wherein He spoke of His body being bread and the fruit of the vine being His blood.
What's your take on John 6 about this?
In a way, yes, the one holding the office of Bishop in a certain sense can be called a "successor" of the Apostles. That I will grant. However, any church leader can be called that, not just those belonging to the Latin rite.
Take out the capital 'A' and Ill go with it because I think the central concept is something like a "designated agent whose actions commit the one who made him an agent."
I don't think along your lines here :-) I have to leave the capital "A" for the simple reason the word represents an office or title. An "Apostle", in any sense of the term is an "Ambassador" of the sender. That Ambassador cannot deviate from the intention of the sender and propose something on his own.
In general I think the Apostles either appointed or ratified already appointed individuals (supervisors) or "boards" (elders) to administer urban congregations. And these agents had apostolic authority and duty themselves -- especially "the Apostles teaching and fellowship, the breaking of bread, and the prayers."
Hmmm....the letters of the NT lay out specific guidelines for the office of Bishop and Deacon. A lot of denominations of Christianity, even the RCC, don't really follow those guidelines laid out as the letters of the NT say. There has been a lot of innovation on this over the centuries. Some of the terms used have been redefined to the extent that they contradict what the letters have to say. That's all I'd say at this particular time.
The bold part of what I quoted from you above I would take exception to: for the "Apostles" in your quote of the Scriptures were the actual Apostles of Jesus, not "Bishops" of the churches formed after the time of Jesus. But yes, what you said about those taking the office had duties such as you say. But maybe I'm misunderstanding you?
What do subsequent events show? Well, Jesus had no blood drained from him for his disciples to drink, a violation of the Mosaic Law that Jesus and they were under at the time.
And no flesh removed from his body. (Yes, I know, but you asked my take).
Every language has all sorts of ways of expressing ideas just as in English. The bread and wine represented Jesus’ flesh and blood, no cannibals and vampires amongst the disciples.
It sure is, Parvati Shallow. Apparently she grew up in a commune in Florida. On TV, she is currently a competitor on "Survivor". This installment brought back previous competitors (Parvati actually won the whole thing the last time she was on) and divided them into two groups, heroes vs. villains. Parvati is on the villain team, and is known for using her looks to manipulate the male players. :) So far she is doing very well and the competition is nearing the end. You can see her on Thursday nights, CBS. I couldn't pass on the pic since she is "current". (I swear that was the only reason.)
Parvati is the spouse of Vishnu, I believe.
Yeah, I saw that she was some sort of Hindu goddess when looking for the pic. Perhaps that says something about both of us. LOL!
LOL! Kinda makes me wonder if all the Mary icons through the centuries looked like that how different the world would be today. :)
It's funny that her real last name is "Shallow" since that is exactly what she is famous for on "Survivor".
Why do you say "Latin Rite"? There are plenty of bishops in Communion with the See of Rome who are not in the Latin Rite.
That Ambassador cannot deviate from the intention of the sender and propose something on his own.
That's why we look back to Acts 15:28. Of course those not of our communion disagree with us, But we think that councils and popes, when teaching on matters of faith and morals, speak what "seems to to the Holy Spirit and themselves." Being in communion with the See of Rome takes faith!
Even though Paul had his own experience(s) of our Lord, his ministry to the gentiles was known to be valid by the letters the Council sent with him and Barnabas and Judas and Silas.
There were other people taking titles and authority to themselves. In your view, how does one distinguish a REAL apostle from a bogus one?
And these agents had apostolic authority and duty themselves -- especially "the Apostles teaching and fellowship, the breaking of bread, and the prayers."
There should have been an apostrophe after "Apostles", thus: Apostles'.
As the Apostles fell asleep, their teaching did not disappear. All teaching since then has included (or so we claim) an aspect of development, which is part of why Apostolic authority is important to us.
A lot of denominations of Christianity, even the RCC, don't really follow those guidelines laid out as the letters of the NT say. There has been a lot of innovation on this over the centuries. Some of the terms used have been redefined to the extent that they contradict what the letters have to say.
Well, that's the charge, for sure. Again, the Acts 2:42 verse is important. I think that the development of the orders of supervisor and elder and even the unique case of the successor of Peter are legitimate elaborations to deal with the problem of maintaining the teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayers, as the Church spread and grew.
True. However, when partaking of the bread and fruit of the vine, we do distinquish that it's the body and blood of Christ that was shed for us. The whole thing is that we do this action to remember His death, burial and resurrection until He come again. That is the important part!
Thanks for your input. It's appreciated.
THis is the sort of thing that makes me glad to be without TV.
Parvati Shallow. Awesome!
Or still working things out.
Whoa, what happened to my Greek? Let me try again:
Χαλεπα τα καλα
Let's not quibble :-) I think you know what I mean.
That's why we look back to Acts 15:28. Of course those not of our communion disagree with us, But we think that councils and popes, when teaching on matters of faith and morals, speak what "seems to to the Holy Spirit and themselves." Being in communion with the See of Rome takes faith!
I also look back at Acts 15:28 and the full context of the issue. Abstaining from those 4 things are all that were asked from the leadership of the Jerusalem church. Nothing else was asked to put on the yoke of Gentile believers. And hmmm...in the assembly of Christians I belong to teachings are not limited to matters of faith and morals; rather, everything taught by Jesus and the Apostles are part of our teachings. Those teachings are more than just faith and morals, just as bread alone doesn't sustain ones life here on earth.
For members of the churches under the leadership of the Pope, yes, they are supposed to have "faith" in the Pope in order to remain in communion with that church - no question about that.
Even though Paul had his own experience(s) of our Lord, his ministry to the gentiles was known to be valid by the letters the Council sent with him and Barnabas and Judas and Silas.
Pauls ministry to the Gentiles was not made "valid" by the letter (singular) the meeting in Jerusalme sent to the church in Antioch - that is why Barsabbas and Silas, leaders among the people in Jerusalem were sent along with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch. I don't know how you can read it different than that.
There were other people taking titles and authority to themselves. In your view, how does one distinguish a REAL apostle from a bogus one?
First of all, they must teach what Jesus told them to teach. The Apostle Paul also spoke to this issue in his letters. I don't have the time to quote all he said right now, and he said plenty. He had to defend himself from those who sought to make little of him by presenting themselves as Apostles. Even the Apostle John had to warn about false Christs and prophets. I'm sure you have read of these things by Paul and John, and in other short passages in various epistles.
There should have been an apostrophe after "Apostles", thus: Apostles'.
Picky, picky, picky :-)
Well, that's the charge, for sure. Again, the Acts 2:42 verse is important. I think that the development of the orders of supervisor and elder and even the unique case of the successor of Peter are legitimate elaborations to deal with the problem of maintaining the teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayers, as the Church spread and grew.
Yes, isn't it! I read the whole passage and praise God for the record!
I agree that there has been a big development in the churches under the leadership of the papacy. Would it be right to say, what will be will be? Or, That's the way the ball bounces!
“”Those who follow in the footsteps of the apostles should be listened to as they are in agreement with the teaching of the Christ Jesus....I don’t find that in the Bible and in the early writings of individuals of the churches. It’s that simple!””
That would mean you should listen to Saint Ignatius Of Antioch who was the 3rd Bishop of Antioch and a Disciple Of Saint John.....
A few of his writings...
“And do ye also reverence your bishop as Christ Himself, according as the blessed apostles have enjoined you. He that is within the altar is pure, wherefore also he is obedient to the bishop and presbyters: but he that is without is one that does anything apart from the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons. Such a person is defiled in his conscience, and is worse than an infidel. For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ Of God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as the holy Stephen did to the blessed James, Timothy and Linus to Paul, Anencletus and Clement to Peter? He, therefore, that will not yield obedience to such, must needs be one utterly without God, an impious man who despises Christ, and depreciates His appointments.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Trallians, 7 (c. A.D. 110).
“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.” Saint Ignatius-”Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.
“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
The gist of the article seemed to be that there are a few here and there, but most of them just leave and join liberal Baptist organizations like the American Baptist Convention, which apparently approves of women serving as pastors. So, the SBC sticks to the non-binding rule, but I'm sure it is clear to these women pastors that they are not approved of by almost everyone else there (at the National Convention), so who needs the headache? Most just skip the Convention or leave the SBC. If at some point it ever became a growing movement, which it apparently is not right now, then I'm sure it would be further addressed in some way. Someone could bring in the ole' "friendly cooperation" clause, but that doesn't seem to be necessary at this time.
Yeah, kinda what I thought. The Church does not allow any deviation in theory, but in practice, like that Fr. Whatsisname in Chicago, we give front line heretics a whole lotta rope. Trouble is, that we don't hang enough of them quickly enough. In other words, you guys have a handful of SBC churches with women pastors, but there aren't enough of them to be a nuisance. We've permitted way too many heretics to hang out masquerading as clergy; they have become nuisances, or worse.
Wow. And all this time I thought that you were male.
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.