Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
The “petros” vs. “petra” issue:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp
I’m glad I could clear that up for you!
Gee, I wonder what the Aramaic feminine for Cephas is.
In their grasping at straws some think that a Greek writer would be comfortable giving a morphologically feminine name to a fellow of the guy persuasion. Of course to think this was meaningful that person would have to ignore the Pauline and Johannine witness to the name given to Simon bar Jonah, to wit: Cephas.
Why do these arguments get recycled and yet again recycled? Honest to goodness I sometimes think it's just an effort to tire us out with endless repetition of failed arguments rather than to pursue the truth.
You misunderstand the Lutheran worship service.
No surprise there.
I disagree with a lot of Copeland’s teachings. But I don’t spend a lot of time on that fact because Copeland does not presume to control (supposedly) one-sixth of the planet. Thus his errors are dwarfed by the misdirection that is Rome.
It is no wonder that God sent the Angel to Mary to say "you will" rather than "will you?"
More selective reasoning from Rome. Does it surprise you that the Canton area of Geneva is heavily Roman Catholic and non-believing?
It shouldn't. The Canton of Geneva is the westernmost state of Switzerland, surrounded on almost all sides by France.
Since Rome slaughtered in their sleep thousands of men, women and children Protestants in France during the St. Batholomew's Day Massacre, it makes sense that this area of Switzerland remains Roman Catholic (and thus also unbelieving.)
All persons actually interested in the real history of the Inquisitions should read Dr. Edward Peters,Inquisition Henry Charles Lea Professor of History at the University of Pennsylvania and a prominent historian in the field. Edwards wrote: "The Inquisition was an image assembled from a body of legends and myths which, between the twentieth and the sixteenth centuries, established the perceived character of inquisitorial tribunals and influenced all ensuing efforts to recover their historical reality."The popular (aka Protestant) view of the Inquisition is at best a myth and at worst a cynical manipulation of fact. In reality, the Inquisition was an attempt by the Catholic Church to stop unjust executions.
Heresy was a capital offense against the state. Rulers of the state, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no tolerance for heretics and heresies. Neither did common people, who saw heretics, like witches and pagans as dangerous outsiders who could bring down divine wrath.
Like any other crime, when someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment. The sad result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities lacking in theological training (aka relying on YOPIS) without fair trials or a competent judge of the crime.
The Catholic Church's response to this problem was the Inquisition, an attempt to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges.
From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.
With a conviction rate of about 2% the vast majority of people tried for heresy by the Inquisitions were either acquitted or had their sentences suspended. Those found guilty of grave error were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be restored to the Body of Christ. The underlying assumption of the Inquisition was that, like lost sheep, heretics had simply strayed.
If, however, an inquisitor determined that a particular sheep had purposely left the flock, or worse proselytized the heresy, there was nothing more that could be done. Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to secular authorities. Despite popular myth, the Inquisition did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense, not the Church. The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.
Where did this myth come from? After 1530, the Inquisition began to turn its attention to the new heresy of Lutheranism. It was the Protestant Reformation and the rivalries it spawned that would give birth to the myth. Innumerable books and pamphlets poured from the printing presses of Protestant countries at war with Spain accusing the Spanish Inquisition of inhuman depravity and horrible atrocities in the New World.
Also not to be ignored are the many, many Protestant Inquisitions that had far higher conviction rates and death toll in a much shorter period of time. These ranged from so-called witch trials to Catholic purges of England and the Scandinavian countries , Cromwell’s conquests of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the atrocities committed by the Puritans in the New World.
You forget that God is all-knowing. He knew Mary would consent to His Plan.
He wasn’t “waiting”, unsure of what she would say. He was “waiting”, however, for her to say “Yes” before proceeding.
God doesn’t force Himself on us against our free will. You know that, or at least you should.
Yeah.
I’ve learned hereon that the Scripture about
TO THE PURE ALL THINGS ARE PURE
has a contrasting corollary.
Thanks for the input. I guess what I was trying to get at here was, what was the point of Mary having to be born without original sin and, subsequently, freedom from the sinful nature that perplexes us all? Knowing that God is omnipresent and ominscient, he of course sees all that will be because he is not bound by time as we know it. He is not bound by anything but his own set boundaries.
The "Immaculate Conception" of Mary was a doctrine that got tossed around for a number of centuries. Not all "Fathers of Church" agreed with the final dogmatic expression that finally came out in Ineffabilis Deus on 8 December 1854. Until then, the doctrine was not declared dogma and the Church had a freedom of sorts to accept or reject it. My whole question boils down to this, WHY? Why did Mary HAVE to be born without sin? Jesus Christ was born without sin because he was the incarnate God. He was born of a virgin (Mary) just as prophecy said he would be. He was tempted in all ways as we are, yet he was without sin. Because of his own sinless life, he could be the spotless, unblemished sacrifice for our sins. I just don't see why Mary HAS to also be sinless.
I understand the concept of the "Ark" of the covenant and the comparison with Mary. I really do get it, but I think this extra-biblical doctrine of her sinlessness is unnecessary and I can see the discord it causes even still. I respect her, I honor her, I admire her bravery and her faith - no one who is a genuine Christian doesn't. I think some have taken it too far and it distracts us from who should be the sole receptor of all honor, glory and power - the Lord Jesus Christ. I wish we could skip the arguments because they are never resolved and people leave hurt and offended. I wish it were not so!
I’d hate to see you turn blue from holding your breath waiting.
I disagree with a lot of Copeland’s teachings. But I don’t spend a lot of time on that fact because Copeland does not presume to control (supposedly) one-sixth of the planet. Thus his errors are dwarfed by the misdirection that is Rome.
INDEED.
There’s got to be 100 RC versions of Binny Hinn etc. who are several times worse in terms of doctrine and pride stuff.
Leave the thread?
What?
And GIVE UP !!!!CONTROL!!!!
AND HAUGHTY EFFORTS TO TURN FR INTO
AN ACTIVELY CONTROLED AGENCY OF THE VATICAN WITH THE !!!!CONTROLLING!!!! OFFICE A SUBSET OF THE MAGICSTERICAL’S CHAMBERS?
NOW !THAT! would be REAL heresy!
/sar
There is not a serious historian today who believes that the St. Batholomew's Day Massacre was anything other than an out of control mob reaction to internal French politics.
Question of the day.
I know better.
"Got to be"? Name one. Something real; not made up. Of course, I am at your mercy because I am not real clear on "Binny (Benny?) Hinn" except for what I read about here in the ghetto. So fill in some of my ignorance about both "Binny Hinn" and "100 RC versions."
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.