Posted on 04/14/2011 9:21:51 AM PDT by marshmallow
Perhaps ‘angry’ isn’t the term used but it is clear they were unhappy with Jesus. They did admonish him because they did not know where he was. If you consider this to be a typical parental reaction to a teen-aged child disappearing on his parents, who were heading out of town from the temple, and had to come back and search for him to find him. They were searching for him for 3 days!
Luke 2:41-50. 48 “And when they (Mary and Joseph) found Him, they were astonished, and His mother said to Him, “Son why have You treated us this way? Behold your father and I have been anxiously looking for you.”
49 And He said to them, “Why is it that you were looking for me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s house?”
50 And they did not understand the statement which He had made to them.
Mary claims Jesus has not treated them well by disappearing on them, and causing her and Joseph to worry about him and anxiously searching for Jesus for 3 days. Sinless people do not bring false charges against another person, much less the perfect and sinless Son of God. Doing that would also show they had not lived a perfect life.
They also failed to recognize Jesus’ reference to the temple being His heavenly Father’s house and that it was the logical place for Him to be.
Fact is Jesus was telling his earthly parents they should have known where he was and not have acted the way they did, and the next verse explains they did not understand his explanation as to why they should not have acted that way. It wasn’t righteous anger like God’s pure and perfect righteous anger because God reacts to the fact and truth of what people do, not incorrectly like regular people do.
My other larger point, that the Bible in multiple places states ALL people are sinful and need a savior, Mary herself saying so, shows beyond rebuttal that Mary was sinful and did not lead a perfect life. Some in the church over time have elevated her attributes far above the biblically historical Mary is.
Is that too late? It's still over a thousand years before the Reformation.
How soon would be convincing? 100? 50?
The point here is that it was not a contentious issue. The Church Fathers had no idea they would need to convince several generations of skeptics who would arise over a millenium later.
At that time there were numerous other heresies doing the rounds and causing havoc. That's where their energies were often directed.
Telling another Freeper that he has no clue is also mind reading.
And making the thread "about" individual Freepers is also "making it personal."
Ignore the messenger, discuss the message.
I wonder if gambling may be a no-no on the religion forum :)
Thanks for your reply.
I agree that the essentials are, well, essential. However, God according to Calvinism is quite foreign to the Christian God - in my view. So, this is an essential to me. And, arguments from scripture never have settled it.
We end up often, as you put it, at the logic tree. Yet better logicians than you or I still disagree.
And, I agree in general with the Protestant Principle that the reader of scripture should honestly approach scripture seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
My problems are primarily in the practical aspects, both individually and collectively.
Is each individual tasked to work out the Christian faith through scripture on their own?
As individuals differ on what the Christian faith is n its essentials and otherwise, what is the Christian faith for the Body of Christ in unity?
If there is no authority but the individual then, in practice, the Body of Christ is hopelessly divided.
Using the logic tree, I conclude that this is why Our Saviour instituted His Church and gave it authority.
Thanks again for your posts.
And Catholics don't worship Mary and you full well know it.
Never said He wasn’t fully God, but at the same time He didn’t inherit the sin nature because His father wasn’t a descendant of Adam.
I bet it isn't.
Bingo?
I disagree that catching another FReeper in a lie is making it personal, but I can agree that accusations without evidence is wrong. Would evidence that his accusations are incorrect be admissible towards building a case towards intent?
Further, I agree that I stepped over the line with the "no clue" remark. I would, however, appreciate some reciprocal attention towards this FReeper's claims which are so easily debunked as to be laughable. Intentionally misleading claims are strictly forbidden are they not?
Finally, I'm trying to ignore the messenger and keep to the message.
I don’t know, but I’ll take 10:1 that it ain’t. ;)
I never said that you did, I said that Mary wasn't sinless and to say she was is heresy. If you're going to accuse me of something, make sure I said it first.
I really fail to understand why you feel that is a credible or even useful line of attack.
:)
Are you now? Mighty civil of you. 1988, late summer or early fall, Detroit in the Mound / Gratiot area. Taught me everything I ever wanted to know about Pentecostals and helped start me back on the road to Christ. That, and a few other fringe cult experiences of similar import, and equal resemblence to Christianity.
I, personally,
Do you get a crown and robes and a throne with that? I just got an image of Queen Elizabeth waving her hand to the proles. Will your mommy let you up to watch the royal wedding? ..have grown up around Pentecostals and even snake-handlers and I know, from 30 years of personal experience, that you're lying about Pentecostals worshiping snakes.
I'm lying, now? You know that I am lying? Are antiCatholic noobies brought in and taught that I lie, or is this something that you've picked up like the last time you walked through a dog park?
The rest of your post is, frankly, Roman Catholic claptrap unfit for lining a birdcage.
Izzat so? It is Christianity brought to the heretic, the apostate, the pagan and the ungrateful. You're welcome. The facts that I presented are just that - facts. My opinions were stated as opinions ie what I have 'seen'. I don't know what you profess as to faith but if that is what you bring, it sure isn't Christianity.
I never said that we, as Christians, shouldn't call Mary blessed, just that she wasn't sinless.
You know better than St Augustine, who wrote much on the subject, right? You know better than Ephraem, Ephiphanus, Theodotus, Proclus, Ambrose, Anastasius, Basil, and all the Eastern and Western Fathers who not only believed it, but wrote much about it? Ah, my mistake at not perceiving your authority. And when will you rewrite not only Scripture, but come up with a new Canon of Scripture, since, if these yoyos were unable to do something as simple as see the state of Mary's soul, how on earth could they come up with a canon of Scripture?
Your little screed about Simon Magus, Calvin and Martin Luther matter little to me as well, since I'm not a Calvinist, Luthernist or any other type of traditional Reformed Protestant.
To a bacterium, no doubt other bacteria appear different.
If you actually did know as much as you claim to know about Pentecostals and other Fundamentalists like myself, you'd know we reject Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant doctrines equally if they don't line up with Scriptures.
Izzat so? Can you give me your authoritative position on the Eucharist as the real Presence (the Catholic doctrine). As a side show, how about wine versus grape juice?
So until you come back with something more than that, I'm finished with you.
I'd be so hurt.
You've proven that you have no clue as to what you're talking about
You may wish to lessen the methanol content before proceeding further.
...and debating you is, literally, throwing pearls before swine.
A moron topping on the moron cake. Do you have a clue as to what 'literally' means?
Thank you for such a well reasoned post. I'll try to answer you as well as possible.
Would it surprise you to learn that I too believe that Calvin was, to put it lightly, off in his doctrine to the point that I begin to suspect the validity of the other areas of his life? I'm not one to dismiss doctrine simply on the grounds of who claims it, but more on the grounds of what Scripture says about the matter.
To answer you honestly though, I believe, after having studying the Scriptures, that the individual is to work out, or work to understand, his own salvation on his own but with guidance from his local body of believers, also known as the Church. I agree that Our Savior instituted His Church and gave it authority. What I disagree with is the idea that the authority of the Apostles over the first Churches was passed down to others after the Apostles deaths. I believe that this apostolic authority remains with the original Apostles' writings in dealing with our issues. As I can find no evidence within their writings to support the passing down of their authority, I reject the Roman Catholic view of their Apostolic authority.
That one obviously belongs in a Catholic Caucus thread. :)
I believe that the only way to salvation and eternal life is through Jesus. Huge difference.
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.