Posted on 05/31/2011 11:53:33 AM PDT by marshmallow
Wirery elderly Black Pastor Julia Coleman of Phoenix
HOLY SPIRIT FILLED BAPTIST CHURCH OF GOD AND MIRACLES
has taught a LOT that
many people sabotage the answers they seek to their prayers by ‘worrying’ their prayers—that we
MUST LEARN
TO TAKE OUR BURDENS TO THE LORD
AND LEAVE THEM THERE.
Mention it—BEST ONCE—THEN TRUST HIM
to deal with it in HIS WAY(S)
IN HIS TIME.
INDEED.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
And any hint of GOING TO LESSER BEINGS
FOR ANSWERS TO OUR LIVE
is worse than the Children of Israel telling Moses—
YOU TALK TO GOD [at the Tent of Meeting].
We are afraid of Him. You talk to Him. Leave us out of it.
GOD WAS NOT AT ALL HAPPY WITH THEIR RESPONSES TO
HIS INVITATION TO DIALOGUE WITH HIM
!!!!!!!!!!!DIRECTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ONE ON ONE.
He hasn’t CHANGED HIS attitude about such things.
Thanks much for your discerning and perceptive commentary.
However, I was hoping for MORE OF YOUR THOUGHTS on the issue of . . . aspects of . . .
Christ as resurrected reigning in Heaven
KING OF KINDS AND LORD OF LORDS . . .
CREATOR GOD IN CLOSE TO ALL OR ALL OF HIS GLORY . . .
For lack of a better construct to wrap words around . . .
What percentage might we speculate . . .
What percentage of the
REIGNING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER—CREATOR GOD—JESUS THE CHRIST—KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS . . .
What percentage seems logical and the least bit supported or logically derived from Scripture . . .
What percentage of the resurrected Reigning CHRIST THE KING OF KINGS is still concerned with
ANY
of the mortal aspects of his being 2000 years ago in any functional, on-going, operant way that carries any import in Heaven?
Of course, I’m NOT talking about the PERHAPS added empathy for mortals that being one MIGHT have contributed to an already OMNISCIENT God . . .
I’m talking more about—to what degree at all—what percentage of the time or weight of all the issues etc. He contends with on a daily basis as reigning-in-Heaven King of Kings and Lord of Lords . . . does He likely concern Himself with vis a vis his earthly stint as a mortal??
Yes, I know God knows when a sparrow falls and has all the hairs of our head numbered. I’m not talking about that either.
Let’s say he spent 100’s of hours before His earthly ministry being a son apprentice to Joseph the carpenter. Is He as reigning in Heaven King of Kings and Lord of Lords still majorly focused on how good the carpenters in Israel are now in comparison to Joseph?
Is He, as a matter of course, very GREATLY preocuppied with the price of lumber and the quality of wood available to carpenters in Israel now?
Or has He most likely, left some lesser mortal issues, concerns, dynamics, relationships more in the dust or the background?
It’s hard to articulate what I’m trying to get at!
“that you didn’t understand what I wrote—evidently—AT ALL.”
Then enlighten me. In English.
For the first, the very phrase is like asking any Christian group in the 1700s what "rapture" meant -- we don't have an official teaching on each new phrase used amongst our Christian brethern -- for instance, when you guys argue about post-mil, pre-mil, dispensationalism etc. these are new terms from the 1800s that we don't even know, let along have any official teaching on!
The Church's policy since Apostolic times is "believe the core fundamentals -- encapsulated in the Apostles Creed now the Nicene Creed which is purely Biblical. Don't believe anything that contradicts that. Besides that, you can hold a few different new phrases" and will only deliberate when something comes of utter dispute or if something is definitely contra to the faith as we have always known.
The second point requires more time to answer in detail
[17] From henceforth let no man be troublesome to me; for I bear the marks of the Lord Jesus in my body.
Stigmata is the plural of the Greek word στίγμα stigma, meaning a mark.
Now, just because you don't realise that many words in English derive from Latin or other languages and many words are homonyms, well, you need to go read more -- start with the Bible
Now that's something iscool wouldn't agree with, right Iscool? how does the Modal god in your opinion do that?
Here is more from Fulton Sheen for you to consider...
“It will be discovered that so called Christians who think they believe in the Divinity of Christ but do not believe in Mary as the Mother of God fall generally into four ancient heresies. They are Adoptionists, who believe that Christ was a mere man but after birth was adopted by God as His Son. Or they are Nestorians, who held that Mary gave birth to a man who had a close union with Divinity. Or they are Eutychians, who decided the human nature of Christ and hence made Mary merely, an instrument in a theophany. Or they are Docetists, holding that Christ’s nature was only a phantom or an appearance. Those who are offended at reverence paid Mary, if they will analyze their thoughts, will discover that they are holding a Docetist or some similar ancient error. Even if they profess the Divinity of Christ in His earthly existence, such people shrink from affirming that His human nature is glorified with Him at the right hand of the Father, where He makes intercession for us. As some no longer think Christ as God, so some no longer think of Christ as a glorified Man. If He is no longer Man, the relation of Mary to Him extends beyond Bethlehem and Calvary even to His Mystical Body the Church. No one, therefore, who thinks logically about Christ can understand such a question as: ‘Why do you speak so often of His Mother?’ “ (The World’s First Love, pg 71)
I think the idea of God giving more of his attention to this and less to that is based on considering his attention to be finite. And I think it infinite.
If He is no longer Man, the relation of Mary to Him extends beyond Bethlehem and Calvary even to His Mystical Body the Church.
“”I don’t understand this line””
I understand that as saying that without a human connection through Mary that Mary would be Divine as well.It is important that we understand Mary’s human importance in the Incarnation of the God Man
The Blessed Mother is obviously not Divine,She is Immaculate
It's your phrase not mine...You posted it in 2143
It's still incomprehensible, nobody is denying that, and that's why Catholics are supposed to bow at the part of the Creed that says "And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary and was made man."
If you think about all the meanings and uses of "of" and of the genitive case there are plenty of ways to look at the text you excerpted without thinking that the Holy Spirit is "of" the Virgin Mary anymore than God is "of" me, though He is in some sense "my God," as even the Psalmist says.
In other words, we see what it says but it doesn't say what it says...The same tactic you guys apply to plain scripture...
One reason to develop the linguistic skills of grammar,logic, and rhetoric is precisely to avoid wasting time on silly and improbable interpretations of texts torn from their context.
Nice try...It says what it says...
The works that Jesus did include signs and miracles. Signs and miracles are not excplicitly excluded in this passage.
That's quite a method of theology you got going there...Jesus didn't say we couldn't, so go for the moon...
Therefore it seems that Jesus said that members of the set of people who believe in him would do miracles. Mary is a member of that set.
Therefore Jesus said Mary would do miracles.
The people that believe in Jesus would include those in this generation as well...But I don't see everyone doing signs and miracles...I haven't done any...Have you???
It's amazing to watch you guys jump the thru hoops to try to convince us and probably each other that your beliefs have some sort of basis in scripture...
Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Good to see your watching Quix's back against us bad guys...And which post would that be???
LOL...
It is PART of a phrase which was created by the Anglican Church. It is not "mine" in any way.
I don't know why anyone interested in the truth would focus on a tendentious and misleading excerpt from a Protestant document to attack or question Catholic teaching. If you don't like your understanding of the Anglican translation of the Nicene Creed, and if you are sure it's their problem and not yours, then I'd suggest taking it up with some Anglicans.
The translation is not used by Catholics.
It is PART of a phrase which was created by the Anglican Church. It is not "mine" in any way.
I don't know why anyone interested in the truth would focus on a tendentious and misleading excerpt from a Protestant document to attack or question Catholic teaching. If you don't like your understanding of the Anglican translation of the Nicene Creed, and if you are sure it's their problem and not yours, then I'd suggest taking it up with some Anglicans.
The translation is not used by Catholics.
I have seen miracles and participated in one.
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.