My Faith: Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), from Catholic to Muslim

CNN ^ | 9/1/11 | Chris Welch

[Mad Dawg]

(Mt Greek testament is packed up. Does Paul use aner or anthropos? The former means man as in guy, the latter man as in human.)

[Mad Dawg]

someone earlier said that if Mary had said "no" to God's request for her to bear Jesus we would not have had a redeemer. Do you hold to this as well?

Hypothesis contrary to fact is a great way to get in trouble. This is the least of the reasons, but not an unimportant one, that Lewis has Aslan refuse to discuss what might have been.

How meaningful can it be to say "If Judas had not betrayed Christ," or "Had Mary not given her assent?" What we know is that they did what they did and it was very important.

[Mad Dawg]

I'm coming late to this exchange, but I'd suggest that, as we see in the Gospels and Paul, notably in Hebrews, there is a typological approach to the OT based on the assumption that Jesus is "He that should come" and that His work was the ultimate Passover and its fulfillment.

I'm guessing that's the kind of thing to which Mark refers.

[Mad Dawg]

This is why Mary is an eschatological figure, um, modo proleptico, um, so to speak. I mean that in Her assumption she "currently" enjoys what is promised to all the saints, and in her immaculacy she then enjoyed what is promised to all of us. As our Lord is THE archetype of God the redeemer, Our Lady is the archetype of redeemed humanity. The future 'end' breaks into the present 'now' in her. Or so it seems to me.

[Mad Dawg]

You secondary source is scripture. Your primary source for belief is the RCC as evidenced by the reliance on RCC catechism not scripture.

Try this:

You secondary source is scripture. Your primary source for belief is the RCC your own personal interpretation as evidenced by the reliance on RCC catechism your own researches and conclusions not scripture.

Paul is clear that some, not all, are teachers. The necessary implication is that the rest are students. It sometimes seems that some refuse the rule of pupil, with the attendant advantages of pedagogues and pedagogy, and insist on hacking their own way through the forest.

So one COULD view the "reliance" on the catechism and the hermeneutic proposed by the Catholic Church as obedience to Scripture, since we who approach things that way are acknowledging the student role Paul says we have.

[Mad Dawg]

I am uncomfortable with what appears tobe the co-opting of the term Paulician.

On the other hand there HAS been a gnostic-ish denial of the good of creation by some opposed to us.

So I'm not as uncomfortable as I might be.

[Mad Dawg]

What is it with guys, carrying on with the incessant arguments over such a simple thing???

I jumped in only because I saw something adduced as evidence which was not 'competent' to show what was claimed to be shown by it.

When a verse from a psalm which does not even use the word generation is used to support an argument about how long a generation is, that gets my attention.

Similarly, when a source outside Scripture is adduced to prove a point, but the very same method applied to another part of the very same source "proves" the opponent's point, that gets my attention.

What I saw was an assertion supported by other assertions presented with the appearance of an argument. But that appearance was specious, fair but false. And you probably know by now that one of MY hobby horses is "Fides ET Ratio", and one of my conjectures is that at the heart of Reform Christianity (and of groups influenced by it) is a disastrous rejection of reason.

[HossB86]

“Kingly Priesthood” does not equal intercessor or mediator.

Only Christ intercedes for man; only one mediator between God and men...Jesus Christ.

All I was doing is pointing out the unbiblical teaching in the Eoman Carholic Catechism. Mary is not a co- anything with Christ, or anyone else for that matter.

Hoss.

[Mad Dawg]

I also know that the truths ARE in the Scriptures.

Oh yes. But I say not in a way that they can be "proved" by Scripture except in a manner analogous to the proving of Newton's laws by observation.

[Cronos]

How can Paul’s words be rated over the words of Christ when it is Christ who by direct revelations to Paul gave him his calling,

That is my question too -- Paul's words cannot be rated over the words of Christ. Paul's words were inspired by God, Christ's words are directly FROM God.

In proper reading of Paul, his words do not and his meaning definitely does not contradict Christ's. Yet some have used their interpretation of Paul's writings to contradict Christ's words -- as you can see by those who oppose the trinity etc.

[mitch5501]

placemarker

[Cronos]

nah, what is absurd are these statements of yours, Quixo

1. what little I’ve watched of Jesse has been edifying. He is exceedingly Biblical—way above average, imho.

2. Jesse believes in the basic Biblical doctrines of evangelical Pentecostal ChristianityOr the time, you, Quix said about you said about Benny Hinn that He affirms all the cardinal doctrines of the faith AND that Christ came in the flesh.
   
   I'm not at all convinced he's a false prophet. Excessive in a list of ways, probably.

   Congratulations Quixo -- your group's support of Benny Hinn and Duplantis are extremely absurd.

[Mad Dawg]

What are priests for but to make intercession?

All I was doing is pointing out the unbiblical teaching in the Eoman Carholic Catechism.

All I was doing is pointing out the unbiblical teaching in the Eoman Carholic Catechism attempting an argument that the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is unbiblical.
There fixed it.:-)

You haven't succeed in demonstrating that the thing you claim to point out is there to be pointed out.

It seems to me you have to include somewhere in your argument an explanation of how we are to pray for all men and NOT intercede.

[Cronos]

And, as shown above that going by your group's posts the term "Proddy" is not "Protestant" but just your group with its aliens are God beliefs and considering Jesse Duplantis as real.

Everyone here now knows that when you refer to the term "Proddy", that does not include Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists or even Pentecostals, but it only encompasses your little group that has its belief in aliens.

[MarkBsnr]

To be honest, Mark, your response sounds a little funny to me. I've always thought that Catholics always viewed our interpretation of the OT as the original one. We don't put much stock in the Talmud and note that the NT is older. Mark (and/or Mad Dawg), would you like to clarify your thoughts or correct my understanding of Catholic teaching?

Sure. The Church kinda views the Incarnation of Jesus Christ as Revelation v. 2.0.; note the emphasis of 'new' in Christian references. New Covenant. New Testament.

The Mormons, on the other hand think that Joseph Smith got v. 3.0, even though he couldn't get it straight from telling to telling.

[MarkBsnr]

Again your ignorance of the Holy WORD is breathtaking. Perhaps it is the Replacementarianism Lens. Yah'shua is, was and will always be a Jew.

You said that Jesus and all of his followers were Jews. I brought up the example of Luke and this is what you give me? Anyway, the Church became Christian at Pentecost, so all of those who believed converted. As well, all of the thousands immediately afterward converted as well.

Are you trying to muddle in the idea of believing Jew and cultural Jew and muddy the waters here?

After the boys chose Mattahis, YHvH sent Paul to graft-in the gentiles to the New Covenant.

Looks like Peter jumped the gun, and Paul didn't do what he was sent to do since he spent most of his time with either the Jewish converts or the uncoverted Jews in his documented journeys. So in your opinion, which of Peter and Paul failed more?

[MarkBsnr]

Let's have some Bible verse that says that sin nature comes through the male and not the female. Romans 5:11-16

And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

I was hoping that you'd post this. Let me ask this: is this a "man" as in "human being"? Or does this mean "male" as opposed to "female". Think carefully.

I would be interested if after all this time, you'd answer the question that if sin nature only comes through the male, then a human being created by two eggs (coming soon) would be absolutely sinless, right? Right?

[MarkBsnr]

Are familiar with Google and wiki ?

If one relies on wiki as the source of one's theology, then one will become the source of much fun and merriment.

[MarkBsnr]

I doubt any of us whom you casually call "Paulicians" hold to the same doctrines of this seventh century minority. Rather, it appears it is only a "spitwad" that gets launched whenever the epistles of Paul are used to straighten up misrepresentation of the Gospel.

You openly boast of many Paulician practices. For instance, you guys are iconoclasts, you prefer the letters of Paul, you reject the title of Mother of God, you detest the Eucharist and its sacramental nature, and so on.

So if I call you part Paulician, I would be correct.

[MarkBsnr]

Thanks for clearing that up. Nothing like a little truth to disarm the lies.

Exactly. With every day passing, we find out from your group's own posts just how far you have been drifting away from Christianity. We've been saying it; you've been denying it, but with your own words, you keep proving it.