Posted on 09/02/2011 9:07:47 AM PDT by marshmallow
Minneapolis, Minnesota (CNN) –Prior to 2006, few people even knew that then-Minnesota state legislator Keith Ellison was a Muslim. Because of his English name, he said, no one thought to ask.
But five years ago, when he ran for a seat in the United States House of Representatives - a race he would go on to win - word of his religious affiliation began to spread.
“When I started running for Congress it actually took me by surprise that so many people were fascinated with me being the first Muslim in Congress,” said Ellison, a Democrat now serving his third term in the House.
“But someone said to me, ‘Look Keith, think of a person of Japanese origin running for Congress six years after Pearl Harbor–this might be a news story.’”
Though Ellison's status as the first Muslim elected to Congress is widely known, fewer are aware that he was born into a Catholic family in Detroit and was brought up attending Catholic schools.
But he said he was never comfortable with that faith.
“I just felt it was ritual and dogma,” Ellison said. “Of course, that’s not the reality of Catholicism, but it’s the reality I lived. So I just kind of lost interest and stopped going to Mass unless I was required to.”
It wasn’t until he was a student at Wayne State University in Detroit when Ellison began, “looking for other things.”
(Excerpt) Read more at religion.blogs.cnn.com ...
At that point, you end up concluding that you can’t trust anyone or anything.
Which is not a good position to be in.
Discerning the Holy Spirit’s voice is not always easy and I honestly can’t say that I’ve met anyone who says it is, although there are people who act like it is.
I have never accepted someone’s pronouncements about God on face value. I have always compared it to Scripture to see if it lines up with that. If it clearly doesn’t, I reject what they have to say without question.
If I see nothing in what they say that is contrary to Scripture then I consider that they may be right and take it up with God myself.
I consider Scripture to be the only reliable, authoritative source as it is the only thing that has not changed for thousands of years. Every single other denomination has changes what they preach and where they stand on issues at one time or another. If they were wrong before, they could be wrong again. I don’t feel that I can trust them to be right the next time. That’s why I don’t look to church leadership of any kind, but direction from the indwelling Holy Spirit.
I am assuming that you mean the Catholic Church since that is the only Church you recognize as "the Church".
As I indicated in my first post on the subject Psalm 90 is a starting point.
Matthew 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.
>> There's a problem.<<
OH, you haven’t even begun. It says there are 14 generations from David to the carrying away of Babylon but if you list all the individual names here’s what you get.
Solomon
Rehoboam
Abijam
Asa
Jehoshaphat
Jehoram
Ahaziah *
Joash *
Amaziah *
Uzziah
Jotham
Ahaz
Hezekiah
Manasses
Amon
Josiah
Jehoiakim *
Jechonias
Assir *
The names with the asterisk are listed in the Old Testament but left out of Matthew. Find a scholar that can explain that if you can.
Does the Bible contradict itself? Of course the answer is no but I will let you study to find for yourself the answers with the help of the Holy Spirit.
There are other passages to establish the length of a generation but I will allow you to do your own study and come to your own conclusions.
I think you will find that Jesus is the 66th generation since Adam btw. 66x70=4620years. Then add the 2011 years since and you get 6631 years or the appox. years since the creation.
Just another example, thank you, of the low esteem some Roman Catholics have for the Holy Bible. You have NO proof for your contentions that call into question the reliability of the Scriptures. NONE. The Roman Catholic Church has NO claim to being the "harmonizers" of Scripture nor can they hold the "infallible" right to the interpretation of Scripture or the copyright to the name Christian. In fact, those who think as you only do so to impose the traditions of the Catholic Church above the authority that is inherent in the Scriptures. That motivation, alone, is cause to distrust anything that is said concerning God's truths.
(2) I agree that one cannot prove the Trinity in all its Nicene glory from Scripture.
(3)But, one cannot "prove" Newton's Three Laws. What we mean when we say they are "true" is that if we use them as tools to examine what we see, we find we can construct elegant explanations which also help us predict future phenomena. Newton is saying, essentially,"If you ASSUME these three laws to be true then you can understand a lot of things, and ultimately derive the law of gravity from the assumption of these laws and observations of the planets."
I think Ephesus, Chalcedon, Nicea, and others serve this function. We have here the Scriptures. We have the experience of the Saints. We have the expositions of thoughtful Christians.
IF WE ADOPT the schemata of these early conciliar formulations, we find a meaningful way of understanding our Lord when he sometimes describes himself as less than the Father and other times says they are One, AND a host of other stuff as well.
So, I think, JUST AS we do not "prove" Newton by observation and deduction, but rather we find him to be true because his principles order our deductions elegantly and to make predictions of future observations, SO ALSO the conciliar schema are not proved by researching Scripture, etc, but one might almost say they are induced to be true from their clarifying so much Scripture, thought, and religious experience.
Anyway that's how I think of it. If I try to assume Arianism is right, it leads me to a watered down gospel, which is exactly what I find the Jehovah's Witnesses to have. I have never thought enough of my moral capacity to think that Adoptionism could be right, but I seem to find a brittle Pelagianism among those who think Jesus was rewarded with Divine status and essence because he was especially good.
But I don’t care how many generations it was from Adam to Jesus. Why is it important?
My mother-in-law was born in 1931 but my generation does not have to wait until her death to begin.
Speak to an observant Orthodox Jew and ask him about the Talmud and compare that to the Christian understanding of the OT. Then you will have an idea as to the changes in understanding of what we call the OT Scripture.
I am assuming that you mean the Catholic Church since that is the only Church you recognize as "the Church".
We've been through this before. There is the Catholic Church, which is divided up into various sees. There is no assumption required.
At that point, when the logical conclusion of the premise is unacceptable, it's time,I think, to reconsider the premise.
I have never accepted someone’s pronouncements about God on face value.
Isn't there a problem with that in light of St. Paul saying some are called to be teachers? Can you not err in your own Scriptural researches?
Further, at least some Scriptural research seems VERY recondite. Cynical Bear cites a non-Scriptural table of chronology as an argument to show that according to Matthew's genealogy of Jesus, a generation is the same as a lifespan, approximately 70 years. But those SAME DATA can be used to show that a generation is less than half that. So contradictions blossom everywhere. And when I point this out I am not given the key but told to go find out the answer for myself!
It is beyond me how every Christian is supposed to do it all himself.
Do you have any evidence that non-Catholics have changed the meaning of the OT for Christians?
Just another example, thank you, of the low esteem some Roman Catholics have for the Holy Bible.
To the contrary, I think that I have demonstrated that I consider Scripture very highly. It is the practitioners of YOPIOS that I take lightly.
You have NO proof for your contentions that call into question the reliability of the Scriptures. NONE.
The various proofs of Scriptural changes have been paraded around here since before I joined up. Let's put it this way: you are sola; how can you prove that Scriptures as they are are correct? Show me the proofs for each book and the content thereof. You cannot. I believe in Scripture with a very strong belief. If you claim to 'know', then if I show any falsity to that 'knowledge', then your Christianity collapses completely.
The Roman Catholic Church has NO claim to being the "harmonizers" of Scripture nor can they hold the "infallible" right to the interpretation of Scripture or the copyright to the name Christian.
It doesn't, to either claim.
In fact, those who think as you only do so to impose the traditions of the Catholic Church above the authority that is inherent in the Scriptures. That motivation, alone, is cause to distrust anything that is said concerning God's truths.
You point out here, what I have pointed out for many years. There is an authority above Scripture - far above. That authority is Jesus the Christ. It is not the god that many Protestants see in the mirror.
Actually, no. Your claim was that the Roman Catholic Church teaches nothing other than Mary was a sinner in need of a Savior. My post disproved your claim; the RCC teaches Mary to be a co-redemptrix, a source of grace and other unbiblical falsehoods.
I showed proof, from your catechism, debunked by Scripture, that your claim is wrong. That's all.
Hoss
I bow to your wisdom; you are of course correct.
(2) I agree that one cannot prove the Trinity in all its Nicene glory from Scripture.
Very good.
(3)But, one cannot "prove" Newton's Three Laws. What we mean when we say they are "true" is that if we use them as tools to examine what we see, we find we can construct elegant explanations which also help us predict future phenomena. Newton is saying, essentially,"If you ASSUME these three laws to be true then you can understand a lot of things, and ultimately derive the law of gravity from the assumption of these laws and observations of the planets."
Very handy illustration.
Anyway that's how I think of it. If I try to assume Arianism is right, it leads me to a watered down gospel, which is exactly what I find the Jehovah's Witnesses to have. I have never thought enough of my moral capacity to think that Adoptionism could be right, but I seem to find a brittle Pelagianism among those who think Jesus was rewarded with Divine status and essence because he was especially good.
Again, I find myself in agreement. Thank you for stepping in.
The real answer is this. When asked what is needed to be saved the answer was: “believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved-and your house.” The rest of what we debate about does not change that simple gospel of Jesus which is after all “bottom line”. We all need to keep that in our minds at all times. All this other stuff is our feeble attempt to understand. It doesn’t affect our salvation if we but profess our belief that Jesus paid the total and complete price for our salvation and eternity with Him.
Then you admit that you are a polytheist acknowledging the existence of lesser gods?
All Christians were Catholics before the farce of the Reformation. There was no difference in meaning between the terms for 1500 years.
Yah'shua and all the followers were Jews. That is before Nicea. ROTFLOL !
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Sorry, you proved what the Church teaches about Mary after the Incarnation when she gives her fiat to the angel and agrees to be the mother of God, the second person of the Trinity, Jesus.
I said the church believes and teaches that Mary was in need of a Savior as we all are.
Mary was preserved from sin, saved from it by God at the moment of her conception so that she could bear within her body the Word Incarnate, Jesus.
Through her consent, Jesus, the Savior, the Redeemer, the Mediator was born and we are able to have eternal life.
Two different things. You quoted me, then set about to prove something completely different from the quote.
Clear now?
Not really. Paul also said to test everything and the best preachers/teachers I've heard have told their listeners to not just take their word for anything but to check with Scripture themselves to see if what they are saying lines up with it. They also tell them to do that with everybody.
There is Scriptural precedent for that.
Acts 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
Can you not err in your own Scriptural researches?
Of course. Since we are human, everybody is going to err in some point or another. Nobody is going to have perfect doctrine because as finite humans nobody has the capability to fully understand God.
An example of this would be in what the definition of a generation is. But that is not a matter critical to one's salvation. It's just a difference in interpretation. Issues of whether drinking or dancing are not critical to salvation either although I don't doubt some might disagree.
However, when it comes to the gospel itself and issues that are critical to salvation, then being wrong can have very serious consequences. That's when the appeal to Scripture is made.
1 John 4 1Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. 4Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. 5 They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. 6We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
There are criteria in Scripture which we are given by which we can ascertain whether teaching could be from God or definitely is not.
IMO, it would actually be easier to determine what teaching is not from God in that there would be blatant, obvious error present.
When there is no blatant, obvious error present, then it warrants further consideration.
If you think a generation is 40 years you come up with between 4651 years and 5051 years.
You can’t find a scholar that believes that it’s been less then 6000 years since creation. Also, I can’t find a scholar that believes the earth is over 7000 years since Adam.
There are disputes among scholars as to the exact generations from Adam to Jesus but by all accounts it is somewhere between 6 and 76. I personally believe it is closer to the 66 number then the 76 number.
All considerations taken into account the 70 year generation has to be closer to scriptural truth then any other much shorter number.
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.