Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
Only in one gospel. And its a quote from a psalm, not something original.
I agree,
"but she's a girl" is all I get back. I think we've already received more outfits than my son's shared between them.
But she is cute!
No. We've only had 2 people even look at it so far.
When you do will you give me $5,000 for mad money?
I'd have to be "mad" to do that. :-)
I would do it for you if I sold my house for $385,000.
Where'd ya get 385? Try 348.
Ditto
If you read the article I linked, it all depends upon the criteria chosen. Catholics who use the 30,000 figure to criticize Protestants use the loosest definition of "denomination" possible, in order to exaggerate the results. If I wanted to, I could come up with some sort of criteria to give me several, or dozens, or hundreds of "denominations" within the Catholic Church.
I read it the first time the nurse posted it. I think it’s a masterful piece of rationalization but falls well short of negating the fact that any multiplicity of doctrinal deviation within the realm of Protestantism, or non-Catholic Christianity, illustrates the point Catholics make when they bring up the issue of the Holy Spirit guiding individuals in scriptural interpretation. As I said, two distinct denominations with contradictory dogma would be enough to make the point. In fact, the only point they can all stand in agreement on is that they ain’t Catholic.
Doesn't really matter much to me. But the 30,000 figure is simply dishonest.
I don’t think it’s dishonest. The link I posted which shows over 30,000 denominations is from what appears to be a non-denominational (!) Christian organization. I have no problem with having a more strict criteria for developing a more accurate number but to do that we would have to agree on a methodology. I think that may cause a problem since we have a hard time agreeing on what would appear to be the most basic issues regarding faith…
BTW Why the name change?
Let me predict the answer. "Yeah but it never says Mary sinned".
Cindy, that "hole" has already been dug. In 1950, the belief in the Assumption of Mary was made a dogma that must be believed by all Catholics in good conscience. This is one of the few, clear, unequivocal uses of papal infallibility.
If remains of Mary were found and authenticated (though I can't imagine how they could be authenticated), it would be the end of the Catholic church. The Pope would have been proven wrong on an explicit item that he explicitly stated as a matter of faith under his protection from error.
This would lead the ABC evening news.
The Catholic Church would have to give up its claims to being the one true Church, led by an infallible Pope guarding the keys of hte kingdom handed down from Jesus to Peter.
At best, after much grovelling and renouncing of other "errors," we might end up as the western province of the more collegial Orthodox Church.
This is no small matter.
Dave, I don't know how to answer you here. I put my faith in God and I deal with what he opens my eyes to. I have discovered things from yall on this post that I wasn't aware of before , that I have to accept as truth because it is grounded in scripture but I think I understand now though why you fight so hard not to examine your beliefs. If I understand you correctly you are saying that if just except any error was made then your whole church and belief falls? How frightening that must be.
It is not frightening at all. It is simply impossible for the Church to err. But it does explain why the Church's detractors try so hard to find tat one chink in the armour. Because, yes, any error in faith or morals defeats the entire Church.
As for not wanting to "examine" my beliefs, I think you might be mistaken. We can, in all faith, freely examine anything. I have never seen another viewpoint or denomination that offered what the Catholic Church does.
Finally, my astonishment was at your willingness to brush off something as significant as the question of Mary. Maybe you are free to adapt, but if it were me and my theory on just reading the Bible and listening to the Spirit had been proven to be so wrong on Mary's Perpetual Virginity, I would question my methods and all of the like-minded fellow Christians who were so wrong for so long on the issue.
And I might look into the Church that was right.
SD
Thank you.
I'll further agree that the logic of orthodox Christian doctrine requires Jesus to be fully human. If he was another, separate creation, his sacrifice would not be redemptive of fallen humanity.
Again, thank you.
SD
Hey. There are some that believe 3 of the 4 gospels were originally written in Hebrew. Not because of the existence of manuscripts but because there are idioms that don't make sense when translated to Greek but make perfect sense should they have been translated from Hebrew. If you want I'll post a couple of examples.
Never happen. Long before then it will be "Angelo? Can you start another thread? ...... Angelo? Angelo!!!??? Where are you? Hey, what the h@ck happened to Angelo? - D@mn, now we have to all go home... fun while it lasted."
I assume you are referring to the Tranfiguration. Of course, such evidence to support your contention would seem problematic. First, because both Elijah and Moses appeared at the Transfiguration -and the evidence clearly seems to indicate Moses died but returned- and second because you have no scripture indicating Elijah dies AFTER the Transfiguration.
Either this, or you are trying to argue John the Baptist was Elijah, which is clearly scriptural nonsense.
Or did you have another argument in mind.
Like I already told Havoc, this is taking a general and trying to make it an absolute.
Do you guys honestly believe that absolutely everyone has sinned?
What about children, the mentally retarded, etc.? Have they sinned?
SD
You don't think the Psalms were written in Aramaic, do you?
It shows that the language of Jesus was Aramaic, so it is not out of the question that some of the first writings about Him would be in the same language.
SD
Hey. If that's the last post I thought we'd all agreed that its mine. :-)
Many, perhaps most, bishops of the time were not what came to be called orthodox. While they undoubtedly held many things in common, they also had a wide variety of beliefs. The idea of one church unified in belief from the time of the apostles, and beset by heretics, is simply untenable. Where there is no established orthodoxy, there can be no heresy.
At Niceae these orthodox things were defined.
But it is only in retrospect that these orthodox teachings are projected backwards as being those preserved and handed down from the apostles. Had Arianism or Donatism carried the day, they would now be "orthodoxy". That is the difference in our perspectives. You see it as the Spirit preserving Truth. I see the outcome as an accident of history, something that could have gone either way.
Yeah, and knowing software, whoever posts that last post will cause an error, bringing Free Republic down for hours as the internal logic of the entire site will be overflowed.
SD
It is not a conflict, It is reporting the facts. Constantine argued for language that allowed for the Arian View to be included. His intent was to force the Bishops to resolve the problem they had aforetime FAILED to address and settle amongst themselves. He could have imposed His position upon them; but, he did not. You are begging the question. They had no more or less authority than they would otherwise have had if they were 1st century apostles. And they excercised no more or less. This is not a show of a centralized authority or progression from what had been. It is rather an example that showed the Bishops of the various sects and regions were rendered impotent by their infighting over the matters.
This veyr fact shows that there was some other authority in the Church that was able to determine what was orthodox.
No more or less than in the 1st century. This lacks evidence of any progression. Calling it orthodoxy buys you nothing.
Duh. It's about enforcement. Constantine, for good or bad, established the authority of the orthodox Catholic church to enforce orthodoxy.
No, if it were about enforcement, then all he'd have had to do was pen and edict and be done with it. He'd done so with the Donatists so it's not as though it were not in his power to so do. Constantine did not establish the authority of bishops to do anything of the like. On the contrary, he forced them to do their jobs because they were not doing them as they were directed by their own scriptures. Something that rings true even to this day.
That you confuse this with the establishment of the Church itself is akin to thinking that on July 4th, 1776 Thomas Jefferson established the idea of men being created equal.
Christianity had long existed; but, to this point in time, there was no sect called "Catholic" and no Hierarchical scheme which even remotely allows for the philisophical philandering that Catholicism has allowed itself. What Constantine started was a progression toward hierarchical organization leading away from the biblical model and ultimately establishing the groundwork for the fulfillment of prophecy regarding the empire - a system that would replace Christ as the head of the Church on earth with a man - among other things. Theodosius provided the name and the civil muscle to destroy anyone that made trouble. Thus the fall of Dontus who was in the right in preaching against paying homage to the Roman gods. Can't have people running around willy nilly preaching God's message and screwing things up now can we.
The rest of your screeds are just as fanatical, and just as fantastically ill-reasoned.
Ah, yes. The traditional bat it away because you're in an inferior position having to defend the indefensible. Can't attack the facts so you have to resort to something else. Not unexpected. But thanks for playing anyway.
******************* Mother of God *************
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
I had to add Gen 3 to build on mat 11:11. Both show that Jesus is not of Mary's seed since here we see that seed does NOT mean physical seed. If it did it would have to mean that for the serpent too.
Mat: 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
In other words He is not of Mary. She is not His mother genetically. He did not come from one of her eggs. Sure he came through her but he is not of her.
Mat 12:46-50 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Mark 3:31-35 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for the.
and he answered them, saying, who is my mother, or my brethren?
And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother and my sister, and mother.
Luke 11:27,28 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare these and the paps which thou has sucked.
but he said, Yea rather , blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
Gal 4:22-31:
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
Notice that there really is a mother of the church and it isn't Mary! Once again Mary is not even mentioned.
Heb 6:20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisdec.
Heb 7: 1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
Heb 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
Melchizedek is a type of Christ and is a priest of a higher order than Aaron. His priesthood is typified by being based on merit and not on blood and it is an eternal priesthood. This verse shows that in the sense of Jesus has no mother or father. Jesus has no mother or father physically like Melchizedek but in what sense if the Father His Father? We know that Jesus was not created so it is really positionally that the Father is His Father. This shows that the whole idea and title of "Mother of God" is anti-scriptural. b>
*************** Ever Virgin *************
Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Normal reading of this says they had sex after she bore the Lord.
*********** Queen of Heaven *********
Jer 7:18 The children gather wood, the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods, that they may provoke Me to anger.
Jer 44:19 The women also said, "And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, did we make cakes for her, to worship her, and pour out drink offerings to her without our husbands' permission?"
Jer 44:25 Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying: "You and your wives have spoken with your mouths and fulfilled with your hands, saying, "We will surely keep our vows that we have made, to burn incense to the queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her." You will surely keep your vows and perform your vows!'
Mat 22: 25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
27 And last of all the woman died also.
28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
Mark 12:22
Luke 20:29
The fact that we are not given in marriage in heaven is repeated 3 times and usually with an exhortation about knowing the scriptures. The only reference to a queen of heaven is of a pagan idol. The rational for Mary being the Bride of the Holy Spirit is removed because we are not given in marriage in Heaven. The idea of her being Queen mother in heaven doesn’t work because if we don’t have wives in heaven, we don’t have kids in heaven. The Idea of Mary being the Mother of God and the wife of the Holy Spirit and the recipient of prayers makes her the 4th part of a man made quadiny.
****** Verses about Mary being assumed into heaven *****
None
******* Verses about Immaculate Conception of Mary *****
None
******* Verses about Mary distributing Grace ******
None
******* Verses that say to pray to dead people ******
None
********* Misrepresented Marian Verses: *********
Revelation 12
Yes, in theory.
That is the difference in our perspectives. You see it as the Spirit preserving Truth. I see the outcome as an accident of history, something that could have gone either way.
Yep. But like Einstein, I don't believe God plays dice with the universe.
(Besides, look at how quickly many of these heresies degnerate into nonsense. It is not for nothing that our Maryphobes end up messing up the ideas of Jesus' humanity, for example.)
SD
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.