Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
Perhaps you would be so kind as to point me to the scripture in which Our Lord and the Apostles said that Elijah had returned.
Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and men of violence take it by force.
For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John;
and if you are willing to accept it, he is Eli'jah who is to come. (Matthew 11:11-14)
But I tell you that Eli'jah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him." (Mark 9:13)
Hmm, interesting. But, then, if I'm to be a good Berean as many might suggest I should be, then I better have the Septuagint handy when I sit down to read Matthew because if I have the original Hebrew, then I won't find the scripture to which Matthew is referring and I'm virtually honor-bound then to throw the Gospel out, aren't I?
Also, isn't the Septuagint that version of what Christians call the Old Testament which has all those books in it which Catholics added to the Bible?
Nice try. :)
You remember that when the Lord Jesus was born, his mother brought turtle-doves because the poor could bring them as an offering. She had to have an offering because she was a sinner; she was not sinless. She brought an offering. But there was no offering for the Lord Jesus. No offering was ever made for Jesus or by Jesus. He is the sinless One. He was the offering for the sin of the world. He is the Lamb of God.
Luke:2 [21] And when eight days were fulfilled for circumcising him, his name was called JESUS, which was so called by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
[22] And when the days of their purification according to the law of Moses were fulfilled, they brought him up to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord
[23] (as it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord),
[24] and to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.
[25] And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and this man was righteous and devout, looking for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Spirit was upon him.
[26] And it had been revealed unto him by the Holy Spirit, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.
[27] And he came in the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, that they might do concerning him after the custom of the law,
BigMack
Sorry. When there is huge amounts of activity in my absence, I usually read through the entire thread first, to make sure any comments I might make have not already been discussed and beaten to death.
So I copy and paste things that require replying into a text editor, preserving the original post number.
I then reference that number at the top of any post I make that does not automatically link back to the proper post. I am not about to dig back three or 4 pages to makes sure the linking all makes sense. I reference the number, so anyone can find it.
SD
Yeah, I kinda thought that's where you were headed. So let me see if I have this straight. You don't believe Elijah was just an archetype of John the Baptist, you actually believe John the Baptist WAS Elijah returned to Earth.
Just to flesh this out a bit, John the Baptist is often credited as being Elizabeth's son. Was he?
I've taken the liberty of pinging a number of other Protestants to this conversation since I'd like to see if this interpretation is widespread among Protestants.
IF the lurker wants an answer, let him post it himself!
(Oh, that's right, you're the pugnacious one.)
Note from the verse from Leviticus that one of the doves is a "sin offering", and that it is "for her". Whatever else one might say about Mary, the gospel does record that she did present a sin offering for herself.
The answer is simply that Mary followed the Law, as any person obedient to God did.
Is it this "lurkers" position (or yours) that childbirth is a sin which requires atonement? OR is it simply a ritual cleansing?
SD
You mean He wasn't a "man"?
Oh that's right. He had two "natures" and we get to pick which nature is refered to by each verse in question.
Must make it easier to define the Trinity (three persons in one) when you have two in one to work with.
:)
It was angelo, I just backed him up.
BigMack
Yes!
All have sinned - all.
At least you guys are consistent. I am wondering how you look at a newborn baby and see a sinner, but you don't do that do you?
Instead you look in the Bible and that's that. Experience and sense play no part. SD
(dn´tzm) (KEY) , schismatic movement among Christians of N Africa (fl. 4th cent.), led by Donatus, bishop of Casae Nigrae (fl. 313), and the theologian Donatus the Great or Donatus Magnus (d. 355). The schism arose when certain Christians protested the election of the bishop of Carthage, charging that his consecration by Felix, bishop of Aptunga, was invalid because Felix was considered a traditor (i.e., one who turns over sacred books and relics to the civil authorities during a persecution). Condemnation was extended to all in communion with Felix. Behind their objection lay the heresy, familiar to Montanism and Novatian, that only those living a blameless life belonged in the church, and, further, that the validity of any sacrament depended upon the personal worthiness of the priest administering it. The Donatist practice of rebaptizing was particularly abhorrent to the orthodox. Condemned by the Synod of Arles (314) and also by the Roman emperor, Constantine I, the Donatists seceded (316) and set up their own hierarchy. By 350 they outnumbered the orthodox Christians in Africa, and each city had its opposing orthodox and Donatist bishops. It was the teaching of St. Augustine, as presented in his writings and at the debate between orthodox and Donatist bishops at Carthage (411), that turned the tide against Donatism. Strong state suppression and ascetic excesses among some of their own members further reduced their number. The remnants of the schismatic movement had vanished along with African Christianity before the advent of the Islamic invaders.
This is the columbia encyclopedia version of it - aka the reader's digest condensed version of the nearly unreadable catholic version if you need to cut through the crap quickly. You'll note the distortion of the facts in bold that is actually an attempt to hide behind an allusion and give the impression of guilt by association. It's crafty in that it forces you into an assumption of what the manner of guilt is. The Catholic Encyclopedia gives a dissertation on it that reads like a bad dime novel and has all the intrigue of an episode of fishing with Ben Stein. For being well practiced they weren't incredibly imaginative liars.
How dare they take God at his Word.
BigMack
Really - So one can go to confession in a Catholic Church, recieve absolution for that which they have yet to do and then go commit murder knowing they will be covered. This is what you are arguing - aside from the obvious blasphemy, it's absurd to say nothing of unscriptural.
Like I said, you are the one with the faulty logic. you don't udnerstand pre-emptive salvation and you think that confession can somehow work like that. your analogy is as faulty as your razor thin knowledge.
Again, You are arguing a one time for all time fix for her sin and a removal of her free will thus compromising God on his own law - You've accused God of sin. And as soon as you reach that point, what you proffer is immediatly proven false. God cannot sin or violate his own laws regarding our status. That was the reason for Christ's coming - to do it within his laws. If he could merely snap his fingers and preserve anyone from sin, Christ would not be needed. Period, which means God established an intricate plan and acted foolishly and all for naught because it was not needed. In this you set yourself up as wiser and craftier than God - again contravening scripture.
Mary is an exceptional case. God is not bound by time. It is funny that you are so limited by your human thoughts, which you claim to be the mind of God.
For you yourself know that you cannot go to confession and get relief from sin you are going to commit. Nor can we get an advance pass from Christ to go commit murder.
I seriously question your sanity. Why do you continue to make these thigns up? What is the supposed comparison between someone, by the grace of Christ, being prevented from sinning and someone who lies in confession with the intention of sinnning in the future?
There is none. You are so far off base it is amusing.
Mary did not go to confession and get absolution for sins she was going to commit in the future. Instead she simply did not sin.
If you can't tell the difference between past, present, and future and between being forgiven and having nothing to be forgiven for, then I can't help you.
Please go away again and stop wasting everyone's time with your rantings.
SD
When you find an old post needing your reply, you could right-click its "Post Reply" link and select "Open in New Window" from the popup menu (or, however your browser accomplishes it). The new window would have the triple benefit of negating any need for such digging, preserving your place in the old window and staging all the replies you wanted to post.
Just passing along a helpful hint, without denying my selfish motive.
BigMack
Answer the question, Mack. What sin does a newborn have?
SD
Thanks. But if I did that and I had 25 things I wanted to reply to, then wouldn't I have 25 windows open (plus my original 2)?
SD
Ask his mother...ouch! :-)
It is truly: Bikkurim Feast of FirstFruits The morrow after the sabbath during Hag HaMatzah
Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the
Thessalonians, for they received the message with great
eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if
what Paul said was true.
chuck <truth@YeshuaHaMashiach>
That's the line I found most interesting.
Seems like every time that came up in the first few centuries... all of the Christians knocked it down.
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.