BigMack
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 |
Because Jesus said plainly that John was Elias returned. It is stated in three different ways and one of them is reiterated no less than two to three times. So why would you wish to lie or decieve on this point other than to attempt to invalidate prophecy and make Christ a liar?
Where does Jesus say, John IS that Prophet returned?
Scroll back a page or two, the scriptures were posted by myself and another.
As I read it, he was comparing it to confessing sin in advance of it being committed: "father, forgive me today fo the sin I'm gonna do tomorrow".
Yes, I understand the words he wrote. My question is how is this suppoed to be analagous at all? Can you help?
One case has a person who, if God did not intervene, would have sinned. Instead God "saved" that person from falling into sin. Not by pulling her out of the pit, but by keeping her on terra firma to begin with.
OK?
The other case is where a person sins and goes to obtain forgiveness. At this time the person (contrary to all proper and valid uses of hte Sacrament), expects to be given a license to sin and asks for forgiveness of the sins he will do in the future.
How is this a valid coparison at all?
in the one case the person never, ever sins.
In the other the person sins in the past, present and future.
In the one case the person is saved from sinning.
In the other, the person is "allegedly" save after sinning.
In the one, the person is prevented from sinning in the future.
In the other, the person pretends to obtain forgiveness while intending to sin in the future.
In the one repentence is not strictly necessary, though thankfullness is, since there is no sin to repent from.
In the other, repentence is not genuine, since repentence can not co-exist with an intention to continue sinnign in the future.
How is this an analogy of anything, except possibly how not to make analogies?
SD
If only you would be as reasonable when discussing the age of Baptism. Sigh!
For me, the answer is a resounding "yes!" Pagan myths often contained grains of truth. Devoid of direct revelation, but still blessed with the natural world, pagan man could come to terms with some of the truths of God.
Where these pagan notions could be used to help express revealed Truth, they are retained.
It is those who see these things as pagan influence and corruption only about things they do not believe, and never about the thigns they do, who fall to the "hypocrite" label.
SD
Leviticus distinguishes between "sin offerings" and "guilt offerings". I don't think you can read "sin", here, in the ordinary sense.
Interesting. I can see the distinction.
That's what we're here for, right? TO define these things that we might otherwise fight over, not knowing our language is different.
Sin, to me, is not always externally objective. If I pee on your couch it depends a lot on if I am 2 or 32 how sinful the action is.
SD
No, they couldn't have just found or adopted him, otherwise Luke is lying when he says the Holy Spirit tells Mary that Elizabeth is in her sixth month of pregnancy. Thus, we're left with your option of Elizabeth giving "birth to a new body for Elias."
There's a word for that, Havoc. It's called reincarnation. And historical Christianity has always viewed this as a doctrine of demons.
But I'll play along. Given John the Baptist's body was a 'new body' for Elijah's spirit -which is your argument- what happened to his old body. Is it still hanging around up in heaven, spiritless?
Earlier, I pinged some Protestants to this discussion, wishing to get their input. Unfortunately, none have yet commented. Perhaps they would wish to do so now.
What on earth are you talking about?
SD
There's a messianic pastor in this area that encourages multiple baptisms. If you feel like sin in your life is getting in the way of your relationship with God he encourages another baptism. I'm not sure where I stand on this. Haven't given it a whole lot of thought.
BigMack
I can see how, during a moment like a new child, that a token offering for "venial" sin woudl be made, along with a thanksgiving offering for the child. It makes perfect sense to me.
I don't think it means that the mother or family committed some sin necessarily.
It's a catch-22 of sorts. If Mary is without sin, then she doesn't need the sin offering. But if she does not make the sin offering, then she has broken the Law, a sin in itself.
SD
If by this you mean that diaspora Jews considered certain books inspired that were not held as inspired by the Judaean Jewish community (which used a stricter criteria), then yes.
Also, would it be fair to state that if one accepts as canonical the Palestinian canon upon which the Protestant Bible is based then one is forced to admit Matthew's emphasis on the Virgin-Birth of Jesus lacks support from Isaiah?
Yes and no. Even if you hold Isaiah 7:14 to be a prophecy of the birth of Jesus, the expression "young woman" does not preclude the woman in question from being a virgin.
Put simply, wouldn't there be a discrepency between the way Matthew qoutes the verse and the way the verse itself appears in Isaiah?
This is hardly the only discrepancy between the gospels and the Hebrew scriptures.
I'll never forget the incredulity I felt when first exposed to this heresy.
I dunno. Its historical that he appeared to 500 witnesses after ressurection. I'm one that believes the Bible has some historical value as well.
Keep goin'. We're not there yet. :-)
Sorry, I'm not making myself clear. Let me try again. The issue is not whether Isaiah precludes the possibility the Messiah would be born of a virgin, the issue is that Matthew SAYS scripture explicitly states he would be born of a virgin. The Palestinian canon, it is my understanding, DOES NOT explicitly state the Messiah will be born of a virgin. Hence, given the Protestant canon derives from the Palestinian canon, there is a descrepency between what Matthew SAYS scripture says, and what that scripture actually says.
In other words, if I were a good Berean and brought to my reading of Matthew the same sort of empirical literalism as some in our day and age bring to the reading of Scripture, it seems to me my first reaction would be to demand of Matthew, "Scripture, please," and then accuse him of adding to scripture.
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.