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 |
But it's your responsability to train up the boy in what is right. ;-)
SD
I agree.
All of this is speculation because we don't know what was in Mary's thoughts at the moment.
Exactly. And without knowing that, we can't rule out the Catholic interpretation or the Non-Catholic one.
SD
Even sadder to think that inside the Book is the only place the Eternal Word may be found.
I'm sorry that I make you such a sad person Dave, but I'm sure you'll get over it. Lol
This seems to be another NC belief you don't understand.
We don't believe the Scripture tells us everything God wants of us, it gives us the foundation to build on.
The church/assembly/ecclesia, was built on Christ, the chief corner stone, and the prophets and apostles were stones that expanded the foundation that a church of believers could be built on it.
With the church now built, not of stones but as a holy temple, we now use the written word to tell us how the church lived while under the direction of the apostles, who are the only people in the New Testament era that God inspired what they wrote.
Not one man since, has that authority backed by the word of God. When doctrine is developed that can not point to the word for it's foundation, it is only based on man, and no one will stand before God and point their finger to other humans and blame their decisions on them.
Adam tried pointing his finger at Eve, and it didn't work then, and it won't work at the judgment day. Adam was held fully responsible for his decision to listen to someone other then God.
What belief or doctrine can a man develop, that has no biblical backing, that is necessary for salvation?
So don't feel sad because I'll never follow anything or believe anything that can not clearly be pointed out to me in the scripture.
If I stand in court, I would rather be able to show the Judge a picture of the speed limit sign I was going by, then to tell him someone once told me the speed limit here was thus and such.
If he then says, the speed limit was changed, he would also then be able to show me exactly when and how it was changed, and how I should have known it.
JH :-)
I agree. We must understand the language to be conveying something more than the present state of affairs. It is, at least meant to mean that she has not known a man up to that point in time.
The present tense is, like Bill Clinton, only that she is not currently, at that moment, knowing a man.
SD
I am heartened by your optimism.
This seems to be another NC belief you don't understand.
Don't mistake a lack of belief with a lack of understanding. I understand the position far too well, I just disagree that this is what was intended when Jesus started a Church. It all rises and falls on the notion that the Apostles authority was temporary and only for the creation of a Book. I just don't see that written down anywhere in this Book.
But all is eside the point, which you did not address.
You state that the Word (logos) of God is only found in the Word (Bible) of God. I am unsure whether you mean what this implies.
SD
Yes! Exactly so.
And by comparison to Christ Himself? None of them (including Mary) contributed anything of consequence. Without Esther? God would certainly have picked someone else for that role - and that would be the person who participated in our redemption. None of them is even noteworthy by comparison to Christ.
It is in comparison to other humans that Abraham, or David, or Daniel, or Esther, or Mary... have any real standing. And Mary certainly had a more significant (or perhaps "immediate" is the right word) role in bringin Jesus into the world than Esther had.
I know not a man, I know not a man, I know not a man, I know not a man. Matthew 1:24 & 25, Matthew 1:24 & 25, Matthew 1:24 & 25, Matthew 1:24 & 25, Matthew 1:24 & 25, Matthew 1:24 & 25, Matthew 1:24 & 25.
Yes, to Reggie individually. Just the other day he brought up some rather silly comments from antilib, like that the Bible was originally written in Aramaic.
He brought them up again when no one answered the first time. So his position was exactly that anything a Cahtolic says that is off, some Catholic must repdiate it.
Then today, he espouses the exact opposite for the NCs.
Of course, he says next, we have our alleged "one faith" and they are all individuals.
SD
The present tense is, like Bill Clinton, only that she is not currently, at that moment, knowing a man.
I'll let others tell you how incredibly stupid this is.
In the person of the priest for sacraments where the preist is the celebrant.
But other than that, no it is a spiritual presence, or a spiritual outpouring of gifts.
SD
Ooohh, since there would be no redemption without the Fall, which was helped along by Satan, does that mean he gets to be a co-redeemer as well?
Maybe they love their families more?
Or perhaps they have a life (not me specifically, you understand, just RCs in general)?
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.