Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Our Journey Home
Coming Home Network ^ | Larry and Joetta Lewis

Posted on 04/03/2008 3:24:39 PM PDT by annalex

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-203 next last
To: Tax-chick
Yep, bowled out . . . just like me!

My parents had a couple of international visitors who were English barristers.

As part of their entertainment, we took them to a Braves game.

I offered to explain baseball if they would explain cricket.

We tried. Everybody tried. I'm not sure how successful any of the attempts at explanation were!

151 posted on 04/04/2008 12:34:01 PM PDT by AnAmericanMother ((Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother

One of our NC FReepers lives in an apartment complex in Durham that is also occupied by many computer-y types from India. He said they play cricket in the parking lots on weekends, with beer and shouting.


152 posted on 04/04/2008 12:38:54 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("Everything is either willed or permitted by God, and nothing can hurt me." Bl. Charles de Foucauld)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
I thought beer and shouting were mandatory for pickup cricket games.

At least, they were for all the ones I saw in the Caribbean. A far cry from Lords and W.G. Grace.

153 posted on 04/04/2008 12:43:04 PM PDT by AnAmericanMother ((Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother

I have never seen a social cricket match - or a professional one, for that matter. My brother, who lived in England for 5 years, said cricket was too boring to watch or play, and he’s really into sports of all kinds!

Around here, we have basketball or soccer in the street, and the beer and shouting are kept to a reasonable level because of the number of police in the subdivision. Deputy Sheriff just four houses down across the street!


154 posted on 04/04/2008 12:52:47 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("Everything is either willed or permitted by God, and nothing can hurt me." Bl. Charles de Foucauld)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
Just to avoid any possible confusion:


Lords


Lourdes.

155 posted on 04/04/2008 12:55:41 PM PDT by AnAmericanMother ((Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother

Is “Lord’s” the stadium or the team? Or the tournament?


156 posted on 04/04/2008 1:01:54 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("Everything is either willed or permitted by God, and nothing can hurt me." Bl. Charles de Foucauld)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

“Lords” is Lords Cricket Ground, home ground of the Marylebone Cricket Club (which I believe is the oldest club still in existence) and site of the big international tournaments or test matches, the most famous of which is the long-running contest between England and Australian for “the Ashes”.


157 posted on 04/04/2008 1:15:52 PM PDT by AnAmericanMother ((Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Sheesh. Australia.


158 posted on 04/04/2008 1:16:12 PM PDT by AnAmericanMother ((Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
Hey, I'm not the one that claimed "The role of the intercessor is the same thing as the role of a priest," so don't expect ME to make sense out of it.


Heb 7:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
Heb 7:20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:
Heb 7:21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord swore and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek:)
Heb 7:22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
Heb 7:23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
Heb 7:24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
Heb 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
Heb 7:26 For such a high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
Heb 7:28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated forevermore.
(e-Sword: KJV)

Not at all. One does not treat their sovereign like their "go-to-guy." The Scriptures tell us in many places to be cautious in the presence of the King.

Surely. He is our Sovereign, our Redeemer, and our Priest. He is most worthy of the respect he deserves, and should not be taken lightly. But you miss the point: There is no other. He is the Sovereign, the Redeemer, and the Priest.

Which is why we ask the Blessed Virgin Mary to interceed for us.

You need an intercessor for your Intercessor? What, is He too busy or something?

The Scriptures clearly state Jesus told the BVM "mine hour is not yet come," but He changed the divine plan for His first miracle to accommodate her. NO ONE else in Scripture evinces such a profound influence on the Almighty for such a pedestrian problem.

...Or perhaps it is merely the record of his first miracle, wrapped around a young man honoring his mother, in spite of an "Aw, Jeez, Ma..." moment.

Since Mary's intercession is only inferred within the passage, as I am sure you will agree, I would be more comfortable with your interpretation thereof if it could be confirmed 'thematically' elsewhere at the very least.

As an example, we both accept the Trinity, the Triune Godhead, because of evidence of that theme- While there is no direct mention of the Trinity within the scripture, there is a substantial body of scripture that supports the inference.

I am unaware of substantial evidence of Mary's intercessory role, or of the intercession of saints, as a broader theme, within the Scriptures.

159 posted on 04/04/2008 1:18:59 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother

Aha! I have heard of the England-Australia match.


160 posted on 04/04/2008 1:33:41 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("Everything is either willed or permitted by God, and nothing can hurt me." Bl. Charles de Foucauld)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: BaBaStooey; All
I'd like to encourage anyone who doesn't understand the Catholic relationship with the Blessed Virgin to please read this book.

Thanks for that, but might you find something similar on-line that presents your argument? I would be happy to read such material if you (all) consider me uninformed. An on-line reference is much easier to quote from, and is instantaneously available to all the participants.

161 posted on 04/04/2008 1:39:29 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: philetus; Dr. Eckleburg
John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Couldn’t be any clearer.

The question was not whether we come to the Father only through Jesus (we always do) but whether we come to Jesus through Mary (we very often do).

162 posted on 04/04/2008 2:06:13 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick; Running On Empty; ArrogantBustard
All he could do was suffer it

If I were asked to say in one word what converted my wife, I would say, my Rosary.

But beside suffering and prayer, we give witness with our own church life, reason, knowledge of the Holy Scripture, and ardor in defending the Faith from calumny.

163 posted on 04/04/2008 2:10:20 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: BaBaStooey

Thanks.

I would generally encourage every anti-Catholic out there to check his anti-Catholicism with the Catechism of the Church. 90% of the time, if what is presented by them as Catholic were true, I’d be anti-Catholic myself.


164 posted on 04/04/2008 2:13:29 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Excellent points.


165 posted on 04/04/2008 2:13:36 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("Everything is either willed or permitted by God, and nothing can hurt me." Bl. Charles de Foucauld)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother

He hasn’t been stumped, the bails are there. That is famed wicketkeeper-batsman Adam Gilchrist of Australia smacking a delivery from a poor USA bowler a long long way away from the middle.

Yes, the United States has a cricket team. Yes, they played (and were beaten badly by) Australia.

I am the keeper of the FreeRepublic Cricket ping list.


166 posted on 04/04/2008 3:14:28 PM PDT by BaBaStooey ("Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will give you light." Ephesians 5:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
This thread on FR from a few weeks ago does a pretty decent job.
167 posted on 04/04/2008 3:16:49 PM PDT by BaBaStooey ("Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will give you light." Ephesians 5:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: BaBaStooey
This thread on FR from a few weeks ago does a pretty decent job.

Thanks, I will look it over.

168 posted on 04/04/2008 3:19:07 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
NYer has also recently posted this thread. I haven't read it yet, but the topic indicates that it will be helpful to our discussion.
169 posted on 04/04/2008 3:25:59 PM PDT by BaBaStooey ("Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will give you light." Ephesians 5:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
There's an awful lot of Protestants out there who claim their prayers are answered by God...Myself included...

Far be it from me to dispute that. Nevertheless, what distinguishes grace from fortunate happenstance is all but undetectable for many who call on Jesus Christ.

The "grace" taught by many is nothing but "stone soup."

My question to all is this: If God were ignoring you for your bad behavior, would you be able to tell?

170 posted on 04/04/2008 4:20:22 PM PDT by papertyger (The left fosters lawlessness & bad culture by denying the legitimacy of the law and Western culture.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
God already set the limits...You know what the limits are...The limits are no one...

Then you have a comprehensive description of what "by me" looks like?

171 posted on 04/04/2008 4:28:24 PM PDT by papertyger (The left fosters lawlessness & bad culture by denying the legitimacy of the law and Western culture.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: BaBaStooey
I can see the bails now, but I had to look closely because of the line of the edge of the pitch in the background.

I am the keeper of the FreeRepublic Cricket ping list.

Proving once again that you can find anything on FR!

(please put me on the list!)

172 posted on 04/04/2008 4:35:49 PM PDT by AnAmericanMother ((Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Sounds like a perfect summation of the Council of Trent's Sixth Session.

Even a Palestinian couldn't make that claim with a straight face.

The sixteenth century Council of Trent is someone pulling the string on a "tickle-me-Elmo" next to the bile you guys spew EVERY-DAY!

173 posted on 04/04/2008 4:37:24 PM PDT by papertyger (The left fosters lawlessness & bad culture by denying the legitimacy of the law and Western culture.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
Heb 7:19-28

Um, yeah? So? I'm still not the one that tried to fly the notion that all intercession is exclusive to priesthood: you are.

But you miss the point: There is no other. He is the Sovereign, the Redeemer, and the Priest.

Physician heal thyself! Why are commanded to pray for one another?

I know what it looks like when someone is trying to defend a distinction without difference, but apparently many here do not.

You need an intercessor for your Intercessor? What, is He too busy or something?

Mock as you like, but yes, we have an intercessor to The Intercessor. What is that to you?

...Or perhaps it is merely the record of his first miracle, wrapped around a young man honoring his mother, in spite of an "Aw, Jeez, Ma..." moment.

Does "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come" sound like "Aw, Jeez, Ma" to you?

Since Mary's intercession is only inferred within the passage, as I am sure you will agree, I would be more comfortable with your interpretation thereof if it could be confirmed 'thematically' elsewhere at the very least.

No.

I have no intention of kowtowing to sectarian insistence that Scripture is the only yardstick of validity.

I have the witness of this Scripture and Church teaching. That is sufficient.

174 posted on 04/04/2008 5:11:58 PM PDT by papertyger (The left fosters lawlessness & bad culture by denying the legitimacy of the law and Western culture.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: BaBaStooey
NYer has also recently posted this thread. I haven't read it yet, but the topic indicates that it will be helpful to our discussion.

Sorry. Read them both thoroughly. I am very comfortable rejecting


175 posted on 04/04/2008 5:31:28 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
I have the witness of this Scripture and Church teaching. That is sufficient.

The you may keep it.

176 posted on 04/04/2008 5:58:35 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
Mary's role as co-redemptress and co-mediatrix which is wholly absurd.

How so?

Note: this does NOT mean you pontificate on your opinion of those terms, but that you dissect the Catholic justification for using them.

177 posted on 04/04/2008 6:16:55 PM PDT by papertyger (The left fosters lawlessness & bad culture by denying the legitimacy of the law and Western culture.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

There is nothing to justify. There is one Redeemer. There is one Intercessor/Mediator. His name is Jesus Christ. There is no other.


178 posted on 04/04/2008 7:02:44 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
Well, I asked for an explaination of why you think the Catholic position is absurd, and you replied with exactly what I asked you to refrain from.

If this discussion is about nothing more than making you feel good about yourself, please let the rest of us know before we waste time reasoning with you.

179 posted on 04/04/2008 7:19:24 PM PDT by papertyger (The left fosters lawlessness & bad culture by denying the legitimacy of the law and Western culture.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
If this discussion is about nothing more than making you feel good about yourself, please let the rest of us know before we waste time reasoning with you.

Many may be able to reason with me, but your sarcastic tone and condescension leave you outside of that company.

It is pointless anyway, as there is little (I would say "no") standing for your position in the Scriptures, and you have already determined to rely upon your traditions... Those same traditions having no weight with me whatsoever.

You will be subjected to the Protestant "insistence that Scripture is the only yardstick of validity", by me and my fellows- A position that offers you no foundation. So why bother?

Have a nice night.

180 posted on 04/04/2008 8:42:54 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
Many may be able to reason with me, but your sarcastic tone and condescension leave you outside of that company.

Wow. I've never run into another Freeper that actually admitted they couldn't be reasoned with if you didn't respect their vanity.

Is that self-effacing honesty, or lack of recognition?

It is pointless anyway, as there is little (I would say "no") standing for your position in the Scriptures

Uhm...what part of the Cana narrative are you not getting? Is that not Scripture?

...and you have already determined to rely upon your traditions... Those same traditions having no weight with me whatsoever.

Okay, so scratch reason, Scripture, and tradition. This is getting tough. There's not much left besides "entertainment."

You will be subjected to the Protestant "insistence that Scripture is the only yardstick of validity", by me and my fellows- A position that offers you no foundation. So why bother?

Hardly, in the final analysis it comes down to which Scriptures you (third person) like, and which you don't.

Jesus only mentions being "born again" twice in the Gospel of John while He mentions eating His Flesh five times, but for some reason Protestants proclaim the former, but ignore the latter. Why?

It would seem that for all the fuss over "traditions of men" the only sticking point is whose traditions, and which men.

181 posted on 04/04/2008 9:46:14 PM PDT by papertyger (The left fosters lawlessness & bad culture by denying the legitimacy of the law and Western culture.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
Wow. I've never run into another Freeper that actually admitted they couldn't be reasoned with if you didn't respect their vanity.

No, I was implying that those who cannot confine themselves to polite debate, those who would use blunt clubs like sarcasm and condescension against their opponent, have usually done so because their ability to reason has fallen short of the natural ability which others possess. While I can sympathize with such a lack of facility, debates of this nature are unproductive.

Is that self-effacing honesty, or lack of recognition?

I would suppose the latter, though not in me.

Uhm...what part of the Cana narrative are you not getting? Is that not Scripture?

It certainly is, but when viewed without the bias presented in the Catholic tradition, the Wedding at Cana shows no evidence of what you propose is there. I am sure it can be bent to prop up such a thought, though not without an outside source.

Hardly, in the final analysis it comes down to which Scriptures you (third person) like, and which you don't.

The Apocrypha (which I am familiar with, btw) aside, we use the same Scripture. It is the tradition that is in the way. And just so we're clear, I, and many of my fellows do the very same on the Protestant side of the aisle. I have largely rejected Calvin, Wesley, and Luther, whom you all seem to feel are in the way of reconciliation. If anything, the Protestant Reformation did not go far enough.

Jesus only mentions being "born again" twice in the Gospel of John while He mentions eating His Flesh five times, but for some reason Protestants proclaim the former, but ignore the latter. Why?

It is not ignored, it is interpreted differently. Circumcision of the heart is also mentioned throughout the New Testament, yet I have never met a Christian that has insisted it is to be performed physically. Rightly divided, after all, if you would pardon the pun.

It would seem that for all the fuss over "traditions of men" the only sticking point is whose traditions, and which men.

I am of a mind that the only traditions that can rightly be attended to are those found to have foundation within the Scripture itself, and never the other way around. A Protestant idea, I admit.

182 posted on 04/05/2008 12:13:24 AM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: RJR_fan; 1000 silverlings
One of the reasons I read these testimonies is as an ongoing reminder, and caution, about how easy it is to topple over the edge into madness. And how sweet, wholesome, and convincing, that madness can be. As one who has skated too close to the edge of insanity for comfort, and has been delivered unto sanity by my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, this is an issue close to my heart.

Amen. 1000silverling's tag is one of my favorites...

~~Everything that deceives also enchants: Plato~~

183 posted on 04/05/2008 12:15:12 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
No, I was implying that those who cannot confine themselves to polite debate, those who would use blunt clubs like sarcasm and condescension against their opponent, have usually done so because their ability to reason has fallen short of the natural ability which others possess.

Gee, that's a pretty complex message to "imply." Are you sure you know what "imply" means?

Furthermore, you have this "polite debate" thing all wrong. You are only entitled to polite debate so long as you practice polite debate. As soon as it becomes clear the debate is actually a campaign, that is a constant restatement of one's position while gratuitiously dismissing the opposing view, any expectation of comity is laughable.

I would suppose the latter, though not in me.

Oh my! The "I know you are, but what am I," gambit.

How witty.

... but when viewed without the bias presented in the Catholic tradition, the Wedding at Cana shows no evidence of what you propose is there.

Of course it does; read the text! What it doesn't do is square with the bias of Protestant tradition, so a thourough exegesis of the text is studiously ignored.

It is not ignored, it is interpreted differently.

Why?

I am of a mind that the only traditions that can rightly be attended to are those found to have foundation within the Scripture itself, and never the other way around.

Which is why I maintain you are engaged in a campaign: not a debate.

184 posted on 04/05/2008 1:28:02 AM PDT by papertyger (The left fosters lawlessness & bad culture by denying the legitimacy of the law and Western culture.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
Just curious as to your interpretation of Genesis, chapter 3, verses 14-15 (or the common Protestant interpretation).

Who do you think God is referring to when He uses the term "woman," where in my translation (New American Bible) He says to the serpent, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

Enmity is an interesting word. Its definition is as follows: "Enmity is hatred such as might be felt for an enemy: the wartime enmity of the two nations." In other words, complete and total opposition to one another.

The passage cannot be referring to Eve; she had just sinned and was not in complete and total opposition to the serpent (Devil). In Catholic teaching, the woman who would have enmity between herself and the serpent must be without sin.

It is not extra-Biblical from a Catholic perspective, therefore, to believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived immaculately without sin. It is also why in Catholic artwork she is sometimes pictured with a serpent near her feet:



I've always wondered, therefore, what the Protestant interpretation of Genesis 3 and the identity of the "woman" if they do not believe these things about Mary. Perhaps the KJV or its derivatives do not use the term "enmity." I've never owned a KJV myself or even bothered to look it up in one at the bookstore to see what Genesis 3 looks like in one of them.
185 posted on 04/05/2008 4:09:11 AM PDT by BaBaStooey ("Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will give you light." Ephesians 5:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1

You will also note, on her head, the crown of 12 stars from Revelation chapter 12. Yes, we believe the woman in Revelation chapter 12 is also the B.V.M.


186 posted on 04/05/2008 4:10:58 AM PDT by BaBaStooey ("Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will give you light." Ephesians 5:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
Then you have a comprehensive description of what "by me" looks like?

Two, two letter words...How comprehensive can it get??? You can't get to the Father unless you go thru the Son...

Mat 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

I realize that's not your argument tho...Your argument is that you need (or desire) a mediator between you and Jesus...Problem is, you have no idea whether your mediator has contact with Jesus...

Be a pity to have someone mediate and not have your petitions make it to God...

But I wouldn't waste 10 seconds asking Mary or a 'saint' to mediate between Jesus and me...And here's why...

Heb 4:13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
Heb 4:15 For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Heb 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

This doesn't require a comprehensive description either...You can take your petitions right to the One who can grant your petitions...And you do it boldly...

Mat 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

187 posted on 04/05/2008 5:58:41 AM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: BaBaStooey
I've always wondered, therefore, what the Protestant interpretation of Genesis 3 and the identity of the "woman" if they do not believe these things about Mary. Perhaps the KJV or its derivatives do not use the term "enmity." I've never owned a KJV myself or even bothered to look it up in one at the bookstore to see what Genesis 3 looks like in one of them.

It certainly shows...

Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
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.

Quite a different picture compared to the one you posted...But look at the next verse:

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Still think the woman is Mary???

188 posted on 04/05/2008 6:17:50 AM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Thanks for removing me from the ping list.

I welcome prayers of course in the Name of Jesus Christ.

However, if you are praying for my salvation - thank God that by His merciful grace which was GIVEN to me by my wonderful Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ through his atoning death and shed blood on that awful cross and through His victorious resurrection and ascension!!! I am already seated in the heavenlies with Jesus Christ ... AS GOD SAYS IN: Ephesians chapter 2 through Paul:

1And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

3Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

4But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

7That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9Not of works, lest any man should boast.

10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

11Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

This passage in Ephesians as the one in Colossians as in virtually ever one of he New Testament books places the emphasis on the finished and glorious work of Jesus Christ on behalf of those who are His....and the glorious inheritance of his saints - those who belong to Him.

In other words, the New Testament which others have said that Catholics agree is God’s inerrant Word, abounds - overflows with the good news of the GOSPEL of Jesus Christ, focus being on Jesus Christ, with not one mention of the need to pray to Mary for anything.

This is not using “proof texts” - this is saying the whole weight of the entire New Testament gives no place for the practice of praying to Mary, a mere human, who certainly was blessed to have been chosen by God to be the mother of Jesus Christ and whose simple obedience to God in faith in His plan for her and for her child is a tremendous example to all believers in obeying God with simple, childlike, faith in our everyday lives.

I have always praised God for Mary’s faith and obedience to God. And for Joseph’s obedience as well.

But there is nothing in the entire New Testament which can support praying to Mary or to the saints.

The passage in Colossians warns against going with the “traditions of men” over the gospel of Jesus Christ as put forth by Paul and the other disciples...as the early churches were established.

Sorry hands are not working well this morning ...must go.

But God bless you and all who call upon the name of Jesus Christ in sincerity and truth!


189 posted on 04/05/2008 7:24:03 AM PDT by Freedom'sWorthIt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Freedom'sWorthIt
But there is nothing in the entire New Testament which can support praying to Mary or to the saints.

By what logic? A prayer to Mary is a prayer to Christ. For example, the prayer of the Rosary -- the most popular prayer to Mary -- requires a meditation on the events of the Gospel, beggining to end, Nativity to Cross and Resurrection as the following prayer is said repeatingly

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you
blessed art thou among the women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus
Holy Mary, Mother of God
pray for us sinners now and in the hour of our death, amen

This is interspersed by Our Fathers and

Glory be to the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit
As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end, amen.
Oh, my Jesus, forgive us our sins, saves us from the fires of hell
Lead all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need of Thy mercy.
This is how I pray daily, for my family, for the conversion of the Protestants, and for the intentions of the Pope. What is here that you think is contrary to the Scripture?
190 posted on 04/05/2008 9:55:26 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
Gee, that's a pretty complex message to "imply."

I hadn't noticed... I will endeavor to be less complex in my future postings to you.

As soon as it becomes clear the debate is actually a campaign, that is a constant restatement of one's position while gratuitiously dismissing the opposing view, any expectation of comity is laughable.

Hmmm.... Projection?

[Wedding at Cana] Of course it does; read the text! What it doesn't do is square with the bias of Protestant tradition, so a thourough exegesis of the text is studiously ignored.

You are welcome to provide said exegesis by way of a link, or in your own words... You may even get out your crayons and draw me a picture- But this "Is too! / Is not!" debate is unprofitable.

[not ignored ... interpreted differently] Why?

Because there is no need that the "bread physically becomes the flesh". It is (IMHO) a rather tortured extrapolation which isn't necessary. The symbolism suffices, and takes nothing away from the Sacrament of the Communion.

[Foundation in the Word] Which is why I maintain you are engaged in a campaign: not a debate.

Think what you wish. As I have already stated, I am every bit as critical of Protestant traditions as well. I am not interested in fighting over the rites of men. I am interested in rightly dividing the Holy Words of Jehovah. No church, no denomination, no doctrine or dogma can possibly come before that.

If you see error in my way, prove it. It is your duty to do so, and it is my duty to listen with an open heart. But you must prove it upon the Testimony and Witness already laid down by God the Father Almighty.

191 posted on 04/05/2008 2:13:30 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; roamer_1
Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Still think the woman is Mary???

I've found that the RCC seems to have gone back and circled all the times the word "woman" and "mother" are mentioned and then unilaterally declared that all those verses refer to Mary.

And since most RCs don't pay much attention to the Bible, they aren't even aware they've been hoodwinked.

Pity.

192 posted on 04/05/2008 3:31:02 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: BaBaStooey
Perhaps the KJV or its derivatives do not use the term "enmity." I've never owned a KJV myself or even bothered to look it up in one at the bookstore to see what Genesis 3 looks like in one of them.

For your convenience:

Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
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.
Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
(e-Sword: KJV)

And might I suggest e-Sword? It is a free and very comprehensive Bible study software suite with many Bible translations, concordances, commentaries, dictionaries and etc. It certainly has been an aid for me, and makes it quite easy to find and post electronically.

Who do you think God is referring to when He uses the term "woman," [...] He says to the serpent, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

In the first place, I would have to note that the text has meaning in it's simplest form, that is to say, that it need not mean anything more than it does on it's face.

Man, and particularly women, have no love for snakes, and are quite happy to dispatch them (bruise head). Snakes are certainly known to strike the heel, or at least the lower leg. Therein the prophetic (God says, "I will") nature of this passage obviously can be considered to have been already fulfilled, and we need not go any farther.

One must also consider prophecy 'in-situ', or within the context of the larger passage, and therefore one is obliged to consider the following verses, Genesis 3:16-17, wherein the woman and Adam are also cursed, as was the serpent in the verse of interest. In it's context, the woman seems to be Eve, as representing all women.

Now, that all being said, this prophecy is widely considered to be the proto-evangelist event. Even before the curse is laid upon Adam and Eve, the Gospel is pronounced, in that the Descendant of woman would vanquish the Serpent. See this rather lengthy Commentary by C.H. Spurgeon I can accept that much of the prophetic word being present, in that it fits thematically with the great breadth of the Prophecy, and is plainly in unison with the Great Plan of God.

Enmity is an interesting word. Its definition is as follows: "Enmity is hatred such as might be felt for an enemy: the wartime enmity of the two nations." In other words, complete and total opposition to one another.

'Enmity' can certainly, and simply mean 'hatred'.

The passage cannot be referring to Eve; she had just sinned and was not in complete and total opposition to the serpent (Devil).

I must disagree. "And I will put enmity..." would suggest the opposition to be placed after the fact. Considering the assumption that Eve is standing as all womankind, receiving the original curse, the enmity can easily be placed upon Eve, and her descendants (male and female) at any time after God's utterance.

In Catholic teaching, the woman who would have enmity between herself and the serpent must be without sin.

That seems to be a leap to me.

It is not extra-Biblical from a Catholic perspective, therefore, to believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived immaculately without sin. It is also why in Catholic artwork she is sometimes pictured with a serpent near her feet:

So the entirety of 'conceived immaculately without sin' is extrapolated from this single verse?

193 posted on 04/05/2008 4:33:57 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; Iscool
And since most RCs don't pay much attention to the Bible, they aren't even aware they've been hoodwinked.

The same can be said of things from our side of the aisle. Patience is a virtue. :)

194 posted on 04/05/2008 5:13:48 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
I realize that's not your argument tho...Your argument is that you need (or desire) a mediator between you and Jesus...

Oh Bless God! Thank you.

You have no idea how gratified I am to be treated like a thinking person instead of some Catholic-bot.

I know it's rather hard to tell, but I really do have a deep love for Evangelical Protestant believers. That's where my entire Christian formation came from. Nevertheless, my Catholic convictions come from exactly that: being convinced.

Problem is, you have no idea whether your mediator has contact with Jesus...

But you see, that's our fundamental disagreement. I have every bit as much confidence that "my" mediator has contact with Jesus as you have that Jesus rose from the dead. Both convictions ultimately came from the same source in my estimation. You just don't accept the authority of one of my sources. That does not mean I accept the idea my sources are in any way inferior to yours.

When Protestants argue theology with Catholics on a strictly Scriptural basis, it's like a single person discussing something of great import with a husband, all the while ignoring he has a wife. To treat the husband as another fundamentally single person is to totally miss who he is.

Be a pity to have someone mediate and not have your petitions make it to God...

I think you're getting into a "Can God make a rock so heavy even he can't lift it" assumption here. Catholics don't require a "legal" explaination for everything. We are very comfortable with the concept of "mysteries."

I don't know of any Catholic that seriously thinks God doesn't hear a prayer unless Mary passes it through, even if it was directed to the BVM.

But I wouldn't waste 10 seconds asking Mary or a 'saint' to mediate between Jesus and me...And here's why...This doesn't require a comprehensive description either...You can take your petitions right to the One who can grant your petitions...And you do it boldly...

And while your citation is absolutely on the mark, recognize the Scriptural text presents the "bold approach" as somewhat less than a categorical imperative. I think a fair-minded textual critic would have to permit the possibility the writer's intent is to instill confidence in the reader, rather than give the reader a command.

Presenting oneself before the Lord *should* be a fearful and awe inspiring undertaking as has been recognized by God's people throughout history. Catholics take that very seriously, despite the "boldness" encouraged by the book of Hebrews.

195 posted on 04/05/2008 6:51:29 PM PDT by papertyger (The left fosters lawlessness & bad culture by denying the legitimacy of the law and Western culture.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
I hadn't noticed...

Poor communicators rarely do.

Piece of advice; next time you want to "imply" a complex idea, don't be so lazy: write it out.

You are welcome to provide said exegesis by way of a link, or in your own words...

I already did that, remember? You just declared it wrong, and proceeded with your campaign.

Because there is no need that the "bread physically becomes the flesh". It is (IMHO) a rather tortured extrapolation which isn't necessary. The symbolism suffices, and takes nothing away from the Sacrament of the Communion.

What other commands of Christ, in your humble opinion, can be rationalized away?

If you see error in my way, prove it.

I see numerous errors in your way, but as for proving them...well, that requires some contribution on your part. There is no more impenetrable barrier to finding truth than the mistaken assumption you already have it.

For my part, I have always tried to remember to ask, no matter what the subject of inquiry, "if I were wrong, how could someone prove it to me?"

Not having an answer to that question guarantees that even if someone does prove I am wrong, I will not recognize that fact, and continue to argue against it.

196 posted on 04/05/2008 7:29:19 PM PDT by papertyger (The left fosters lawlessness & bad culture by denying the legitimacy of the law and Western culture.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: BaBaStooey
You will also note, on her head, the crown of 12 stars from Revelation chapter 12. Yes, we believe the woman in Revelation chapter 12 is also the B.V.M.

Couldn't the same signify Israel, either spiritually or nationally? Women tend to be religions or nations in prophetic language. Would you find such an interpretation to be reasonable?

197 posted on 04/05/2008 9:41:13 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
[You are welcome to provide said exegesis by way of a link, or in your own words...]

I already did that, remember?

I suspect you are referring to this bit:

This thread, #131

Which is why we ask the Blessed Virgin Mary to interceed for us. The Scriptures clearly state Jesus told the BVM "mine hour is not yet come," but He changed the divine plan for His first miracle to accommodate her. NO ONE else in Scripture evinces such a profound influence on the Almighty for such a pedestrian problem.

To which I replied:

This thread, #159

...Or perhaps it is merely the record of his first miracle, wrapped around a young man honoring his mother, in spite of an "Aw, Jeez, Ma..." moment.

Since Mary's intercession is only inferred within the passage, as I am sure you will agree, I would be more comfortable with your interpretation thereof if it could be confirmed 'thematically' elsewhere at the very least.

As an example, we both accept the Trinity, the Triune Godhead, because of evidence of that theme- While there is no direct mention of the Trinity within the scripture, there is a substantial body of scripture that supports the inference.

I am unaware of substantial evidence of Mary's intercessory role, or of the intercession of saints, as a broader theme, within the Scriptures.

Your reply follows:

This thread, #174

No.

I have no intention of kowtowing to sectarian insistence that Scripture is the only yardstick of validity.

I have the witness of this Scripture and Church teaching. That is sufficient.

to which I replied:

This thread, #176

The[n] you may keep it.

You just declared it wrong, and proceeded with your campaign.

I did not, as illustrated above.

You are basing the entirety of the Scriptural foundation for 'Mary's Intercession' upon a single passage, where this supposed ability is not even declared, but only inferred (to be kind).

I did *not* declare it wrong, but asked for more evidence, and not declarative evidence, at that, but only thematic evidence of any sort, provided it was from within the Word. I went on to show an example to help you on your way.

It was only after you flatly refused to provide further evidence, suggesting some undue burden, that I rejected your position. I am more than happy to discuss it even now, but cannot discuss anything, really, on such a poor bit of proof.

What other commands of Christ, in your humble opinion, can be rationalized away?

I might ask to see the scar from your heart being physically circumcised... Have you dug around in your eyeball to find the board within? Did you know that Balaam tied his ass to a tree and walked for 40 miles?

Rightly divided.

I see numerous errors in your way, but as for proving them...well, that requires some contribution on your part. There is no more impenetrable barrier to finding truth than the mistaken assumption you already have it.

Nonsense. I am more than happy to throw my faith upon the altar, and have done so many, many times. I am entirely open to new ideas a whole lot crazier than anything discussed herein, and upon finding proofs within the Scripture, I am happy to ponder the thought, seeking to further my knowledge.

I want the TRUTH, as I have stated before. I have no sacred cows, with the single exception that every single thing will be judged against a single standard- That standard being the Holy Word of God.

If your evidence cannot withstand scrutiny based upon that standard, then we really have no more to say.

198 posted on 04/06/2008 12:18:13 AM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
I did *not* declare it wrong, but asked for more evidence, and not declarative evidence, at that, but only thematic evidence of any sort, provided it was from within the Word. I went on to show an example to help you on your way.

You're right. After reviewing your post I see i've reacted with undue heat.

Please accept my sincere and unreserved apologies.

I'll address your point in a later post, but for now please let my apology and personal embarrassment suffice.

199 posted on 04/06/2008 2:22:21 AM PDT by papertyger (The left fosters lawlessness & bad culture by denying the legitimacy of the law and Western culture.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1

Like I said before, I respect your ability to believe whatever you’d like to believe.


200 posted on 04/06/2008 8:06:33 AM PDT by BaBaStooey ("Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will give you light." Ephesians 5:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-203 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson