Posted on 09/06/2009 3:50:15 PM PDT by NYer
You figure Jesus would have commissioned Judas to be an apostle after Judas betrayed Jesus???
Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
You thinkin' one of those foundations has the name of Judas on it???
Even Pilate received his power from God, according to Jesus Christ Himself. Care to object?
Pilate didn't have power...He had authority...OF course I object...There's no way Jesus would have given authority to a man to be in charge of His church when that man bought the position...And there's no way Jesus would have given that man apostolic succesion...
The real fact is there is NO man that's in charge of Jesus' church...
Just pro forma, and not kidding around, with respect to a Pope I would consider his "official" acts as fruit. His personal scoundrelitude would be more like bark or leaves or something.
I decided to start the journey home without the ads. My grand aunt died in March. Not longer after I had this feeling...
God bless you on your journey!
If official acts are ‘fruit’, then a man can be an unrepentant adulterer, and still be a minister of God - provided he doesn’t offer any ‘teaching’ on the subject.
Paul tells us what to look for:
“1 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. 9 They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. 11 Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. 13 For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.”
There are also passages talking about those who teach bad doctrine, so it isn’t ONLY behavior that counts, but doctrine as well. Still, apart from the married/unmarried thing, the list above means a number of Popes had no business being a deacon, let alone anything higher.
If official acts are ‘fruit’, then a man can be an unrepentant adulterer, and still be a minister of God - provided he doesn’t offer any ‘teaching’ on the subject.
Yes, we would say he can. He does so at peril to his salvation and those who, knowing his behavior, ordain him do a great evil.
I take Paul's advice to Timothy to be about the character of the not-yet-ordained men whom he selects for ministerial office. It's about the propriety, in the highest sense of the word, not the possibility of ordaining this or that man. And it is a great sin when that advice is ignored.
But our consideration deals with the guy once he's ordained. More specifically, it has to do with my not having to have a private eye checking on my priest to know if I receive full sacramental benefits when he is celebrating/administering the sacraments. It also concerns the reliability of papal teaching when the pope rears back and teaches officially.
By divine mercy, most of the truly bad guys have not given much critical authoritative teaching.
But don't forget that Dante felt free to scatter deceased popes all over hell. People may have had a problem with which particular popes he thought were there, but no one serious has ever disagreed that there are probably right many of them in the toaster that never pops up.
You figure Jesus didn't know he would betray Him?
You thinkin' one of those foundations has the name of Judas on it???
Nope. And there are probably popes who are in hell, but guess what, even so, the Holy Spirit has proven time and time again that, in spite of the worst personal failings of His vicar, He will not teach any error in faith or morals when the pope instructs the Church.
Pilate didn't have power...He had authority...
John 19:9-11
9 And he entered into the hall again, and he said to Jesus: Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.
10 Pilate therefore saith to him: Speakest thou not to me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and I have power to release thee?
11 Jesus answered: Thou shouldst not have any power against me, unless it were given thee from above. Therefore, he that hath delivered me to thee, hath the greater sin.
OF course I object...There's no way Jesus would have given authority to a man to be in charge of His church...
He gave authority to Judas. Why?
And there's no way Jesus would have given that man apostolic succesion
You don't understand Apostolic succession. It's like saying you can't be your mother's son.
The real fact is there is NO man that's in charge of Jesus' church...
"church" implies heirarchy. A body without a heirarchy is not a body. He who is in charge of the Catholic Church is the Holy Trinity, acting through Peter, it's visible head.
The ambo at the Dominican House of Studies in DC is capped by an image of a VERY pregnant (the stage technically known as "Puh-reg-NANT!", aka "shoplifting watermelons") Virgin.
The idea, of course, is that those who read the Bible there are bringing forth or delivering the Word of God.
All of us, I hope, long to give a whole-hearted "yes," to God, to have His Love grow within us, and to bring His Love into the world.
It seems you do not want to answer a very simple question:
Why her?
Welcome home!
Rest assured of my prayers on your journey back into the Church. If I can be of any assistance, just freepmail. God's blessings on you and your family.
According to Jerome, c. 400 A.D., it did. He translated it "gratia plena", and no one challenged it for 1100 years - not even Martin Luther - people who understood its meaning - and you're going to tell me that, all of a sudden - the people contemporaneous to the translation were all wrong?
But in no sense is this veneration (a feeling of awe, respect, etc.; reverence) by the angel for Mary.
The formal greeting of an angel to a lesser creature is the giveaway.
You are trying to switch from claiming the angel venerated Mary to worrying about WHY Mary was afraid. That allows you to dump an unsustainable position and create a false concern. The words, “Greetings, favored one” were the cause of her feeling troubled, but not of her fear - but she had fear, since the angel then told her not to be afraid.
Why is that a switch? They're not mutually exclusive dispositions. You're just spinning now.
It never occurred to me to connect fear to ‘full of grace’, so I had ZERO theological interest in pushing some position by saying she had fear - which she did, or else the angel wouldn’t say ‘Don’t be afraid’.
It doesn't occur to you because you don't understand the gravity of how the angel addressed her. But Mary did.
Acts 6: “ 8 And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people.” And in Ephesians 1:5-6, all Christians are described using the same word.
Without going into too much detail, the word in Greek here is not "kecharitomene", but the phrase, "pleres charitos". Kecharitomene indicates completeness or perfection in grace, with a past, present, and future quality. "Pleres charitos" refers to a present-tense "filled" with grace, but the word does not imply perfection as "kecharitomene". The word "kecharitomene" is used nowhere else in the Bible but in reference to Mary. It's the equivalent of referring to, for example, a vehicle as "free of scratches" versus "pristine". "Pristine" is an unusual, infrequently used adjective that implies perfection, as kecharitomene implies a perfect amount of grace.
“the Donatists were rigorists, holding that the church must be a church of saints, not sinners”
Hmm...and I repeatedly have posted that all are sinners. But not all are repentant. I am guilty of both a bad temper and a potty mouth, but I’m repentant. Many of the Popes had no repentance...kind of like a deacon once in a church where I was a deacon.
He shacked up with a girl, and we told him to repent or leave. He left. His choice. But our choice was not to allow him to continue as a deacon (or a member) while living in unrepentant sin.
Nor should ordination LOWER the standard.
“...the toaster that never pops up”
I confess, I enjoyed that phrase.
“Why her?”
God’s choice. Is it any wonder she is called blessed?
Yes, Jerome mistranslated it. Jerome wasn’t perfect.
“So what do the other translations say about Luke 1:28? Let’s find out.
1. The Nestle Aland 26th edition, Greek New Testament Interlinear - “having gone into her he said rejoice one having been favored, the master is with you.”
2. The NRSV English Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament - And he came to her and said, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.”
3. American Standard Version - “And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee.”
4. English Standard Version - “And he came to her and said, Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!
5. Today’s English Version - ‘”The angel came to her and said, “Peace be with you! The Lord is with you and has greatly blessed you!”
6. King James Version- “And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.”
7. New American Standard Bible - “And coming in, he said to her, Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.
8. New International Version - “The angel went to her and said, Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.
9. New King James Version - “And having come in, the angel said to her, Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!
10. Revised Standard Version - “And he came to her and said, ‘Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!’
11. New Revised Standard Version - And he came to her and said, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.”
12. The New Century Version - The angel came to her and said, “Greetings! The Lord has blessed you and is with you.”
13. New Living Translation - Gabriel appeared to her and said, “Greetings, favored woman! The Lord is with you!’”
14. The Cambridge Paragraph Bible - And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, ‘thou that art ‘highly favoured, ‘the Lord is with thee: ‘blessed art thou among women.
15. The Holman Christian Standard Bible - “And the angel came to her and said, “Rejoice, favored woman! The Lord is with you.”
16. International Standard Version - ‘”The angel’’ came to her and said, “’Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you!”
What does the Greek say here for “highly favored one? It is the single Greek word kexaritomena and means highly favored, make accepted, make graceful, etc. It does not mean “full of grace” which is “plaras karitos” (plaras = full and karitos = Grace) in the Greek...
...Therefore, we conclude that the Roman Catholic Church has manufactured far too much doctrine concerning Mary out of the erroneous translation of the Latin Vulgate Bible and that the RCC needs to recant its false teaching concerning Mary.”
http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/roman-catholicism/mary-full-grace-and-luke-128
Full of grace is used of Stephen, although full of grace is the correct Greek in that case as well. The word used in Luke 1:28 is also used of all believers in Ephesians 1.
Again, if you want a full discussion, I recommend reading this:
http://www.ichthys.com/mail-Mary-full-of-grace.html
Bzzzzzt.
FAIL
...because the Greek doesn’t say it.
Bzzzzzt.
EPIC FAIL
There is an 11 page discussion of the translation of kecharitomene here...
Wow! Yet another member of the "...Protestant, Evangelical tradition..." denigrating and deprecating the Mother of God.
Color me shocked.
See, when you say "the other translations," you imply an exhaustive list.
What you posted was a list published by Matthew Slick, a notorious anti-Catholic bigot.
Jerome mistranslated it? And no one bothered to say anything for over a thousand years?? Come on. Did you post that with a straight face? Seriously?
As important as the subject of Mary’s place in the church appears to be for Protestants, the notion that Jerome’s “erroneous” translation would just sort of lay there for 1100 years without any challenge from - heck, any heretical sect - is preposterous.
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.