Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
Well, you are no Christ. And hypocrisy doesn't differentiate between the righteous and the unrighteous. The topic was your hypocritical remark.
As they say—amen to that.
That's precisely what we believe. "Transubstantiation" says nothing about how it happens (which is, of course, by the power of the Holy Spirit), it just states in philosophical terms what happens, that in spite of the appearances of bread and wine the reality (substance) is no longer bread and wine, but the Body and Blood of Christ.
You don't have to believe me. I never demanded that you do. But you are avoiding my question.
You have no proof that you're telling the truth either
Oh I have more proof than you do, because I deal only with what all can see and read.
By your own criteria, your ramblings are just as much vanity as anyone else's and thus deserve the credence that such nothingness warrants.
My criteria are things humans can see and detect. Everything else is speculation. There is no vanity in what I say. I don't offer fantastic tales and denigrate others for not believing them. On the other hand, you call real things "nothingness" and fantastic things real.
And all this because you refuse to answer a simple question about Paul.
And when cornered, pulling the Satan card is the oldest cop out, in case you didn't notice.
You can't destroy something that you can't establish, but must blindly believe. Just because a book says God said such and such doesn't mean that's true. If you choose to believe it, that's your prerogative. I have no problems with that. But don't tell me what a book says is a fact unless you can prove it. Every sect and cult claims their holy books are "true".
Besides, if Satan was punished in the Garden, what was he doing in Job's book being referred to as one of the "sons of God"? Surely Job is taking place after the incident in the Garden!
So you agree that the local "rabble" were right, and that Christ is the son of Joseph -- and not the Son of God? OK . . .
So you agree that the local "rabble" were right, and that Christ is the son of Joseph -- and not the Son of God? OK . . .
I found the comments earlier about the “mysteries” interesting given what the Scriptures say say about these mysteries or sacred secrets.
These secrets had to do with how God’s Kingdom would be constituted as Jesus said at Mark 4:11. A secret that was to be preached over the whole earth!
Indeed those who accepted Christ were the ones that were given the understanding of the Kingdom as stewards.(1 Cor. 4:1)
That secret or mystery of the Kingdom Paul makes explicit at Eph. 3:5-11, namely who that “seed” spoken of in Gen. 3:15 would be, that it would include people of the nations.
So those who put their lack of understanding to the “mystery” of this or that should go back to the Scriptures where the “mysteries” or secrets are revealed.
I'm thinking this is purely a rhetorical question, right? But in case you are not really sure about what I believe regarding this, let me reiterate, I believe as you probably do (if you are a Christian) that Joseph was NOT the biological father of Jesus. That the neighbors thought he was is understandable since they, at the time, did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. I do as I hope you do, too. Jesus is Almighty God incarnate who took on human flesh by being born of the virgin, Mary, just as it was prophesied he would (Isaiah 7:14). Are we cool on that now? :o)
For the record, I do not believe annalex has ever lied on this forum. My comment is a "turnabout" of the words as used by annalex.
I do believe annalex is incapable of reading Scripture with an open mind and merely parrots the words dictated by the Magisterium and apologetics media (Catholic Answers, et al).
But you do know in other societies "brother" is still used loosely? If you know any recent Somali immigrants, for example, they use "brothers and sisters" in a more or less tribal sense. The nuclear family as the norm is a pretty recent invention.
"Is it your belief that the (Latin version) Catholic should not question the "Latin" explanation of the Eucharist without question or are you saying that no one, you, I, Protestants, any person, should not speculate on its' validity?"
I think "explanations" of the Mysteria are an almost sure way to fall into error. The Mysteria, we believe, are of God and so it is presumptuous far beyond the position of created beings to explain them. I think everyone, Latins, Orthodox, Protestants, you, me, Kosta, should, therefore, question ( and ultimately reject) explanations of what the Holy Spirit does at the consecration such as "transubstantiation" or "consubstantiation". For all I care, personally, people can question whether or not the bread and wine on the altar table actually becomes the true Body and Blood of Christ at the epiklesis. The Church, from the very beginning, has believed that. My people for the past 18-1900 years have believed that. But it is equally true that there were those from the earliest days who did not. God created us free, so it's not up to me to throw rocks at their heads.
I believe this is a reasonable approach. Actually much like my "Unitarian" view.
I am almost an old man now (not as old as Kosta who is really old!), and I'm not enamored of change. Age has taught me very, very little of real value (mostly I'm just disgusted) except perhaps a low level of humility and an appreciation for my own sinfulness. So I'll stick with what I know.
The older I get, the smarter I get. The smarter I get, the more I know of how little I really know. I am at the point where I put my fate in the hands of a loving God.
Would you include Mary amongst the "rabble"? Did she not call Joseph the "father" of Jesus?
Luke 2:
[48] And when they saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously."
[49] And he said to them, "How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?"
[50] And they did not understand the saying which he spoke to them.
[51] And he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart.
[52] And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man.
Brilliant point! I know that both Mary and Joseph knew that he was not Jesus' biological father and we also know that, even at twelve years old, Jesus knew because, in response to his mother's query, he said he "must be about his father's business". We know he was NOT talking about Joseph's carpentry business.
OK, so you accept without question an ordinary, human use of “father” even though it’s not exact in this case, but you insist on the modern American, non-tribal (for want of a better term) use of “brothers and sisters”!
I don't see how that could be since virtually all Christians of every stripe interpret John's Gospel as support for the Trinity. For you to be right, Trinitarian Christians would all have to judge John as a madman, liar, etc., and no one does that.
My question was: How do you know it's the Holy Spirit guiding you? Did he whisper in your ear? How do you know it's not the satan when the Bible says he can disguise himself as the Angel of Light?
I think one can be aware of an idea or choice not normally coming from him. When I notice this happen I see it as a distinct possibility of leading. If the idea or choice gives glory to God or is otherwise in accordance with scripture, (and for example, I wouldn't normally want to do it), then I believe it to be from Holy Spirit. If it does not give glory to God or leads away from scripture then I chalk it up to my Adamic nature or satan. Incidentally, Yates would fail this test in claiming her idea was from God because scripture strongly condemns what she did.
[And where is December 25 noted in the Bible as the day Jesus was born?] --- Nowhere
Then why are Protestant Christians celebrating a lie that is not in the Bible?
We aren't celebrating a lie since no one thinks that is His actual birthday. We are celebrating the event of His birth and since we can't know it we choose the day chosen long ago having become the traditional day among all Christians. While I'm not sure of any scripture calling for the celebration of personal birthdays, of course the scripture is full of God-approved celebrations honoring past events. I'm sure Christians as a whole see honoring Christ's birthday in the same light.
However, I will mention that I saw a show the other day that noted that there was some movement among the early Puritans to ban Christmas because it was pagan. It didn't last long and I for one am glad it didn't. Of course Christians should be thinking about Christ all the time, but I think reminders like Holy days are still good things. History has proved that we need all the reminding we can get. :)
So, then Protestants also hold on to traditions of men. How does that differ from the Church?
Yes, Protestants have some traditions, but one difference from the formal ones that are dogma is that they are not commanded of us by any higher earthly authority and our salvation has nothing to do with complying with them. My church's altar call is a tradition, but we certainly don't think it is a necessary ingredient of salvation. And, we surely would not look down our noses at any church for not having an altar call for that fact.
Finally, I would say that the Protestant traditions I can think of off of the top of my head either agree with or do not contradict scripture. I cannot say that of all the traditions of the Apostolic Church. Our (Protestant) strongest criticisms of the Latin and Orthodox Churches almost always involve a tradition we believe is in violation of scripture, or is based on an interpretation of scripture with which we strongly disagree. We see many of these as leading away from the worship of God, even as they see them bringing them closer to God. Marian beliefs would be one example.
Geez, anything but admit that Mary had sex and Jesus had brothers and sisters.
There’s nothing like sibling rivalry to test the quality of one’s character (He was tempted in every way, just as we are, yet was without sin).
Being raised as a single child by an (allegedly) perfect mother, is the most unrealistic scenario imaginable.
No way He could have fully participated in our humanity under those circumstances.
I can just see His brothers and sisters setting Him up for the fall after hearing enough of *(Fill in the blank with name), Why can’t you be more like Jesus. He always does what I ask without complaining.*
That’d be worse than living with someone with WWJD paraphernalia hanging all over them.
On the contrary, nobody has refused to answer your questions about Paul. That you have rejected our answers does not mean we have avoided answering them.
You state your "criteria" for believing are things people can see and detect yet you leave out those things that people everywhere and at all times have accepted. We accept certain truths even when we can not see nor detect them (with our own senses). A good example is the presence of a "soul or spirit". It is something which no medical tests have ever or could ever "detect", yet no sane person would aver that this "something" isn't real.
I always marvel at people who claim they do not have faith because, in reality, we ALL exert it every day of our lives
No you don't because by restricting it like that you are eliminating a whole body of evidence. Not very objective of you to both do that and not apparently not see that you are not being objective.
I don't offer fantastic tales and denigrate others for not believing them.
No you don't because by restricting it like that you are eliminating a whole body of evidence. Not very objective of you to both do that and not apparently not see that you are not being objective.
I don't offer fantastic tales and denigrate others for not believing them.
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.