Posted on 05/31/2011 11:34:50 AM PDT by sigzero
Mary was a virgin who was to conceive by being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and give birth to the Son of God. Few in Christian realms would deny Mary was a virgin and remained a virgin through pregnancy and the birth of Christ. This was the ultimate fulfillment of a prophecy from Isaiah:
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14, emphasis added)
However, Mary’s virginity after the birth of Christ can become a heated debate in some circles. Though some may think this is a Roman Catholic versus Protestant view, it is not. Many Protestants, including people like Martin Luther and John Calvin, have held to Mary remaining a virgin for the duration of her life. Let’s look at the issues in a little more detail.
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
“i believe baptism is a symbol of what has already taken place in a person’s soul”
no where in the Bible does it say anything about a “symbol”
Peter didn’t say this in Acts 2 and Paul wasn’t told this in Acts 22.
“it represents......”
show me in the NT where the words baptism and represents are ever used together.
this is a 16th century tradition of men, not the Apostolic Faith.
I showed you some examples (not all) where salvation came first, independently of baptism. Please, let’s continue this in the am, with a new thread! There’s so much to tell! I’m a Southern Baptist, but had never heard of “2 baptisms” when regarding to our denomination, I think Pentecostals are the ones who emphasize the baptism by the Holy Spirit. And, actually, baptism is not the first public act of obedience, if you would consider walking to the front of the church and asking for baptism an act of obedience. Jesus called everybody publicly, and told us not to be ashamed of Him in front of men. According to that, and Ro. 10:9-10, we walk to the front and publicly confess our faith in Jesus and ask for baptism. But it’s getting too late for me, I have one more post to answer and I’m going to bed.
Good night, and I hope to see you here, in FR, tomorrow!
Publicly trashing your parent’s faith simply cannot be read as honoring them. Sorry. You asked.
Good point.
Won’t get a good answer, but it is a good point nonetheless.
It really is no surprise, is it, that no honor of the Lord’s mother is found here.
I get you don’t believe as your mom does. But she still sent those because she was worried for you and (I dare say) loves you very much. That you threw them away so flippantly just stuns me. Whether they had merit as being sacramentals is debatable. What is not debatable is that they were indeed a symbol of your mom’s care and as such deserved some regard.
Yeah but they were a bunch of robed men. So what did they know?
None.
Do not forget that the reason the Church tried Galileo for heresy is because what he said went against the plain writing of Scripture. So how was the Church wrong from the view point of faith in doing this? Granted they certainly were wrong from the point of science but it is not the task of the Church to teach scientific dogma. It is the task of the Church to teach religious dogma and defend it.
It was accepted not only by the Church but by most scientists of the day that the Earth did not move. This was based on Scripture. Someone who came along and contradicted the words of the Bible, which the Church taught contained no error, was teaching heresy.
It is easy enough for us to criticize the Church for not grasping the scientific truth about the Earth’s revolution around the sun but they should not be faulted for defending Scripture.
“A decree of February 19, 1616, summoned Qualifiers of the Holy Office and required them to give their opinion on the two following propositions in Galileo’s work on the solar spots. (The assessment was made in Rome, on Wednesday, February 24, 1616.)
Proposition to be assessed:
(1) The sun is the center of the world and wholly immovable from its place.
Assessment: This proposition was unanimously declared “foolish and absurd. philosophically and formally heretical inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the doctrine of the Holy Scripture in many passages, both in their literal meaning and according to the general interpretation of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology.”
(2) The earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but it moves as a whole, also with diurnal motion.
Assessment: This proposition was unanimously declared “deserving of the like censure in philosophy, and as regards theological truth, to be at least errouneous in faith.”
Catholics always get in trouble when they decide to be literalists.
I would really like to know where the Bible teaches that the world remained motionless.
That you threw them away so flippantly just stuns me.And then mocked her and her faith here in public. Honor? Not so much.
“Plain Scripture” is not how it it understood today by a naive reader hearing it for the first time; It is how the words would be understood by the first Christians. It is hard enough to see things from the perspective of our own great- grandfathers, much less that of a totally different race , across an interval of sixty or more generations.
The Church and the Protestants believed the same things here. But this is not how Bellarmine phrse3d the matter: He said that these hypotheses could be debated, but that it would be wrong to assert their truth since they seemed contrary to Scripture, and neither Galileo nor any other scientist was competent to re-interpret Scripture.
This article has a good discussion on Biblical passages which could be used to support a belief in Geocentrism.
http://www.reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/geo/pages/02-geocentric-question.htm
I agree with the author’s conclusion.
I’m Southern. It is a toss up to which is worse. Bad manners or bad theology. Witnessing both together truly is a new horror.
You must be new here. Get used to it. :)
+
The authors of the Scripture are NOT writing a biography, so they commonly include just those details that serve their purposes. Notice That Matthew makes no mention of the journey from Nazareth at all. All the synoptics record only one pilgrimage to the Temple while John reports several. Throughout the New Testament, the writers allude toevents or even name people about who we knew little or nothing. Acts ends with Paul still alive, as if “Luke” had just laid down his pen and never did give us “the rest of the story.” It is an incomplete chronicle, and what we “know”about what happened afterwards is truth or legend or surmise.
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.