NOW you've done it!
Posted on 01/11/2018 6:54:52 PM PST by Salvation
If not; then THIS is the result:
The chaste maiden; forever Virgin??The Roman Catholic Church has turned the beautiful, blessed lady of Scripture into an asexual, frigid Jewish wife; who withheld her favors from Joseph for no rational reason.1 Corinthians 7:1-40 ESV
... each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.
For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does.
Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer;
but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
Catholic interpretation: Received ye the Spirit by the Sacraments of the Church or by the hearing of faith?
... her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.
But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David...
As it has worked out for CATHOLICS:
... behold, the teaching of the Church appeared to him in a nightmare, saying, “Joseph, son of David, You ain't never gonna really HAVE a wife; but an untouchable image of absolute perfection.
But as he considered these things, behold, a priest of the Church came, saying, “Joseph, son of David, There's no need for a messy and public divorce; we can get this unlawful 'marriage' ANULLED; since it is the teaching of the Church that you guys never really got it on after the one you call Jesus was born.
It’s no wonder they throw the charge of *YOPIOS* out so often.
The only thing that baffles me is why people; who get to ignore SOME things Jesus said; can claim folks who do NOT adhere to what the CHURCH teaches; are heretics!
"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved,
in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood
are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine;
the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation,
and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity
we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours."
--Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215)
Official sites are sites supported by LDS officials unless said official sites are considered unofficial by said officials.At that point such sites are unofficial unless officially referenced for official purposes by officials who can do so officially.This should not be misconstrued as an indication that official sites can be unofficially recognized as official nor should it be implied that unofficial sites cannot contain official information, but are not officially allowed to be offical despite their official contents due the their unofficialness.Official sites will be official and recognized as official by officials of the LDS unless there is an official reason to mark them as unofficial either temporally or permanently, which would make the official content officially unofficial.This is also not to imply that recognized sites, often used on FR by haters and bigots cannot contain official information, it just means that content, despite its official status, is no longer official and should be consider unofficial despite the same information being official on an official site elsewhere.Even then the officialness my be amended due to the use of the unofficial information which may determine the officialness of anything be it official or unofficial depending on how and where it is used officially or unofficially.
NOW you've done it!
Yes, I saw that, and I agree with the authors. My grasp on this matter was enhanced by the angle suggested in the last paragraph of the article.
Well; if Rome did a correct job when compiling the Book; so long ago; then we'll get 'asked' nothing.
Is YOUR name written there???
The question is; little man; whether to believe what the CHURCH teaches,
or what you have written here. This discussion is over.
I don’t need a priest to help me interpret scripture.“
Valid point; but this did NOT occur when it has been alluded to have happened.
I’m sure you tried your best with the formatting, but something did get screwed up. Try again, I think there’s some important stuff here.
I was able to read it but with difficulty. I’m going to let this post of yours be what I say on the matter as well.
The main thing I’d say is that no matter what one may say about the issue of “transliteration” vs “translation”, the point remains: “Kephas” (or “Cephas” or however one wishes to write/pronounce it) doesn’t mean “Little Rock” or “Little stone” or “pebble”. At most (for the Protestant position) it means “stone” (but I don’t see any difference between a “stone” and a “rock”).
Regardless “Cephas” doesn’t mean “little stone”, or “pebble” thus providing the proper context to the exchange in Matt 16.
In other words if anyone can show me the phrase “little stone” or the word “pebble” in any respected definition of the word “Cephas” then I’ll think differently.
Ok, since no one replied to them I'll reply to them individually.
". . . Simon who is called Peter . . ." (DRA and DRB)
σιμωναG4613 N-ASM τονG3588 T-ASM (who) λεγομενονG3004 V-PPP-ASM πετρονG4074 N-ASM (TR with grammar superscripted)
The verb "lego" (= called, named, described as, referred to as) is in the present (continually ongoing) tense, passive (action by others than the subject) voice, and participle (-ing) mode; used as adjectivial singular masculine phrase may equally without argument say "is constantly being referred to as"
The time frame of the "is" includes and is from the vantage point of Levi/Matthew as he writes, Simon still also being alive, and of whom Levi is writing. Simon is still being called Peter, as of the writing. There is nothing here to suggest that "is" refers to the moment Jesus spoke to them, and most certainly not before that moment, or Levi could have used another tense to say "Simon was being referred to as Peter" at or before the time Jesus spoke to them, some time after His forty days of testing in the wilderness.
And don't call up Mark 1:12 to exclude Jesus' invoking the "Peter" concept just after (within 3 to 4 days) after His baptism but before His exit to the wilderness. The adverb translated "immediately" is used profusely by John Mark, 40 times, and can mean a few days or even a week (see verse 28). The timing is context-sensitive, but must agree with other inerrant, infallible Scriptures such as John 1:42, which happened about 2 or 3 days just after Jesus' baptism. Jesus did do the surnaming, as attested by other reference(s).
Yes it is impossible to read something like that.
Ouch......
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.