The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles)

Associated Press ^ | 3/24/01

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Previous Thread

[OLD REGGIE]

There are a few questions I've asked several times and have gotten no response. I don't give up easily and will continue to ask until I get a "satisfactory" answer. ("Satisfactory" may be "one" unless it is from a known "Spin Meister". In that event, I may require more than one).

Ignoring for the moment that Mary was not asked, but was told what was going to happen, please explain the difference between Mary's "belief" and the "disbelief" of Zechariah?

Luke 1:
13 But the angel said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zechari'ah, for your prayer is heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John.
14 And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth;
15 for he will be great before the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.
16 And he will turn many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God,
17 and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Eli'jah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared."
18 And Zechari'ah said to the angel, "How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years."
19 And the angel answered him, "I am Gabriel, who stand in the presence of God; and I was sent to speak to you, and to bring you this good news.
20 And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things come to pass, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time."
============================================================

26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth,
27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
28 And he came to her and said, "Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!"
29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be.
30 And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.
32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,
33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end."
34 And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?"
35 And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

What was the difference in "belief" between Zechariah and Mary which caused Zechariah to be punished? The mere suggestion by Zechariah of doubt was sufficient to blind him while the same level of doubt by Mary was overlooked. Why? Where is the "free will"?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further, where is Paul's "free will"?

Acts 9:
1 But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest
2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
3 Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him.
4 And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
5 And he said, "Who are you, Lord?" And he said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting;
6 but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do."
7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.
8 Saul arose from the ground; and when his eyes were opened, he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus.
9 And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please explain the difference between the "free will" of Mary, Zeccariaih, and Saul.

[newgeezer]

I'll take 1 Super SUV and 5 kids please. (I don't think my wife would agree after 2 ceasarians in 2 weeks though!!)

Please tell me she's an obstetrician.

[nate4one]

Yes, the RCC is having some trouble with pedophile priests and are working to "clean house" now (the Dallas Diocese is a prime example of one Dioces that has effectively cleaned house). I, for one, don't appreciate folks taking cheap shots over this issue ... no matter what side of the coin you're on. It's just not Christian behavior, IMO. Sad.

Can you confirm or deny that the Catholic church started to practice celibacy out of a need to clean up the "land appropriation" that was going on.

Something about passing land down in the families and only priests were allowed to own land, etc.

My recollection of the former priests comments are small.

Would the church, since they do not expect a "Great Tribulation" any time soon, consider marriage?

After all, the context of Paul's celibacy encouragement was due to the focus at hand of a coming tribulation and the need to focus for that time.

[OLD REGGIE]

(Reggie) Please show the official Church teaching. Where????

(pegleg) Summa Theologica

How many times have I been told, in no uncertain terms, that the writings of Aquinas and other Early Church Fathers are not "official"?????????????????

That won't do it my friend unless you are willing to accept all the writings of Aquinas as "official". Try the Catholic Catechism. Try the "infallible" pronouncements of the Popes. The fact it is printed on a piece of paper proves one thing, it is printed on a piece of paper.

[RobbyS]

Have we come to this? Swift would have a hard time today, because he suggested that the Irish might solve their problems of poverty by eating babies. (A Modest Proposal)

[nate4one]

I wish.

She had in-utero surgery (ceasarian) for my son Adam and then went into pre-term labor (26 wks 6 days) 12 days later and delivered by ceasarian.

Tough woman whom I do not envy!!

And Just to BRAG!!!

[RobbyS]

Forty years ago, Judge John Noonan wrote Contraception," which dealt with the history of the Church on that issue. His conclusion was that the Church wasn't into "increase and multiply." That they weren't into sex as the epitome of human behavior, nor did they condone abortion, contraception and infanticide--all of which were widely practiced by pagans. There was a general feeling that the world was "winding down" and that we should be prepared for the Lord's coming. At the same time, there was a rejection of the notion that human nature(abd sex) were evil and that extreme practices, such as castration were to be discouraged.

[RobbyS]

Don't be silly. Aquinas is the general authority but on particular issues, his opinion is not that of the Church. Immaculate conception, for instance.

[nate4one]

I know Pope John Paul said he believe the 3rd millenium we are now in would be one where the church would flourish. He clearly does not support a "Jesus is Coming Soon" overreaction.

Will they look at the celibacy issue?

[RobbyS]

Newman was of the opinion that Latin died as the language of scholarship because people forgot that it was meant to be a common written language. How it was pronouned--with an English or an Italian accent-- was a matter of indifference. Newton could, therefore, publish his "Principia" and know that a Pole could read it, no matter how he pronouned the words he read. Today the writtten language of China is understood everywhere, but the spoken language is quite different from place to place.

[father_elijah]

Greetings. If you read the Peshito -- the New Testament in Aramaic -- or the lectionaries of the Chaldeans or Syrian Orthodox, Christians the difference between Zechariah and Mary are clear. It can also be seen in the translations of the New Testament into Hebrew and into Arabic. Zechariah's expression contains an expression of doubt. Mary's expression contains a request for information. In English translations the distinctions are hard to see, but in the Semitic languages it is very clear indeed. Zechariah responds with doubt. Mary responds with a question. One deserves punishment. The other is a welcome inquiry. It is pretty simple really.

Paul's situation is really quite different, but he has a choice of whether or not to go into the city. He has a choice to go in faith and find what is promised, or he can literally wander blind for the rest of his life.

[JHavard]

I know Pope John Paul said he believe the 3rd millenium we are now in would be one where the church would flourish. He clearly does not support a "Jesus is Coming Soon" overreaction.

Won't it be interesting, if there is a rapture, and even the news media acknowledges that something strange has happened, and here are all the freepers on line saying, Hello angelo, sign in please, Hello Becky and Mack, sign in please, Hello RobbyS, sign in please, Hello, .........

Freepers, sign in please.............................

Hello, anyone out there?

(^g^) JH

[newgeezer]

Don't be silly. Aquinas is the general authority but on particular issues, his opinion is not that of the Church. Immaculate conception, for instance.

?!?!?!?! Funny thing: If you use Yahoo! Calendar (a Web-based appointment calendar), and use the option to display "Christian" holidays, you get to see "Immaculate Conception" on your calendar. Now, you're telling me, even The Church doesn't recognize it (let alone "Christianity")?!?

Or, is it that Aquinas doesn't buy the immaculate conception stuff, and the RCC does? (Matter of fact, we have an RCC church here in town by the name of "Immaculate Conception"; so, surely this must be the case!)

[Havoc]

The first laws of England were written in Latin, a few years after the acceptance of the Augustine mission to England. Don't try to turn a religious prejudice into a historical dispute; the facts are against you.

Correction, the first laws in England under Roman Rule were written in latin. Gaelic predated Latin and still exists as a cultural language that is not dead. Britan was highly tribal until it was conquered. The which is the reason I didn't include Britan. It's like stating that the laws in America only existed in the Queens english - that is false. The indians had their own tribal law predating the queen's english. And their laws coexisted with the Queens english. The difference is, much of tribal law is unwritten, it is taught and ingrained. That's one.

Two, Don't slander me with a term such as prejudice. Prejudice means one knows Nothing about that which they are prejudiced against. IE pre-judge: which means to judge before one has any knowledge. I've studied Roman Catholicism off and on since 1988. And the fact that I came here knowing some things more about your religion than some of you Catholics know is a testament to it. So sell your bigotry label to someone else. And yes I am aware that every so often you think you can throw that label for those out there who haven't been here during my displays of knowledge of the intricacies and depths of the perversity arrived at by Catholicism both legally and religiously for the last 1500 years of your church's known existance. I spent a great deal of my time and effort studying Roman Catholicism because when I started I had a few friends that were Catholic and I wanted to understand their beliefs. I have more Catholic friends now than I did then. And after all these years I'm still intrigued by it. It's a puzzle - and I like puzzles. My interest now is in figuring out how the religion developed as it is today and when it came into being. It didn't exist in the first century. Some of it's ideas seem to have started in the second and third centuries but it seems to have actually turned into a movement around the fourth and a religion by name in the fifth. There is no documented proof of it's existance prior to about 450 - I think closer to 435 or 440 AD actually. It seems awful funny that not one of the canon texts uses the term "universal church".

The Homilies and other forgeries attributed to Clemens Romanus are considered to have been written very early. Early enough that many say that Tertulian drew heavily from them. No surprise that Rome embraces Him and Embraced the Romanus forgeries till they were exposed. At that point, they began to only claim the derivative because that isn't as obvious. Only those who really do their homework are going to know very much about this stuff. That was very well illustrated when the whole topic took many of you off gaurd.

So, If you want to talk History, I have no problem talking history. If you want to talk facts, fine, no problem there. If you want to sell me unsupported notions as fact, then call me a bigot for requiring more than fairy tales for proof - who's the bigot? To me, that smacks of some insecurity or someone that's got something to hide. I don't care either way. I'm interested in truth - scriptural and nonscriptural. But when it comes to faith, only that which is scriptural will do.

Oh, one final thing to throw in: The writers of the scriptures were inspired and wrote what God gave them to write - as such, they are in full agreement. This is something the Catholic Church hasn't been able to reproduce. One Pope disagrees with another to even to the point of contention that results in ghastly sins. Councils disagree with councils. Bulls disagree with bulls. Decrees disagree with decrees. And forgeries are considered with more weight than bonafide true documents. The Apostles were led of God and didn't espouse 1% of the error in 40 years that you guys amassed in a fraction of that. How does that happen? If both are led of the same spirit, how does that happen? Your church espouses doctrinal infallibility, and are full of error. The first century Church espoused no such thing and was remarkably free of error. Sure, there were a few incidents that were dealt with; but, that shows they kept each other on the same page as God led. What led your clergy into so much error?

Don't want a book? Don't slander me.

[newgeezer]

Won't it be interesting, if there is a rapture, and even the news media acknowledges that something strange has happened, and here are all the freepers on line saying, Hello angelo, sign in please, Hello Becky and Mack, sign in please, Hello RobbyS, sign in please, Hello, .........

That would be interesting. Beyond that, I'm not touching your post with a 10-foot pole!

[nate4one]

Won't it be interesting, if there is a rapture, and even the news media acknowledges that something strange has happened, and here are all the freepers on line saying, Hello angelo, sign in please, Hello Becky and Mack, sign in please, Hello RobbyS, sign in please, Hello, .........
Freepers, sign in please.............................
Hello, anyone out there?

I admit, a rapture would be fun.

But so would a vacation on the Satr Ship Enterprise. :o)

[RobbyS]

Celibacy is not the issue. What is the issue is how a "male" profession has been infiltrated by male homosexuals and how their excesses have led even conservative bishops to cover for them, so that lay confidence in the priesthood will not be undermined. Well, we now know that a lie will out!

Fifty years ago, the gays were a small and isolated group in the Church. Since 1970 they have become more and more numerous, so that they sometimes even make their views an unofficial qualification for acceptance into some seminaries. The cause, IMO, was the perceived shortage of priests. The seminaries now accepted men who twenty years before would have been thought unfit. It was the equivalent of the "hollowing-out" of the Army after Vietnam and for some of the same reasons. These unfit persons have now grown into positions of power in the Church. One can hope that this scandal will result in our getting rid of them. I can pray that this will happen.

[Havoc]

My only intention in asking you whether or not you loved the people on this forum, and were trying to love them more, was to help you. If you want to take it as me somehow trying to act superior, fine. Your choice. Here is the post that sparked my initial comment to you:

Funny.. seems like you were driving at something - can't imagine for the life of me what it might be - oh that one can't be forceful and rebuke another and still love them. I think that was the thrust of it.

You praise how much I stick to scripture, the which I know all are supposed to do. But at the same time, you ignore scripture when presented if it so suits you to in favor of saying 'well I believe thus.' Nobody said you can't believe 'thus'. I'm just not going to say your belief doesn't put you in sin when the Bible clearly states it does. That may rub you the wrong way. But the Bible doesn't exist to make you comfortable with what you believe. It exists to provide us all with the knowlege of How to be with God ultimately and what God says are the rules for that relationship. If you are uncomfortable with that, there are many religions. But there is only one way to God - His way. And guess what.. when your belief doesn't line up with His rules, they aren't his rules. Simple, and dirt basic; but oh how radical.

I'm not here to beat you up. But if circumstance causes me to tell you something you embrace is sin, it's my job to do so. If I do not, then I'm as guilty as you are. And I'm I have enough of my own problems without adopting yours.

[Havoc]

That is why so many will use the DR only for the magic words; "full of Grace", and then return to their regular Bible.

ROFL Reggie, you crack me up. It's called pinball, though.. bounce between all the versions required to rack up something that looks good. It's a rigged Game, Tilt only works if someone catches you red handed.

[OLD REGGIE]

Don't be silly. Aquinas is the general authority but on particular issues, his opinion is not that of the Church. Immaculate conception, for instance.

Do you, for a moment, think I am the "silly" one who claimed Aquinas as "official" Church teaching?

Am I to assume you have the same "cafeteria" approach to Aquinas as you do for Augustine?