|
Post by LauraJean on Apr 1, 2004 23:52:10 GMT -5
Actually, the Interpretation of Genesis - Why? thread is only the second such thread that I've started on this board. I usually don't start them, I just finish them. --El Traf No! No! I was talking about the sheer number of repetetive threads over the years, not any that you started in particular. You and I were sitting in the back of the room on our folding chairs whispering to each other during the reprise of the lecture. Mine was a post in sympathetic comraderie, not criticism, as was Lisa's. Blessings! (I really meant that!) LJ whoops... missed a punctuation mark.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Apr 1, 2004 23:57:54 GMT -5
No! No! I was talking about the sheer number of repetetive threads over the years, not any that you started in particular. You and I were sitting in the back of the room on our folding chairs whispering to each other during the reprise of the lecture. Mine was a post in sympathetic comraderie, not criticism, as was Lisa's. Blessings! (I really meant that!) LJ whoops... missed a punctuation mark. Hey Laura Jean! You were off the mark with that one- I was paying him a compliment. I said something nice and you took it wrong- just wanted to set that straight.
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Apr 2, 2004 0:00:15 GMT -5
Hey Laura Jean! You were off the mark with that one- I was paying him a compliment. I said something nice and you took it wrong- just wanted to set that straight. Lisa, we're in violent agreement. Re-read my post. I said it was made in sympathetic camraderie, NOT criticism --just like yours was. Smooches, Sister! LJ
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Apr 2, 2004 0:04:08 GMT -5
Lisa, we're in violent agreement. Re-read my post. I said it was made in sympathetic camraderie, NOT criticism --just like yours was. Smooches, Sister! LJ Am I bad!!! Maybe I should go to bed and get some beauty sleep. My eyes are starting to feel like two little holes in the snow anyway- hee hee
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Apr 2, 2004 0:06:44 GMT -5
Lisa Loves Jesus - "It honestly is not and I had hoped you didn't take it that way."
I didn't think it was sarcasm, but given that I did unload a few rounds on that thread, I wanted to make sure.
"I was looking over the other thread where you were going back and forth and was truly impressed."
Many thanks!
--TDv2.0
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Apr 2, 2004 0:07:14 GMT -5
What topic are we on anyway- oh- *sigh*, it was yet another catholic coversation- I have nothing against Catholics- so at least they can say they are interesting people to get so many threads!
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Apr 2, 2004 1:47:23 GMT -5
If you have a specific link to where this question is answered, you could probably offer than rather than just tell me to stop asking questions. What does it mean that Mary is an advocate? I only find that Jesus Christ is an advocate with the Father. Is Mary an advocate with the Son? Someone suggested this on another thread - and that was shot down. So what gives? Ho Hum....here we go again. Anybody keeping count? www.scripturecatholic.com/index.html
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Apr 2, 2004 4:26:05 GMT -5
Excuse me, but huh??? from the page link: From a Catholic perspective, having to rely on the Scriptures alone to prove the teachings of the Church is illogical and "unbiblical." This is because we only know of the inspiration of the Scriptures due to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, who determined the canon of Scripture at the end of the fourth century. Nothing in Scripture tells us what Scriptures are inspired, what books belong in the Bible, or that Scripture is the final authority on questions concerning the Christian faith. To the contrary, while every Scripture pkmtyolpage in the Bible is inspired (see, for example, 2 Tim. 3:16 in reference to the Old Testament Scriptures), it is the Church, not the Scriptures, that is the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) and the final arbiter on questions of the Christian faith (Matt. 18:17). So, to trust and rely on the "Scriptures" is unscriptural?
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 2, 2004 5:36:51 GMT -5
Marysia told me that this question had already been discussed on THIS message board. That lengthy article on Mary does not point me to the answer to this question. For instance, What is the meaning of this prayer? "HAIL, HOLY QUEEN, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve; to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary!" Catholics contend that Mary is the mother of us all, because Jesus gave her to John from the Cross - so when did He make her a queen? And this calls her "most gracious advocate." Advocate of what? I notice there is no response to your question here. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 2, 2004 5:40:32 GMT -5
What topic are we on anyway- oh- *sigh*, it was yet another catholic coversation- I have nothing against Catholics- so at least they can say they are interesting people to get so many threads! If yiou mean ROMAN catholics, it is necessary to state it this way because Rc's claim all Christians are part of the Catholic church. They claim the catechisim speaks for all Christians when "catholic church" is mentioned in the catechisim, but an easy examination reveals the catechisim really means Rc people and not all Christians. This is how they blend the lies and errors odf the past to modern ideas the Rcc leadership now professing, while not really believing those "changes" themselves. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by Shirley on Apr 2, 2004 5:49:43 GMT -5
I have to speak up here...as I usually do in these threads eventually. I have known several Catholic brothers and sisters since coming to these boards. How did I know they were Catholic? Was it because they spoke of Mary and exalted her? Commanding that we pray to her? NO! It was because they told me they were. If they hadn't told me..I may never have known. I couldn't see a difference in the basic tenets of theology..the one that puts Christ first between any of them. I have been surprised..when viewing those "what denomination are you?" and "what church..." threads to see the diversity of denoms and churches..and wouldn't have been able to tell one from the other..without that information. I see a lot of loving, caring Christians among all of us. Christians who put Christ and His commands first. More later...time for work!
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 2, 2004 5:50:50 GMT -5
Marysia told me that this question had already been discussed on THIS message board. That lengthy article on Mary does not point me to the answer to this question. For instance, What is the meaning of this prayer? "HAIL, HOLY QUEEN, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve; to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary!" Catholics contend that Mary is the mother of us all, because Jesus gave her to John from the Cross - so when did He make her a queen? And this calls her "most gracious advocate." Advocate of what? I notice there is no response to your question here. [/color][/quote] Unfortunately I did go to bed last night. I guess that's why there was no response in less than 12 hours. The Salve Regina, a later addition to the Rosary, states all relevant medieval themes about the Blessed Virgin Mary. Its affiliation with the Rosary came about through popular practice although its precise origin within the devotion is not known. Defining "advocate" would be an exercise in futility since for gene Mary is asleep. As for Nic. I assume your faith also does not allow for you to accept the concept the concept of intercessory prayers.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 2, 2004 5:54:42 GMT -5
Excuse me, but huh??? from the page link: From a Catholic perspective, having to rely on the Scriptures alone to prove the teachings of the Church is illogical and "unbiblical." This is because we only know of the inspiration of the Scriptures due to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, who determined the canon of Scripture at the end of the fourth century. Nothing in Scripture tells us what Scriptures are inspired, what books belong in the Bible, or that Scripture is the final authority on questions concerning the Christian faith. To the contrary, while every Scripture pkmtyolpage in the Bible is inspired (see, for example, 2 Tim. 3:16 in reference to the Old Testament Scriptures), it is the Church, not the Scriptures, that is the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) and the final arbiter on questions of the Christian faith (Matt. 18:17). So, to trust and rely on the "Scriptures" is unscriptural? The Rc leadership takes it for granted that the average Rc person won't study the scriptures so they make statements like the foolishness above to keep them in suspense and dependant on the "magestarium" for their answers and it's obvious from what they post that this is the case. To decide what is inspired, all one has to do is look at the words of Jesus. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus finally says, "they have Moses and the prophets. Let them hear them". Moses and the prophets is the Old Testament, which everything Jesus quoted was from. If there is anything in the New Testament that is NOT in harmony with the O.T., it is to be rejected.
In the O.T. we are told that when a man dies his thoughts, envy, hatred, and his love no longer exist. In death, man no longer has anything to do with anything that goes on under the sun. Man's status didn't change when Jesus was born or when He died or when He arose. The apostles plainly told us that King David was still in his tomb, and so it is with Mary. Rc people like superstitions and that's why they can't explain, but believe Mary is somehow now an authority in heaven and that's why they pray to her for favors. They believe that she can go to her son and persuade Him to grant things that He wouldn't normally grant otherwise, or what would be the purpose of asking her if they could go directly to Jesus, as He said to do?
There is even Rc writings that state that "no one aproaches the Father but through Jesus and no one can approach Jesus except through Mary." It's all a crock, but that's what they think and believe. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 2, 2004 5:56:12 GMT -5
What topic are we on anyway- oh- *sigh*, it was yet another catholic coversation- I have nothing against Catholics- so at least they can say they are interesting people to get so many threads! If yiou mean ROMAN catholics, it is necessary to state it this way because Rc's claim all Christians are part of the Catholic church. They claim the catechisim speaks for all Christians when "catholic church" is mentioned in the catechisim, but an easy examination reveals the catechisim really means Rc people and not all Christians. This is how they blend the lies and errors odf the past to modern ideas the Rcc leadership now professing, while not really believing those "changes" themselves. [/color][/quote] I see your still into editting! Now you want to insert the word "Roman" into what other people write. Lisa, take note. To make genesda happy (and keep his post count down) could you please insert the word "Roman" each time you use the word catholic or Catholic. This is regardless of whether you are referring to thr universal meaning of the denomination based out of Rome.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 2, 2004 6:03:50 GMT -5
Excuse me, but huh??? from the page link: From a Catholic perspective, having to rely on the Scriptures alone to prove the teachings of the Church is illogical and "unbiblical." This is because we only know of the inspiration of the Scriptures due to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, who determined the canon of Scripture at the end of the fourth century. Nothing in Scripture tells us what Scriptures are inspired, what books belong in the Bible, or that Scripture is the final authority on questions concerning the Christian faith. To the contrary, while every Scripture pkmtyolpage in the Bible is inspired (see, for example, 2 Tim. 3:16 in reference to the Old Testament Scriptures), it is the Church, not the Scriptures, that is the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) and the final arbiter on questions of the Christian faith (Matt. 18:17). So, to trust and rely on the "Scriptures" is unscriptural? The Rc leadership takes it for granted that the average Rc person won't study the scriptures so they make statements like the foolishness above to keep them in suspense and dependant on the "magestarium" for their answers and it's obvious from what they post that this is the case. [/color][/quote] I guess I'm not average. And I guess to the credit of the other Roman[/u] Catholics who post here, they're not average either. And, you guessed it, th folks at my Bible study, not average.... I wonder how many not average Roman[/u] Catholics there are? Note: In case you missed it, the underlined insertion was for your benefit.
|
|