Call No Man Father (Was: Denominations?)
Al
By Father Richard Ballew, Orthodox Priest
Several decades have passed since Bing Crosby donned clerical garb and
portrayed on the screen a role which would endear him to many even to
this day-Father O'Malley. Somewhat earlier in our century, one of the
great humanitarians of our time, Father Flanagan, founded Boys Town in
Nebraska. The home became a nationally known refuge for homeless boys.
In many ways, Mother Teresa of India is his contemporary female
counterpart in caring for the poor and downtrodden of her adopted
land. But what are we to make of these titles? We admire the work and
character of these people, but does not the Bible issue the command to
call no man "father"? Certain statements made by Jesus have often been
the basis of great controversy, both inside and outside the Church.
His saying, "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your
Father, He who is in heaven,"' has proven to be no exception.
AT ISSUE IS INTERPRETATION
Some Protestant interpreters are sure that Jesus is warning here
against addressing Church leaders as "father." They, of course, are
interpreting "father" in this Scripture to mean, "spiritual father."
Therefore, they refuse to call their clergymen "father," preferring
instead such titles as "pastor," "reverend," or perhaps even
"brother." At the outset, therefore, let me point out that "spiritual
father" is an interpretation of the Lord's statement rather than what
He actually said. Mind you, I am not denying the need for
interpretation of Scripture. Instead, I am pointing out that the Lord
said "father," not "spiritual father." What is at issue here? Simply
this: taken at face value, Jesus' warning against calling any man
"father" would not only seem to rule out calling a clergyman "father,"
it would also keep us from using that title for earthly fathers and
grandfathers, ancient Church fathers, or even city fathers, would it
not? For in reality, the Lord's statement, as it appears in the text,
is that only one Person is ever to be called "father," namely, our
Father who is in heaven. But is Christ's saying to be taken at face
value? If so, several other passages in the Bible are immediately in
conflict, including some statements by the Apostle Paul in the New
Testament. To the church at Corinth he wrote, "For if you were to have
countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers; for
in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel."2 Does not
Paul claim to be the spiritual father of the Corinthians--"Father
Paul," if you please? Furthermore, he boldly refers to his spiritual
ancestry as "our fathers."3 And he did address earthly fathers in
Colosse in this way: "Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they
become discouraged."4 It would appear the Apostle Paul certainly did
not interpret the Lord Jesus Christ's words to mean only One was to be
called "father," that is, the heavenly Father. In addition to this,
when the rich man saw Abraham in heaven with Lazarus in his bosom, and
addressed him as "Father Abraham," Abraham's response was not, "Do you
not realize that only God the Father is to be called `father'?"
Rather, he replied, "Son, remember..."5 Instances like the above could
be multiplied from Scripture to show that a great many people are
acknowledged to be "fathers."
OTHER TITLES
But let us not stop here. For after saying only "One is your Father,"
Jesus proceeded to declare, "And do not be called teachers; for One is
your Teacher, the Christ."6 Yet He Himself acknowledged Nicodemus to
be a "teacher of Israel."7 And in the church at Antioch certain men
were called "prophets and teachers."8 Then again, the Apostle Paul not
only recognized teachers as gifts of God to the Church,9 but he also
did not hesitate to call himself "a teacher of the Gentiles."10
Furthermore, in this present day, almost all of us have at one time or
another called certain people Sunday School teachers. The discussion
thus goes far beyond any Protestant-Catholic lines. Therefore, in
saying we should call no one "father" and "teacher," except God the
Father and Christ Himself, the Lord Jesus appears not to be taking
issue with the use of these particular titles in and of themselves.
The context of the passage gives us the interpretive key we are
looking for. In this "call no man father" passage, our Lord is
contending with certain rabbis of His day who were using these
specific titles to accomplish their own ends. And had these same
apostate rabbis been using other titles, such as "reverend" and
"pastor," Jesus, it seems to me, would have said of these as well,
"Call no one reverend or pastor."
WHAT DID THE RABBIS MEAN?
To what ends, therefore, were the rabbis using the titles "father" and
"teacher"? The answer revolves around at least two critical areas of
leadership: teaching and personal character. Consider first the
teaching of these particular rabbis. They had begun their teaching at
the right place, the Law of Moses. Said Jesus, "The scribes and the
Pharisees sit in Moses' seat."11 Moses' Law was the true tradition.
God had given it to Israel through Moses. The rabbis' responsibility
was to preserve that tradition and faithfully pass it on to the next
generation. All too often, however, a rabbi would add his own grain of
wisdom to the true tradition, thereby clouding it. Instead of passing
down the sacred deposit along with the true interpretations of that
deposit, he would add his own private interpretation. In turn his
disciples, like their teacher, would, after becoming rabbis, do the
same thing. (Some things never change, do they!) The final outcome of
all this was a tradition of men that made the true Mosaic tradition of
no effect. To these very rabbis Jesus said, "For laying aside the
commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men,"12 and again, "All
too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your
tradition . . . making the word of God of no effect through your
tradition which you have handed down."13 The summation of their
private interpretations did in fact "shut up the kingdom of heaven
against men."14
JESUS' CASE FOR TRUE TRADITION
In order to cut through all this tradition of men that had made the
Mosaic tradition of no effect, and to bring people back to the truth,
Jesus told His disciples, "But you, do not be called 'Rabbi.'"15 In
other words, He was telling them not to use their positions as fathers
and teachers as an opportunity to build disciples around their own
private opinions. For to do so would only serve to "shut up the
kingdom of heaven against men."16 Instead, with the coming of Christ,
these rabbis-and indeed all who would teach God's Word-are to hand
down faithfully the true tradition of only one Rabbi: Christ Himself.
The Bible, through the pen of the Apostle John, calls this particular
tradition "the doctrine of Christ."17 In fact, this is why the
specific teaching of the Twelve became known as "the apostles'
doctrine."18 Since their time, successive generations of fathers and
teachers in the Church have handed down and guarded the apostolic
doctrine concerning Christ very carefully, for it represents the true
interpretation of Holy Scripture. This faithfulness to true Christian
doctrine, by the way, can especially be seen in the Seven Ecumenical
Councils of the Church, held between the fourth and eighth centuries.
It behooves anyone who claims to be a teacher of Christ's doctrine to
be faithful to the apostles' doctrine handed down in those Councils.
Otherwise he runs the risk of inserting his own "private
interpretation."19 While it is true that all teachers of Christ's
doctrine must begin at the right place, namely, the Holy Scriptures,
it is also true that they should give the correct and true
interpretation of Holy Scripture as passed down by holy and godly
teachers and fathers of the Church, especially in the Seven Councils.
Why are the Seven Ecumenical Councils so important? Because they point
out what the Church universally held to be the true teaching
concerning the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity.
They are faithful to what the Holy Scriptures teach concerning the one
true Rabbi and Teacher, Jesus Christ. Teachers and fathers who teach
private interpretations contrary to the doctrine of Christ as taught
in the Seven Ecumenical Councils should not, I believe, be recognized
as true teachers and fathers.
THE RABBIS AND PERSONAL CHARACTER
A second critical area of rabbinic leadership with which Jesus was
concerned was personal character. He had detected a major flaw in the
character of the scribes and Pharisees, a sin that might be called
self-exaltation. They were using their position as fathers and
teachers among God's people to exalt themselves. They wanted to be
sure they received appropriate recognition. In light of this lack of
character, Jesus said, "But he who is greatest among you shall be your
servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who
humbles himself will be exalted."20 Their self-exalting spirit had
manifested itself in several ways. First, in hypocrisy: "for they
say," said Jesus, "and do not do."21 All talk and no walk. Their talk
was cheap because it was totally contradicted by their behavior. In
pretense they would make long prayers, but in behavior devour widows'
houses.22 They would make oaths, swearing by the gold of the temple
rather than by the temple that sanctified the gold, thereby revealing
their secret love of money.23 Although they paid tithes of mint,
anise, and cummin, which they should have done gladly, they neglected
the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faith.24 Because
they were hypocrites in these and numerous other ways, the Lord summed
up His critique by saying, "Even so you also outwardly appear
righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and
lawlessness.25 Plainly, their "insides" did not match their "outsides"
because they were filled up with a self-exalting and self-serving
spirit. A second manifestation of their selfexalting spirit was the
noticeable lack of actual service on their part. "For," said Jesus,
"they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's
shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their
fingers."26 No dirt was to be found under their fingernails. They were
simply a group of lazy leaders who wanted to be served rather than to
serve. No wonder, then, Jesus said not to be like them, for from God's
standpoint, "he who is greatest among you shall be your servant."27 A
third manifestation of their self-exalting spirit was self-love,
demonstrated by a desire to be seen by men,28 by their love for the
best seats at the feasts and in the synagogues,29 and by their love of
greetings in the marketplaces, being called by men, "Rabbi, Rabbi."30
This self-love was a clear transgression of the Mosaic Law, which they
professed to be keeping. For Moses' entire law could be summed up in
the two great commandments, the greatest of which is, "You shall love
the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with
all your mind."31 The second greatest is, "You shall love your
neighbor as yourself."32 Thus, these fathers and teachers were not
leading their people into the love of God and neighbor. Quite to the
contrary, they were exhibiting a self-exalting, self-serving spirit,
filled up with a love for self.
THE VERDICT OF CHRIST
In the face of the stench and shame of the apostasy of these religious
leaders, therefore, Jesus commanded His disciples, "Do not call anyone
on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven."33
While Father Abraham by his faithfulness deserved the title, as did
others of Israel's greats in history, these men had forfeited their
role as fathers. They were to cease and desist in their use of the
term and, in turn, bow to God Himself as the fountainhead of all
fatherhood. And in issuing His warning, Jesus addresses us today with
the greatest of all commandments, pointing the fathers and teachers in
His Church and those they lead to a primacy of love for God the Father
and His Son, Jesus Christ, and to a love for one's neighbor.
AND WHAT ARE WE TO DO?
From the beginning of Church history, as was true throughout Israel,
those anointed by God for service were called by certain names:
"prophet," "teacher" (rabbi in Israel), and "father." In that same
spirit, other titles have emerged, such as "reverend," "pastor,"
"professor" (teacher), or "brother" (for some evangelical pastors and
Catholic monks). These designations speak of both warmth and dignity.
Just as in our family units there is one who with love is called
"father," so in God's household we have honored and will continue to
honor those who have brought us to the new birth through our Lord
Jesus Christ. Indeed, what better term for them than "father"? Jesus
warned against calling men "father" or "teacher" in order that the
leadership of His holy nation would remain pure. Whether bishop,
father, teacher, deacon, or pastor, all leaders must remain faithful
to the true doctrine of Christ and manifest a personal character
befitting godly humility, a humility that leads the Church into the
love of God the Holy Trinity and of one's neighbor.
May the Lord have mercy on all of us who lead the flock, regardless of
the title we are given.
FOOTNOTES
(All Scripture references, unless otherwise noted, are taken from the
New King James Version.)
1. Matthew 23:9
2. 1 Corinthians 4:15 (New American Standard Version)
3. 1 Corinthians 10:1
4. Colossians 3:21
5. Luke 16:24, 25
6. Matthew 23:10
7. John 3:10
8. Acts 13:1
9. 1 Corinthians 12:28 and Ephesians 4:11
10. 2 Timothy 1:11
11. Matthew 23:2
12. Mark 7:8
13. Mark 7:9, 13
14. Matthew 23:13
15. Matthew 23:8
16. Matthew 23:13
17. 2 John 9
18. Acts 2:42
19. 2 Peter 1:20
20. Matthew 23:11, 12
21. Matthew 23:3
22. Matthew 23:14
23. Matthew 23:16, 17
24. Matthew 23:23
25. Matthew 23:28
26. Matthew 23:4
27. Matthew 23:11
28. Matthew 23:5
29. Matthew 23:6
30. Matthew 23:7
31. Matthew 22:37
32. Matthew 22:39
33. Matthew 23:9
Used by permission. Copyright--Conciliar Press
Mike Horyn
"Al" <aggr...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:df4e6c04.0307...@posting.google.com...
> Call No Man Father
> By Father Richard Ballew, Orthodox Priest
>
Al:
It seems apparent that you are troubled by this apparent contradiction
between the Catholic teaching and that found in Scripture. I would like to
encourage you to put aside the teachings, explanations and excuses of men
who have been exposed by the plain teachings of the Scripture and instead,
learn of God directly from His Word, the Holy Scriptures, the Bible.
Mike
Al
> "Al" <aggr...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:df4e6c04.0307...@posting.google.com...
> > Call No Man Father
> > By Father Richard Ballew, Orthodox Priest
> >
>
> Al:
>
> It seems apparent that you are troubled by this apparent contradiction
> between the Catholic teaching and that found in Scripture. I would like to
> encourage you to put aside the teachings, explanations and excuses of men
> who have been exposed by the plain teachings of the Scripture and instead,
> learn of God directly from His Word, the Holy Scriptures, the Bible.
>
> Mike
I'm not troubled at all. I used to believe like you...a sola scriptura
protestant...but the Holy Spirit led me to the True Church.
What you must try to understand is that The Church is the Body of
Christ. What The Church teaches is what Christ teaches because He left
us His Holy Body to be our guide, protector, and teacher. There is
nothing...absolutely nothing...in the teachings of the Holy Eastern
Orthodox Church that is contrary to Holy Scripture. Everything that
the Church (i.e., Jesus Christ) teaches enhances our understanding of
Scripture.
Al
Christopher Robin
"Mike Horyn" <Mike...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:9FvTa.113656$wk6....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> news:df4e6c04.0307...@posting.google.com...
> > Call No Man Father
> > By Father Richard Ballew, Orthodox Priest
> >
>
> Al:
>
> It seems apparent that you are troubled by this apparent contradiction
> between the Catholic teaching and that found in Scripture. I would like
to
> encourage you to put aside the teachings, explanations and excuses of men
> who have been exposed by the plain teachings of the Scripture and instead,
> learn of God directly from His Word, the Holy Scriptures, the Bible.
>
> Mike
>
faith (1 Cor 4:15)
digimortal
"Al" <aggr...@netscape.net> wrote
Alexander Arnakis
<Mike...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>It seems apparent that you are troubled by this apparent contradiction
>between the Catholic teaching and that found in Scripture. I would like to
>encourage you to put aside the teachings, explanations and excuses of men
>who have been exposed by the plain teachings of the Scripture and instead,
>learn of God directly from His Word, the Holy Scriptures, the Bible.
>
over many generations, to set it down, translate it, and codify it.
Remember, it was the institutional Church which was ultimately
responsible for setting out the Biblical canon. It's a great mistake
to consider the words on the page in a complete vacuum.
Mike Horyn
> "Mike Horyn" <Mike...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:<9FvTa.113656$wk6....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
> > "Al" <aggr...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> > news:df4e6c04.0307...@posting.google.com...
> > > Call No Man Father
> > > By Father Richard Ballew, Orthodox Priest
> > >
> >
> > Al:
> >
> > It seems apparent that you are troubled by this apparent contradiction
> > between the Catholic teaching and that found in Scripture. I would like
to
> > encourage you to put aside the teachings, explanations and excuses of
men
> > who have been exposed by the plain teachings of the Scripture and
instead,
> > learn of God directly from His Word, the Holy Scriptures, the Bible.
> >
> > Mike
>
>
> I'm not troubled at all. I used to believe like you...a sola scriptura
> protestant...but the Holy Spirit led me to the True Church.
>
Note to Scout Lady who said that Al is not a Catholic -- Al belongs to the
"True Church"
> What you must try to understand is that The Church is the Body of
> Christ. What The Church teaches is what Christ teaches because He left
> us His Holy Body to be our guide, protector, and teacher. There is
> nothing...absolutely nothing...in the teachings of the Holy Eastern
> Orthodox Church that is contrary to Holy Scripture. Everything that
> the Church (i.e., Jesus Christ) teaches enhances our understanding of
> Scripture.
>
> Al
My apologies to you, Al for assuming that you were Catholic. Your post
turned up in a "Baptist" newsgroup which is where I saw it. However, I
disagree with your defense referring to church leaders as "father." Rather
than a defense, I would be interested to see the historical transition from
titles like Elder, Deacon or, Presbytery to that which Jesus literally told
His people not to do. "Call no man father." As the Son of Man warned His
followers not to refer to others by that title, I would recommend caution in
calling anyone by that title. It would take a certain arrogance on the part
of early church leaders or, a massive ignorance of the Scriptures, for
church Elders to encourage and eventually insist upon that title for
themselves.
Mike
Mike Horyn
"Christopher Robin" <anony...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%gCTa.20179$ib2.5...@twister.neo.rr.com...
Is this to be the defense for Catholics and Orthodox folk who want to
elevate their leader to a title reserved for God?
If you say that it is, then I will answer that your response sounds more
like an excuse than a reason. If you deny that this is the reason your
elders are called father, then I see no reason to give you an answer.
Your choice ...
Mike
Christopher Robin
>
> "Christopher Robin" <anony...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%gCTa.20179$ib2.5...@twister.neo.rr.com...
> >
> > "Mike Horyn" <Mike...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> > news:9FvTa.113656$wk6....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> > >
> > > "Al" <aggr...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> > > news:df4e6c04.0307...@posting.google.com...
> > > > Call No Man Father
> > > > By Father Richard Ballew, Orthodox Priest
> > > >
> > >
> > > Al:
> > >
> > > It seems apparent that you are troubled by this apparent contradiction
> > > between the Catholic teaching and that found in Scripture. I would
like
> > to
> > > encourage you to put aside the teachings, explanations and excuses of
> men
> > > who have been exposed by the plain teachings of the Scripture and
> instead,
> > > learn of God directly from His Word, the Holy Scriptures, the Bible.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > Mike... please explain why Paul called HIMSELF the Corinthians Father in
> > faith (1 Cor 4:15)
> >
> >
>
> Is this to be the defense for Catholics and Orthodox folk who want to
> elevate their leader to a title reserved for God?
>
Holy Spirit to write the letter to the Corinthians went ahead and disobeyed
what you apparently claim is Jesus absolute command against the term Father.
Let's also look at another passage...
1 John 2:13-14
13I write to you, fathers,
because you have known him who is from the beginning.
I write to you, young men,
because you have overcome the evil one.
I write to you, dear children,
because you have known the Father.
14I write to you, fathers,
because you have known him who is from the beginning.
Who exactly are the 'fathers' that John is writing to? Context indicates
it's not biological fathers...
And a few other locations:
In Acts 7:2, Luke writes that Stephen, the first Martyr said: ""Brothers and
fathers, listen to me! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while
he was still in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran."
In Acts 22:1, Luke writes that Paul said "Brothers and fathers, listen now
to my defense."
Why can't you address the simple Scripture passages that dispute your
literal interpretation of Matthew 23:9?
While you're at it, Matthew 23:10 states:
"Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ."
But Paul states in 1 Corinthians 12:28 that some were appointed to be
teachers. And again in 1 Cor 12:29 Paul asks are all teachers? Again in
Ephesians 4:11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets,
some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers,"
So, Jesus stated that we aren't to be called teachers, but Paul goes ahead
and talks about people being appointed teachers.
It appears that the Bible refutes your literal interpretation. Your failure
to actually address the Scripture in question supports that appearance,
otherwise, you would have actually discussed 1 Cor 4:15 as I asked, rather
than diverting from the question.
> If you say that it is, then I will answer that your response sounds more
> like an excuse than a reason.
The Bible sounds like an excuse? I'm simply noting where Paul didn't follow
your literal interpretation of Matthew 23:9.
> If you deny that this is the reason your
> elders are called father, then I see no reason to give you an answer.
>
> Your choice ...
>
I choose to note that you failed to explain. Instead you distracted and
avoided. Which appears to be the typical response of a Catholic Basher that
simply posts ignorantly.
My choice is to provide Scripture that refutes your literal interpretation
of Matthew 23:9. I note your choice was to avoid addressing that Scripture
passage. I went ahead and provided you with several other passages that
also refute your literal interpretation. I don't expect you to actually
address them, and provide an explanation for John, Luke, Paul & Stephen all
ignoring what you claim is Jesus' clear literal command.
Mike Horyn
"Alexander Arnakis" <alexande...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:5e6uhv8urlnogjv5k...@4ax.com...
Jesus seemed to know what He was talking about when He recited "Scripture"
verses before His audiences. It is also apparent that the Jews had already
assembled books which contained the Law, the Prophets and the Testimonies.
By the time Jesus started His church, the Scriptures He often referred to
were already in existence. Later, when the eyewitnesses, including Paul,
penned their writings, the Christian church could only verify what believers
already knew: These writings had been inspired by God.
It is ironic the Roman Church would one day have a part in determining the
Canon of Scripture. For years earlier, they had worked to eradicate every
copy of any portion of Scripture from individual believers. And, many
christians would suffer and die in order to preserve the Scriptures which
later became part of the Canon.
Perhaps that sucking sound you hear is at your end?
Mike
Tiger
Those who turn the life and words of Jesus into a new "law" do nothing
more than make a mockery of his life and words.
I suppose we're not to call our biological fathers "father" either?
--
Tiger
"Flowing water never stagnates."
- Chinese proverb
Christopher Robin
>
> "Alexander Arnakis" <alexande...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:5e6uhv8urlnogjv5k...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:59:49 GMT, "Mike Horyn"
> > <Mike...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >It seems apparent that you are troubled by this apparent contradiction
> > >between the Catholic teaching and that found in Scripture. I would
like
> to
> > >encourage you to put aside the teachings, explanations and excuses of
men
> > >who have been exposed by the plain teachings of the Scripture and
> instead,
> > >learn of God directly from His Word, the Holy Scriptures, the Bible.
> > >
> > The Bible is not the "direct" word of God, since it took many people,
> > over many generations, to set it down, translate it, and codify it.
> > Remember, it was the institutional Church which was ultimately
> > responsible for setting out the Biblical canon. It's a great mistake
> > to consider the words on the page in a complete vacuum.
> >
>
> Jesus seemed to know what He was talking about when He recited "Scripture"
> verses before His audiences.
Sadducees [I may have those backwards] and the greater Septuagint collection
to the general Jewish populous. In other words, he quoted that which the
hearers recognized as Scripture.
> It is also apparent that the Jews had already
> assembled books which contained the Law, the Prophets and the Testimonies.
Called the Septuagint. Coincidentally, the Canon of the Septuagint during
Jesus time, is the very same Canon in the Old Testament of the Catholic
Bible. The Protestant Bibles have the shorter Canon of Old Testament
Scriptures that was agreed upon by the Jews at the Council of Jamnia around
90 AD.
> By the time Jesus started His church, the Scriptures He often referred to
> were already in existence. Later, when the eyewitnesses, including Paul,
> penned their writings, the Christian church could only verify what
believers
> already knew: These writings had been inspired by God.
>
> It is ironic the Roman Church would one day have a part in determining the
> Canon of Scripture.
Yep. A huge part.
> For years earlier, they had worked to eradicate every
> copy of any portion of Scripture from individual believers.
Exactly when was this? Can you document it with
dates/times/names/historical references?
> And, many christians would suffer and die in order to preserve the
Scriptures which
> later became part of the Canon.
>
Exactly when was this? Can you document it with
dates/times/names/historical references?
Scout Lady
>
> "Al" <aggr...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:df4e6c04.03072...@posting.google.com...
> > "Mike Horyn" <Mike...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:<9FvTa.113656$wk6....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
> > > "Al" <aggr...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> > > news:df4e6c04.0307...@posting.google.com...
> > > > Call No Man Father
> > > > By Father Richard Ballew, Orthodox Priest
> > > >
> > >
> > > Al:
> > >
> > > It seems apparent that you are troubled by this apparent contradiction
> > > between the Catholic teaching and that found in Scripture. I would
like
> to
> > > encourage you to put aside the teachings, explanations and excuses of
> men
> > > who have been exposed by the plain teachings of the Scripture and
> instead,
> > > learn of God directly from His Word, the Holy Scriptures, the Bible.
> > >
> > > Mike
> >
> >
> > I'm not troubled at all. I used to believe like you...a sola scriptura
> > protestant...but the Holy Spirit led me to the True Church.
> >
>
> Note to Scout Lady who said that Al is not a Catholic -- Al belongs to the
> "True Church"
>
understand it, he is Orthodox. He pretty much spelled it out for you below
Mike.
You might want to read the following to understand the reasons why Catholics
and Orthodox do not believe in sola scriptura.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num6.htm
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 07/10/03
Scout Lady
> It is ironic the Roman Church would one day have a part in determining the
> Canon of Scripture. For years earlier, they had worked to eradicate every
> copy of any portion of Scripture from individual believers. And, many
> christians would suffer and die in order to preserve the Scriptures which
> later became part of the Canon.
>
> Perhaps that sucking sound you hear is at your end?
>
Mike Horyn
I don't suppose you could point out where Jesus quoted from the Septuagint,
could you?
> > It is also apparent that the Jews had already
> > assembled books which contained the Law, the Prophets and the
Testimonies.
> Called the Septuagint. Coincidentally, the Canon of the Septuagint during
> Jesus time, is the very same Canon in the Old Testament of the Catholic
> Bible. The Protestant Bibles have the shorter Canon of Old Testament
> Scriptures that was agreed upon by the Jews at the Council of Jamnia
around
> 90 AD.
>
Coincidentally, Jesus never quoted from any of the Apochryphal books. While
it is true that Catholics include the Apocryphal writings in their Canon,
Hastings writes, "[The Apochryphal books] were excluded from the Hebrew
Canon about the end of the first Century." (Hastings Dictionary, p. 316).
So, it would seem that your information the Jews and their selection of
sacred writings is mistaken.
> > By the time Jesus started His church, the Scriptures He often referred
to
> > were already in existence. Later, when the eyewitnesses, including
Paul,
> > penned their writings, the Christian church could only verify what
> believers
> > already knew: These writings had been inspired by God.
> >
> > It is ironic the Roman Church would one day have a part in determining
the
> > Canon of Scripture.
>
> Yep. A huge part.
>
> > For years earlier, they had worked to eradicate every
> > copy of any portion of Scripture from individual believers.
>
> Exactly when was this? Can you document it with
> dates/times/names/historical references?
>
Yes, but not right now. This writer has read some of these historical
accounts but, I don't have them in front of me right now.
They're in my church's bookstore and library.
Mike
Linards Ticmanis
> It is ironic the Roman Church would one day have a part in determining the
> Canon of Scripture. For years earlier, they had worked to eradicate every
> copy of any portion of Scripture from individual believers. And, many
> christians would suffer and die in order to preserve the Scriptures which
> later became part of the Canon.
I think you got your timeline mixed up. The first millenium Church
actively encouraged scripture reading. For example John Chrysostom,
bishop of Constantinople around the year 400 A.D., preached that
everybody should try to get at least the gosples and the letters of Paul
in a private copy for himself, even though books were quite expensive
back then as they had to be handwritten. This is also the age we talk
about when we talk about Canon formation.
The "no private reading" rules were a thing of the High and Late Middle
Ages, many centuries later.
--
Linards Ticmanis
The Master said, "The business of laying on the colors follows the
preparation of the plain ground."
Scout Lady
of the OT besides the deuterocanonicals. Besides that, the one time we are
told that Jesus himself read Scripture in the synagogue (Luke 4:16-19), the
text he read followed the LXX. Want some more evidence try
http://www.sacrednamemovement.com/StudyGSeven.htm
> > > It is also apparent that the Jews had already
> > > assembled books which contained the Law, the Prophets and the
> Testimonies.
> > Called the Septuagint. Coincidentally, the Canon of the Septuagint
during
> > Jesus time, is the very same Canon in the Old Testament of the Catholic
> > Bible. The Protestant Bibles have the shorter Canon of Old Testament
> > Scriptures that was agreed upon by the Jews at the Council of Jamnia
> around
> > 90 AD.
> >
>
> Coincidentally, Jesus never quoted from any of the Apochryphal books.
While
> it is true that Catholics include the Apocryphal writings in their Canon,
> Hastings writes, "[The Apochryphal books] were excluded from the Hebrew
> Canon about the end of the first Century." (Hastings Dictionary, p. 316).
> So, it would seem that your information the Jews and their selection of
> sacred writings is mistaken.
>
What are you talking about? You just proved his point. The Septuagint was
complied before the birth of Jesus and was in use. There was no set "canon"
of Jewish scriptures other than the books of Moses until Jamnia in 90AD.
I'll ask you again Mike, if you want to set the standard of Jesus quoting
directly from the LLX, you will have ruled out about 30% of the OT as well.
How do you want to play it?
>
> > > By the time Jesus started His church, the Scriptures He often referred
> to
> > > were already in existence. Later, when the eyewitnesses, including
> Paul,
> > > penned their writings, the Christian church could only verify what
> > believers
> > > already knew: These writings had been inspired by God.
> > >
> > > It is ironic the Roman Church would one day have a part in determining
> the
> > > Canon of Scripture.
> >
> > Yep. A huge part.
> >
> > > For years earlier, they had worked to eradicate every
> > > copy of any portion of Scripture from individual believers.
> >
> > Exactly when was this? Can you document it with
> > dates/times/names/historical references?
> >
>
> Yes, but not right now. This writer has read some of these historical
> accounts but, I don't have them in front of me right now.
> They're in my church's bookstore and library.
>
We'll be awaiting your documentation Mike. Good luck because this is one is
a whopper of a fish story.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 07/11/03
Teresita
>Called the Septuagint. Coincidentally, the Canon of the Septuagint during
>Jesus time, is the very same Canon in the Old Testament of the Catholic
>Bible. The Protestant Bibles have the shorter Canon of Old Testament
>Scriptures that was agreed upon by the Jews at the Council of Jamnia around
>90 AD.
From historical records, and also by analyzing the text of Matthew 1:23, Matthew
3:3, Acts 2:19-29, and Hebrews 3:7-9 we know that First Century Christians, and
indeed Christ Himself, used the 46 books of the Greek version from Alexandria
called the Septuagint, or "Seventy" (because it was said to have been translated
by 70 scribes in 70 days).
In 90 AD the Jewish council of Jamnia, in order to distance classic Judaism from
the upstart Christians, selected the 39 original books of the Masoretic text,
written in Hebrew, as the "official" bible of Judaism. The Church went happily
along for centuries, with the East relying on the Septuagint, and the West
relying on a Latin translation of the Septuagint called the Vulgate, until 1054
when the two halves of the Church broke ties with each other. In the West, after
the Protestant Reformation began in 1517 AD, some question arose as to which
books should be canonical.
The Council of Trent laid the issue to rest in 1546 by listing all 46 books of
the Septuagint plus the 27 books of the New Testament. Even the original 1611
Authorized Version, called the "King James Bible," had all 73 books. Then, in
1644, Parliament outlawed seven books from being read in the Church of England
during the Liturgy of the Word. The seven books were termed "apocrypha" and
moved out of the Old Testament into a special section before the New Testament,
and finally by the 1800s dropped altogether. Meanwhile, the Eastern Orthodox
continue to use the Septuagint, and Catholics continue to use the Vulgate.
--
Encyclopedia Teresita
http://web.newsguy.com/teresita
billu
"Teresita" <tere...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:bfon7...@drn.newsguy.com...
Actually teh Council of Florence 1442 had that same list 100 years prior to
Trent.
Linards Ticmanis
> Mike, it seems that because theses people are TOLD it is fitting and
> proper to address a priest as 'Father' that they do so, fully
> believing it is correct........... Now, while I admire their trust,
> they are placing that trust in the wrong hands!
Hi Elaine,
remember that Jesus speaks against THREE titles in this passage, not
just one. Teacher, Father, Master. So how dare protestants call a Sunday
School teacher (or any school teacher) a teacher? How about master
craftsmen? They shouldn't be called that, surly? How about Paul when he
talks about teachers in his letters? Surly he is sinning there, right?
Or is this only a game of pick-and-choose which commandments to follow,
and which not to follow?
Linards Ticmanis
> In 90 AD the Jewish council of Jamnia, in order to distance classic Judaism from
> the upstart Christians, selected the 39 original books of the Masoretic text,
> written in Hebrew, as the "official" bible of Judaism. The Church went happily
> along for centuries, with the East relying on the Septuagint, and the West
> relying on a Latin translation of the Septuagint called the Vulgate, until 1054
> when the two halves of the Church broke ties with each other. In the West, after
> the Protestant Reformation began in 1517 AD, some question arose as to which
> books should be canonical.
Tiny correction: In the Vulgate, those books for which Hebrew versions
were still available at the time it was translated, were translated from
the Hebrew. The exception is the Psalms, the Vulgate contains two
versions of the book of psalms, one from the Septuagint, the other from
the Hebrew. Most of the time the former was used for the Church
services, the latter only for study purposes.
Mike Horyn
"?" <nos...@noway.period> wrote in message
news:6umvhvg5q0r2c8ut17151q1dn3prgb1u1e@1docnet...
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 01:43:12 GMT, "Mike Horyn"
> <Mike...@insightbb.com> spake thusly in these here little old news
> 'froups:
>
>
> >Is this to be the defense for Catholics and Orthodox folk who want to
> >elevate their leader to a title reserved for God?
> >
> >If you say that it is, then I will answer that your response sounds
> more
> >like an excuse than a reason. If you deny that this is the reason
> your
> >elders are called father, then I see no reason to give you an answer.
> >
> >Your choice ...
> >
> >Mike
> >
>
> proper to address a priest as 'Father' that they do so, fully
> believing it is correct........... Now, while I admire their trust,
> they are placing that trust in the wrong hands!
> Jesus on the back burner while they pray to Mary and other dead
> people, 'because the priests tell them it is fitting and proper to do
> so'........... and of course, ther 'catechism' claims the same
> ridiculous thing, when it says 'and so we turn our eyes to
> Mary..........."
>
> Some of their prayers indicate that Mary is their Savior, and it is
> Mary they entrust their lives to.......... this is WRONG, DEAD
> WRONG!!!!!
> But try to tell them this!
> They insist we're lying, and demand proof. When proof is supplied,
> they reject it, claiming we made it all up, or we 'misunderstood what
> we read'..... they ALWAYS have a bush to crawl behind....... they'd
> sure make good politicians in that respect, but God help us if a
> totally romanistic government ever gets into power.
>
> These people need to use their God-given BRAINS and do some real
> thinking on their own without the interference of a priest.
>
> God bless :o)
>
> Elaine
> >
>
Amen, Elaine! I most certainly agree. They delight in the muddy water
explanation of priest. And, the muddied waters are the result of elevating
their own human opinions to a level of reverence -- greater -- than the Word
of God. Greater, I say because the title of priest belongs to every
believer, according to their own Pope and, not just to the ruling class.
May I suggest that we pray for them? I will.
Mike
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>JESUS is the ROCK<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Linards Ticmanis
> It's just my opinion, mind you---- but I do think that Jesus was
> speaking of LORDLY titles when He referrec to the comments of Teacher,
> Master, etc.
Hi Elaine,
I agree completely with this and I think this is the point. The point is
not to avoid certain words or to modify language, but to avoid turning
certain men into gods. So I think a person who calls his pastor "pastor"
or "reverend" and at the same time treats them as a Guru and The One
Inspired Revelator of God's Own Interpretation Of the Bible, is breaking
this commandment more then somebody who uses the word "father" and does
not attach such a meaning to it.
Mike Horyn
"Scout Lady" <pj2o...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:bfomuh$grdga$1...@ID-87237.news.uni-berlin.de...
Don't get yourself all worked up, SC. I merely asked a question.
Scout Lady:
I never cited the complete list of rules that were used to determine what
was included in the Canon and what wasn't. I did mention that Jesus
referring to them made a big impression upon those who decided which books
should be included in the Canon. We Baptists like our 66 Book Canon. As
for Catholics, I don't see why it should be important as you folks normally
do whatever you're told by the leadership.
> >
> > > > By the time Jesus started His church, the Scriptures He often
referred
> > to
> > > > were already in existence. Later, when the eyewitnesses, including
> > Paul,
> > > > penned their writings, the Christian church could only verify what
> > > believers
> > > > already knew: These writings had been inspired by God.
> > > >
> > > > It is ironic the Roman Church would one day have a part in
determining
> > the
> > > > Canon of Scripture.
> > >
> > > Yep. A huge part.
> > >
> > > > For years earlier, they had worked to eradicate every
> > > > copy of any portion of Scripture from individual believers.
> > >
> > > Exactly when was this? Can you document it with
> > > dates/times/names/historical references?
> > >
> >
> > Yes, but not right now. This writer has read some of these historical
> > accounts but, I don't have them in front of me right now.
> > They're in my church's bookstore and library.
> >
> We'll be awaiting your documentation Mike. Good luck because this is one
is
> a whopper of a fish story.
>
I've already posted a couple incidents.
Mike
Scout Lady
Al
> Mike Horyn wrote:
>
> > It is ironic the Roman Church would one day have a part in determining the
> > Canon of Scripture. For years earlier, they had worked to eradicate every
> > copy of any portion of Scripture from individual believers. And, many
> > christians would suffer and die in order to preserve the Scriptures which
> > later became part of the Canon.
>
***Keep in mind that until the Great Schism in 1054, there was no
"Roman Church" or "Orthodox Church". There was just one church -- The
One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that was the True Body of
Christ. There was within this Church patriarchates, such as the Roman
Patriarchate, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Patriarchate of
Jerusalem, the Patriarchate of Alexandria and a host of local churches
within the realm of these patriarchates.
> I think you got your timeline mixed up. The first millenium Church
> actively encouraged scripture reading.
***Sure they did (and The Church still does today!). There were
hundreds of gospels, epistles, and other assorted documents about the
christian faith circulating in the early Church...so many documents
that a council was held in the fourth century to decide on which
gospel accounts and which epistles would constitute a canon of
scripture that would be used throughout the Christian Church.
For example John Chrysostom,
> bishop of Constantinople around the year 400 A.D., preached that
> everybody should try to get at least the gosples and the letters of Paul
> in a private copy for himself, even though books were quite expensive
> back then as they had to be handwritten.
***I've read most of Chrysostom's works, but I've not run across this
piece. Would you please provide source material? I'd like to make my
collection of St. John C.'s works complete (or more complete than it
is).
Thanks.
Al
Al
<snip>
> > Note to Scout Lady who said that Al is not a Catholic -- Al belongs to the
> > "True Church"
> >
> I agree he belongs to the True Church, but he is not Catholic in the way you
> understand it, he is Orthodox. He pretty much spelled it out for you below
> Mike.
***Of course I'm Catholic...Greek Catholic...an Eastern Ofrthodox
Greek Catholic!!
>
> You might want to read the following to understand the reasons why Catholics
> and Orthodox do not believe in sola scriptura.
***We do not subscribe to "sola scriptura" because the Holy Church is
Christ's Body. What the church teaches is Christ's teaching since
Christ continues to guide us and teach us through His Holy Body, the
Church.
Al
Christopher Robin
"?" <nos...@noway.period> wrote in message
news:6umvhvg5q0r2c8ut17151q1dn3prgb1u1e@1docnet...
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 01:43:12 GMT, "Mike Horyn"
> <Mike...@insightbb.com> spake thusly in these here little old news
> 'froups:
>
>
> >elevate their leader to a title reserved for God?
> >
> >If you say that it is, then I will answer that your response sounds
> more
> >like an excuse than a reason. If you deny that this is the reason
> your
> >elders are called father, then I see no reason to give you an answer.
> >
> >Your choice ...
> >
> >Mike
> >
>
> proper to address a priest as 'Father' that they do so, fully
> believing it is correct........... Now, while I admire their trust,
> they are placing that trust in the wrong hands!
Nope. We are placing our trust in GOD. The God who inspired Paul to call
HIMSELF the Corinthians' Father in faith (1 Cor 4:15). The God who inspired
Stephen & Paul to call to the "Brothers & Fathers" to listen to their
defenses (Acts 7:2 & Acts 22:1). The God who inspired John to write to
"dear fathers" in 1 John 2.
The God who also forbade the title Master & Teacher. Using the same sort of
construct that you conclude that the term Father is reserved for God alone.
And yet, Sunday schools have Teachers. Paul spoke of people being teachers
of the gospel. Spoke of some being called to be teachers (1 Cor 12). All
this Biblical evidence that doesn't support your absolute 'call no man
father' interpretation.
All that Biblical evidence that you and Mike have yet to address.
> They trust the word of their parish priest implicidly, yet the put
> Jesus on the back burner
Shows that once again you lie about Catholicism. Jesus is first ALWAYS.
> while they pray to Mary and other dead people,
And we ask others to pray for us. Others ALIVE IN CHRIST. Others who are
part of the Body of Christ. Death doesn't separate them. Is the hand no
longer part of the body because the foot says so? Paul spoke about
that...too.
'because the priests tell them it is fitting and proper to do
> so'...........
> and of course, ther 'catechism' claims the same
> ridiculous thing, when it says 'and so we turn our eyes to
> Mary..........."
>
Let's see the quote IN CONTEXT... That's the difference... Here's the
paragraph.
829. "'But while in the most Blessed Virgin the Church has already reached
that perfection whereby she exists without spot or wrinkle, the faithful
still strive to conquer sin and increase in holiness. And so they turn their
EYES TO Mary':[LG 65; Cf. Eph 5:26-27 .] in her, the Church is already the
'all-holy.'
See the link to Ephesians 5:26-27.
Here's the entire section
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/church3.html#HOLY
> Some of their prayers indicate that Mary is their Savior,
Yet another lie. Which prayer indicates this? Prove it.
> and it is Mary they entrust their lives to.......... this is WRONG, DEAD
> WRONG!!!!!
Yep - that's wrong. Dead wrong. We don't entrust our lives to Mary. Please
provide proof of this ridiculous claim.
> But try to tell them this!
You've tried. I've asked for proof. Time to prove it.
> They insist we're lying, and demand proof.
Yep..
> When proof is supplied,
Still waiting.
> they reject it, claiming we made it all up, or we 'misunderstood what
> we read'..... they ALWAYS have a bush to crawl behind.......
Just because we like to put your partial quotes back into context? Gee
that's horrible.
> they'd sure make good politicians in that respect, but God help us if a
> totally romanistic government ever gets into power.
>
> These people need to use their God-given BRAINS and do some real
> thinking on their own without the interference of a priest.
>
We do. This statement, as with most of your others here, just demonstrates
how blinded by hate and ignorance you are, Elaine.
> God bless :o)
>
LOL...
Christopher Robin
collection.
Luke 4:16-19 is a good example.
Here are a few charts:
http://students.cua.edu/16kalvesmaki/lxx/NTChart.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~rgjones3/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm
> > > It is also apparent that the Jews had already
> > > assembled books which contained the Law, the Prophets and the
> Testimonies.
> > Called the Septuagint. Coincidentally, the Canon of the Septuagint
during
> > Jesus time, is the very same Canon in the Old Testament of the Catholic
> > Bible. The Protestant Bibles have the shorter Canon of Old Testament
> > Scriptures that was agreed upon by the Jews at the Council of Jamnia
> around
> > 90 AD.
> >
>
> Coincidentally, Jesus never quoted from any of the Apochryphal books.
Jesus also never quoted from:
Judges
Ruth
2 Kings
Esther
And several others.
> it is true that Catholics include the Apocryphal writings in their Canon,
> Hastings writes, "[The Apochryphal books] were excluded from the Hebrew
> Canon about the end of the first Century." (Hastings Dictionary, p. 316).
> So, it would seem that your information the Jews and their selection of
> sacred writings is mistaken.
>
Actually, it is exactly right. That's what I said. The Deuterocanonicals
were removed from the Jewish Canon in about 90 AD.
> > > By the time Jesus started His church, the Scriptures He often referred
to
> > > were already in existence. Later, when the eyewitnesses, including
Paul,
> > > penned their writings, the Christian church could only verify what
believers
> > > already knew: These writings had been inspired by God.
> > >
> > > It is ironic the Roman Church would one day have a part in determining
the
> > > Canon of Scripture.
> >
> > Yep. A huge part.
> >
> > > For years earlier, they had worked to eradicate every
> > > copy of any portion of Scripture from individual believers.
> >
> > Exactly when was this? Can you document it with
> > dates/times/names/historical references?
> >
>
> Yes, but not right now.
Not to terribly surprising.
> This writer has read some of these historical
> accounts but, I don't have them in front of me right now.
> They're in my church's bookstore and library.
>
Canon was established in about 394 AD. The posts you made were from 500+AD
and neglected to spoke of individuals being martyred, not who killed them.
Linards Ticmanis
>> For example John Chrysostom,
>> bishop of Constantinople around the year 400 A.D., preached that
>> everybody should try to get at least the gosples and the letters of Paul
>> in a private copy for himself, even though books were quite expensive
>> back then as they had to be handwritten.
>
> I've read most of Chrysostom's works, but I've not run across this
> piece. Would you please provide source material? I'd like to make my
> collection of St. John C.'s works complete (or more complete than it
> is).
Hi Al,
sorry I quoted this from the back of my head, I have looked up lots of
stuff in Chrysostom's comments on the various New Testament books over
the last couple of years and I am pretty sure that somewhere I stumbled
across this. I don't remember where. When I find some time I'll try
finding it again.
Scout Lady
It's a good thing because what you have quoted in the past was full of
errors.
>I did mention that Jesus
> referring to them made a big impression upon those who decided which books
> should be included in the Canon.
Yes Jesus made a big impression for the Jews at Jamnia, they met
specifically to stop the spread of Christianity almost 60 years after the
Passion of our Lord and yet you accept their word over the Church. It
doesn't matter what impression it made that Jesus quoted scripture because
the fact that 11 books are included that Jesus didn't quote makes it an
irrevelant point. Where were you trying to go with it Mike? You then told
the other poster that "your information the Jews and their selection of
sacred writings is mistaken." and actually quoted Hastings which proved his
point. You have offered nothing and seem to think simply asserting something
makes it true.
> We Baptists like our 66 Book Canon. As
> for Catholics, I don't see why it should be important as you folks
normally
> do whatever you're told by the leadership.
>
When one can't support his assertions, the man of good character retracts
them, you OTOH engage in childish insults.
Mike Horyn
"Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures,
nor the power of God." (Matthew 22:29)
Pastor Dave
<alexande...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:59:49 GMT, "Mike Horyn"
><Mike...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>>It seems apparent that you are troubled by this apparent contradiction
>>between the Catholic teaching and that found in Scripture. I would like to
>>encourage you to put aside the teachings, explanations and excuses of men
>>who have been exposed by the plain teachings of the Scripture and instead,
>>learn of God directly from His Word, the Holy Scriptures, the Bible.
>>
>The Bible is not the "direct" word of God, since it took many people,
>over many generations, to set it down, translate it, and codify it.
>Remember, it was the institutional Church which was ultimately
>responsible for setting out the Biblical canon. It's a great mistake
>to consider the words on the page in a complete vacuum.
So if Scripture shows error in the Catholic Church,
then just cast a shadow of doubt on Scripture, but
never question the Catholic Church, because the people
who wrote the Bible are wrong and the men today are
perfect and cannot make an error.
Pastor Dave Raymond
--
In the beginning, God created...
The fact is, if you can't believe the beginning,
you can't believe the end and shouldn't claim to.
To disbelieve the beginning, is to doubt many things
that Jesus said. After all, He made it clear that
He believed it. If you believe in the Trinity, how
can you believe that God wouldn't know how it all
started? If you can't believe the beginning, then
get off the pulpit.
Theistic evolutionists are out to please men,
rather than God. They claim to believe in a
virgin birth, people rising from the dead, water
turned into wine and yet, they don't believe that
God created the heaven and the earth in six literal
days, thereby making hypocrites of themselves. Why?
Because man says it isn't so and they would rather
try to please men, instead of choosing to believe
God and stand up for Him. Preachers who claim
theistic evolution are the biggest hypocrites of all
and are in the most danger. Why? Read Isaiah 9:16;
Jeremiah 23:1, 50:6. What do YOU stand for?
"...choose this day whome you will serve. ...as for
me and my house, we will serve the Lord." - Jos 24:15
As for atheism...
Atheism is folly, and atheists are the greatest
fools in nature; for they see there is a world
that could not make itself, and yet they will not
own there is a God that made it. - Matthew Henry
Read an amzing book! it's called; "The Evolution
of a Creationist", by Jobe Martin.
Buy it at: http://tinyurl.com/hq7k
Or read it online at: http://tinyurl.com/hq7q
Tiger
Continually posting verses and passages out of context and trying to
make them apply where they obviously don't is a good example of what
Jesus was speaking of in this passage. In fact, the Sadducees were
guilty of that very thing...taking passages out of context and
attempting to make them apply where they don't.
Scout Lady
news:<bfnhsp$ggh6j$3...@ID-87237.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Note to Scout Lady who said that Al is not a Catholic -- Al belongs to
the
> > > "True Church"
> > >
> > I agree he belongs to the True Church, but he is not Catholic in the way
you
> > understand it, he is Orthodox. He pretty much spelled it out for you
below
> > Mike.
>
> ***Of course I'm Catholic...Greek Catholic...an Eastern Ofrthodox
> Greek Catholic!!
> >
understand it".
> > You might want to read the following to understand the reasons why
Catholics
> > and Orthodox do not believe in sola scriptura.
>
> ***We do not subscribe to "sola scriptura" because the Holy Church is
> Christ's Body. What the church teaches is Christ's teaching since
> Christ continues to guide us and teach us through His Holy Body, the
> Church.
>
That's what the link informs him of.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 07/11/03
Scout Lady
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 07/11/03
Alexander Arnakis
<ticm...@coli.uni-sb.de> wrote:
>
>The "no private reading" rules were a thing of the High and Late Middle
>Ages, many centuries later.
Yes, because at that time the Western Church was being plagued by a
host of antinomian heresies, such as the Albigensians in France and
the Hussites in Bohemia, which relied on individual Bible reading and
interpretation to challenge clerical authority. But the Eastern Church
(Orthodoxy), as far as I know, never discouraged Scripture study. At
that time, the threats to the Eastern Church were from the Moslems
(and the Westerners).
Christopher Robin
"Linards Ticmanis" <ticm...@coli.uni-sb.de> wrote in message
news:bfnk44$1i5ke$1...@hades.rz.uni-saarland.de...
>
> > It is ironic the Roman Church would one day have a part in determining
the
> > Canon of Scripture. For years earlier, they had worked to eradicate
every
> > copy of any portion of Scripture from individual believers. And, many
> > christians would suffer and die in order to preserve the Scriptures
which
> > later became part of the Canon.
>
> I think you got your timeline mixed up. The first millenium Church
> actively encouraged scripture reading. For example John Chrysostom,
> bishop of Constantinople around the year 400 A.D., preached that
> everybody should try to get at least the gosples and the letters of Paul
> in a private copy for himself, even though books were quite expensive
> back then as they had to be handwritten. This is also the age we talk
> about when we talk about Canon formation.
>
> The "no private reading" rules were a thing of the High and Late Middle
> Ages, many centuries later.
>
this link.
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=xAlS
a.110158%24Io.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net&lr=&hl=en
digimortal
time...
"Christopher Robin" <anony...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VC0Ua.21355$ib2.6...@twister.neo.rr.com...
Pastor Dave
<anony...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Linards Ticmanis" <ticm...@coli.uni-sb.de> wrote in message
>news:bfnk44$1i5ke$1...@hades.rz.uni-saarland.de...
>> Mike Horyn wrote:
>>
>> > It is ironic the Roman Church would one day have a part in determining
>the
>> > Canon of Scripture. For years earlier, they had worked to eradicate
>every
>> > copy of any portion of Scripture from individual believers. And, many
>> > christians would suffer and die in order to preserve the Scriptures
>which
>> > later became part of the Canon.
>>
>> I think you got your timeline mixed up. The first millenium Church
>> actively encouraged scripture reading. For example John Chrysostom,
>> bishop of Constantinople around the year 400 A.D., preached that
>> everybody should try to get at least the gosples and the letters of Paul
>> in a private copy for himself, even though books were quite expensive
>> back then as they had to be handwritten. This is also the age we talk
>> about when we talk about Canon formation.
>>
>> The "no private reading" rules were a thing of the High and Late Middle
>> Ages, many centuries later.
>>
>And actually never existed... See Didymos' destruction of such nonsense in
>this link.
The fact is, that the Bible declares plainly that...
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture
is of any private interpretation." - 1 Peter 1:20
learner
>
> >Called the Septuagint. Coincidentally, the Canon of the Septuagint during
> >Jesus time, is the very same Canon in the Old Testament of the Catholic
> >Bible. The Protestant Bibles have the shorter Canon of Old Testament
> >Scriptures that was agreed upon by the Jews at the Council of Jamnia around
> >90 AD.
>
> From historical records, and also by analyzing the text of Matthew 1:23,
> Matthew 3:3, Acts 2:19-29, and Hebrews 3:7-9 we know that First Century
> Christians, and indeed Christ Himself, used the 46 books of the Greek version > from Alexandria called the Septuagint, or "Seventy" (because it was said to
> have been translated by 70 scribes in 70 days).
However, of the 250 quotations from the OT in the NT, NONE quote the
Apocrypha.
> In 90 AD the Jewish council of Jamnia, in order to distance classic Judaism
> from the upstart Christians, selected the 39 original books of the Masoretic > text, written in Hebrew, as the "official" bible of Judaism. The Church went > happily
The Jews never officially regarded the Apocrypha as Canon.
> along for centuries, with the East relying on the Septuagint, and the West
> relying on a Latin translation of the Septuagint called the Vulgate, until..
Well, Jerome's Vulgate distinguished between the "libri eccesiastici"
and the "libri canonici" with the result that the Apocrypha was
accorded secondary status.
> Then, in 1644, Parliament outlawed seven books from being read in the Church > of England during the Liturgy of the Word.
That was a good move. The Apocrypha are full of historical,
geographical, chronological, and theological errors, proving that they
are not inspired texts.
> Meanwhile, the Eastern Orthodox
> continue to use the Septuagint, and Catholics continue to use the Vulgate.
Well, it's a bit more complex than that. The Orthodox do not agree on
the Apocrypha. The Ethiopian Orthodox Bible Canon contains the Book
of Jubilees as well as I Enoch which are not in any other Orthodox
Canon. The Russian Orthodox Bible has 2 Esdras, which is not in the
Greek Orthodox Bible.
Learner
Joseph Lovell
wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 20:17:14 GMT, "Christopher Robin"
><anony...@hotmail.com> spake thusly in these here little old news
>'froups:
>
>
>
>>Yep - that's wrong. Dead wrong. We don't entrust our lives to Mary.
>>
>>
>Please
>
>
>>provide proof of this ridiculous claim.
>>
>>
>
>
>My pleasure, son............
>
>Here's some of the lines taken from the 'Little Office':
>]Lord, have mercy on us. Christ have mercy on us. Lord, have mercy on
>us. Christ, hear us. Christ, graciously hear us.
>God the Father of Heaven, Have mercy on us.
>God the Son, Redeemer of the world, Have mercy on us.
>God the Holy Ghost, Have mercy on us.
>Holy Trinity, one God, Have mercy on us.
>Holy Mary; Pray for us, etc
>Holy Mother of God;
>Holy Virgin of virgins;
>Mother of Christ;
><snip of bal. oc canon and various prayers>
>
And all the petitions to Mary end with "Pray for us."
>You give her honor which should be reserved for the LORD alone.
>You turn her into a literal 'goddess' by your actions.
>
>You DO place your trust in her, that is VERY blatantly obvious.
>
>
I take it then that you never ask others to pray for you, right? After
all, that would mean that you put your trust in them, right?
Joe Blow
Your citation seems incorrect.
Joe
Mike Horyn
"?" <nos...@noway.period> wrote in message
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:59:46 GMT, "Mike Horyn"
> water
> >explanation of priest. And, the muddied waters are the result of
> elevating
> >their own human opinions to a level of reverence -- greater -- than
> the Word
> >of God. Greater, I say because the title of priest belongs to every
> >believer, according to their own Pope and, not just to the ruling
> class.
> >
>
> statement, the reason being I do not recognize any pope.
> It being a man-made title, I simply say my faith is between the Lord
> and myself! :o)
> No insult intended, so please don't be offended at my saying this.
>
No insult or offense has been taken, Elaine :)
Mike
> >May I suggest that we pray for them? I will.
> >
> >Mike
>
> AMEN BROTHER. Believe me, I DO pray for them daily, in hopes their
> eyes, minds and hearts will be opened to GOD's truth..... and that
> they will leave the thing before it is too late for them.
>
> God bless :o)
Teresita
nat...@hotmail.com says...
>That was a good move. The Apocrypha are full of historical,
>geographical, chronological, and theological errors, proving that they
>are not inspired texts.
Okay. Just so long as we are clear that Protestants removed from the words of
the book, and Catholics did not add prophesies to the book.
Rev. 22:[19] And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the
holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
--
Encyclopedia Teresita
http://web.newsguy.com/teresita
Christopher Robin
"learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c53bb03c.03072...@posting.google.com...
> Teresita <tere...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:<bfon7...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> > In article <WwHTa.20965$ib2.5...@twister.neo.rr.com>, "Christopher
says...
> >
> > >Called the Septuagint. Coincidentally, the Canon of the Septuagint
during
> > >Jesus time, is the very same Canon in the Old Testament of the Catholic
> > >Bible. The Protestant Bibles have the shorter Canon of Old Testament
> > >Scriptures that was agreed upon by the Jews at the Council of Jamnia
around
> > >90 AD.
> >
> > From historical records, and also by analyzing the text of Matthew 1:23,
> > Matthew 3:3, Acts 2:19-29, and Hebrews 3:7-9 we know that First Century
> > Christians, and indeed Christ Himself, used the 46 books of the Greek
version > from Alexandria called the Septuagint, or "Seventy" (because it
was said to
> > have been translated by 70 scribes in 70 days).
>
> However, of the 250 quotations from the OT in the NT, NONE quote the
> Apocrypha.
>
of the Bible too. Not to mention several other books.
Christopher Robin
"?" <nos...@noway.period> wrote in message
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 20:17:14 GMT, "Christopher Robin"
> 'froups:
>
> >
> >Yep - that's wrong. Dead wrong. We don't entrust our lives to Mary.
> Please
> >provide proof of this ridiculous claim.
>
>
>
> Here's some of the lines taken from the 'Little Office':
> Lord, have mercy on us. Christ have mercy on us. Lord, have mercy on
> us. Christ, hear us. Christ, graciously hear us.
> God the Father of Heaven, Have mercy on us.
> God the Son, Redeemer of the world, Have mercy on us.
> God the Holy Ghost, Have mercy on us.
> Holy Trinity, one God, Have mercy on us.
All prayers to GOD... Asking GOD to have mercy on us.
> Holy Mary; Pray for us, etc
What's "etc" here Doc. Looks like some lies...
But even so, yep - asking her to pray for us.
Notice the BIG difference. Asking GOD for mercy. Asking MARY to pray for
us.
> Holy Mother of God;
Elizabeth called her that.
> Holy Virgin of virgins;
Yep. She was virgin when she bore Christ.
> Mother of Christ;
Yep. She was.
> Mother of divine grace;
Christ is Divine Grace... Mary is Christ's mother. Yep.
> Mother most pure;
Virgin birth...
> Mother most chaste;
Virgin birth...
> Mother inviolate;
Virgin birth...
> Mother undefiled;
Virgin birth...
> Mother most amiable;
Virgin birth...
> Mother most admirable;
Complete obedience to God. Certainly admirable quality.
> Mother of good counsel;
Jesus is good counsel.
> Mother of our Creator;
Jesus is our Creator.
> Mother of our Saviour;
Jesus is our Savior.
> Virgin most prudent;
Yep.
> Virgin most venerable;
Yep.
> Virgin most renowned;
Yep.
<snipped a bunch of other titles>
> Notice she is prayed to and addressed with all the 'titles'
> FIRST.............
Nope... actually, FIRST God was prayed to... perhaps in your blind hatred
you missed the beginning.
To review:
> Lord, have mercy on us. Christ have mercy on us. Lord, have mercy on
> us. Christ, hear us. Christ, graciously hear us.
> God the Father of Heaven, Have mercy on us.
> God the Son, Redeemer of the world, Have mercy on us.
> God the Holy Ghost, Have mercy on us.
> Holy Trinity, one God, Have mercy on us.
> then, the 'prayer' goes on to add:
>
> Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world, Spare us O Lord.
>
> Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world, Graciously hear us
> O Lord.
>
> Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world, Have mercy on us.
>
More prayers to GOD for mercy.
> Pray for us O holy Mother of God, That we may be made worthy of the
> promises of Christ.
>
Asking Mary to pray for us again. Once again, note the BIG difference - we
ask GOD for mercy. We ask GOD to spare us. We ask Mary to pray for us.
> Pour forth, we beseech Thee, O Lord, Thy grace into our hearts; that
> we to whom the Incarnation of Christ Thy Son was made known by the
> message of an angel, may by His passion and cross be brought to the
> glory of His Resurrection; through the same Christ Our Lord. Amen.
>
Once again, a closing prayer to GOD, asking for His Grace.
> May the divine assistance remain always with us. Amen.
>
> And may the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God,
> rest in peace. Amen
>
>
>
> Why pray to her first, and why pray to her AT ALL?
We prayed to GOD first. We honored Mary and asked her to pray for us. And
we prayed to GOD at the end.
> She is DEAD, and can do nothing to help you......
She's alive in Christ. She is part of the Body of Christ. Why do you
insist on removing her from the Body of Christ?
> and not only that, she is not ENTITLED to receive prayers.
>
But she's entitled to pray for us. As all Chrstians in the Body of Christ
are entitled to pray for one another.
> NEXT:
>
> Hail Mary [2676-2678]
> Hail Mary, full of grace; the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou
> among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
> Holy Mary, Mother of God,
See Luke 1. All from there.
> Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.
> Amen.
>
> WHO is being given the preference and honor here?
> It sure isn't the Lord.
>
And what are we asking for? HER PRAYERS... not asking for her mercy. Not
asking for HER to spare us. Simply asking for her to pray for us.
>
> Hail Holy Queen
> Hail, holy Queen, Mother of mercy! Hail, our life, our sweetness, and
> our hope! To you do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To you do
> we send up our sighs, mourning, and weeping in this valley of tears.
> Turn then, most gracious advocate, your eyes of mercy toward us; and
> after this, our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of your womb,
> Jesus. O clement , O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary! Amen.
>
> WHO is being given the preference and honor here? It sure isn't the Lord.
>
SHOW UNTO US THE BLESSED FRUIT OF YOUR WOMB, JESUS
Jesus has preference and honor - we are asking for HIS blessings and grace
here show us HIM.
> Memorare
> Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary that never was it known that
> anyone who fled to your protection, implored your help, or sought your
> intercession was left unaided. Inspired by this confidence, I fly to
> you O Virgin of virgins, my mother, To you I come; before you I stand,
> sinful and sorrowful. O mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my
> petitions, but in your mercy, hear and answer me. Amen.
>
> WHO is being given the preference and honor here? It sure isn't the Lord.
>
Sure it is... Once again - Jesus is sought.
> Regina Coeli (prayed instead of the Angelus during the Easter
season)
> Queen of heaven, rejoice. Alleluia.
> For He whom you deserve to bear, Alleluia.
> Has risen as He said, Alleluia.
> Pray for us to God, Alleluia.
>
Great honors to Christ - (FOR HE WHOM YOU DESERVE TO BEAR HAS RISEN AS HE
SAID).
Asking her to pray for us to God.
> V. Rejoice and be glad, O Virgin Mary, Alleluia.
> R. Because Our Lord is truly risen, Alleluia.
>
Honors once again to God - Rejoice because the Lord is risen.
> Let us pray
> O God, who by the resurrection of Your Son, Our Lord
> Jesus Christ, has vouchsafed to make glad the whole
> world, we beseech You, that, through the
> intercession of the Virgin Mary, His Mother, we may
> attain the joys of eternal life. Through the same
> Christ Our Lord. Amen.
>
> WHO is being given the preference and honor here? It sure isn't the Lord.
Sure it is "O God, WHO BY THE RESURRECTION OF YOUR SON, OUR LORD JESUS
CHRIST HAS VOUCHSAVED TO MAKE GLAD THE WHOLE WORLD"
> You pray TO Mary..............
>
> You give her honor which should be reserved for the LORD alone.
Nope... we give God all the WORSHIP. We seek HIS mercy. We seek HIS
forgiveness. We ask HER to pray for us.
> You turn her into a literal 'goddess' by your actions.
>
Nope.. Once again, all this you stuff you provided and NONE called her a
'goddess'. Once again you have lied.
> You DO place your trust in her, that is VERY blatantly obvious.
>
We place our trust in many Christians. All living, some still on this
earth. We place our trust in them to pray for us.
Christopher Robin
"?" <nos...@noway.period> wrote in message
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 17:43:26 GMT, Joseph Lovell <sub...@sonic.net>
> spake thusly in these here little old news 'froups:
>
> >
> After
> >all, that would mean that you put your trust in them, right?
>
>
> the name of Jesus, our Lord, yes.
>
As do we. Mary is alive in Christ.
> We do not pray to dead people to ask their intercession, because they can
do nothing.
>
Except Mary is alive in Christ. Perhaps you missed the part of Scripture
where Jesus conquered death. Where Paul wrote that death does not separate
us from the Love of Christ?
Tiger
You're trying to reason with someone who has no concept of the
rational.
Linards Ticmanis
> Thank you, Linards. Welcome to the Baptist newsgroup. :o)
Well, I'm just a dumb crossposter.
> We call our pastor by his first name too :o)
Why not? This is the normal thing in the non-protestant churches too.
> I flatly refuse to call ANY priest 'father' as well. I used to call
> them 'Reverend' when I spoke with them, but I did not and never will
> ever call them by the Father title...... Like you, I do think it is
> totally improper, and tends to lessen GOD's importance. That, I won't
> tolerate.
Sorry I think you misunderstood. My point was, what matters is not this
or that title or word, but the fact that we should not treat a pastor as
if he was "THE Prophet Of God" or "THE One Man Who Knows The Correct
Interpretation Of The Bible." THAT is the inappropriate thing that
Christ warns against.
So the "Like you" above is not quite right.
> God bless :o)
God bless you too.
Linards Ticmanis
> We ask living people to pray to God the REAL HOLY FATHER for us, in
> the name of Jesus, our Lord, yes.
>
> We do not pray to dead people to ask their intercession, because they
> can do nothing.
Such dead people as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?
Linards Ticmanis
> You see, Mike--- I do not even accept the 'you're your own pope'
> statement, the reason being I do not recognize any pope.
> It being a man-made title, I simply say my faith is between the Lord
> and myself! :o)
Well there's not just two models for faith. Most people only consider
"authoritatively, from the top down" and "every man for himself" as the
two options. There's a third option, consensus.
(This argument is from Federica Matthews-Greene (sp?)).
Richard Hutnik
> > Call No Man Father
> > By Father Richard Ballew, Orthodox Priest
> >
>
> Al:
>
> It seems apparent that you are troubled by this apparent contradiction
> between the Catholic teaching and that found in Scripture. I would like to
> encourage you to put aside the teachings, explanations and excuses of men
> who have been exposed by the plain teachings of the Scripture and instead,
> learn of God directly from His Word, the Holy Scriptures, the Bible.
>
I assume you mean Catholic as in Universal, not Catholic as in Roman
Catholic, because the writer is Orthodox, and that is different than
Roman Catholicism.
By the way, I thought the article was well thought out, and it does
raise issue. Do you personally call anyone father or teacher? If so,
aren't you violating scripture? You may do well to not think simply
on this matter, but think thoroughly.
I find this a neat dodge though. Someone disagrees with someone's
understanding of scripture, so they tell them, "leave these
explainations of men to the side and simply follow what the Bible
says". How many denominations have resulted from this "sola
scriptura" approach? My dealings with the Churches of Christ are a
clear example that scripture alone does a hack job in producing a
church.
- Richard Hutnik
Richard Hutnik
> Other than a few wrong dates for holy days ;-)
>
> "Al" <aggr...@netscape.net> wrote
> There is
> > nothing...absolutely nothing...in the teachings of the Holy Eastern
> > Orthodox Church that is contrary to Holy Scripture. Everything that
> > the Church (i.e., Jesus Christ) teaches enhances our understanding of
> > Scripture.
> >
> > Al
Let's argue over leaven vs unleavened and the Filoque while we are at it.
- Richard Hutnik :-)
Richard Hutnik
> "Christopher Robin" <anony...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%gCTa.20179$ib2.5...@twister.neo.rr.com...
> >
> > "Mike Horyn" <Mike...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> > news:9FvTa.113656$wk6....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> > >
> > > "Al" <aggr...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> > > news:df4e6c04.0307...@posting.google.com...
> > > > Call No Man Father
> > > > By Father Richard Ballew, Orthodox Priest
> > > >
> > >
> > > Al:
> > >
> > > It seems apparent that you are troubled by this apparent contradiction
> > > between the Catholic teaching and that found in Scripture. I would like
> to
> > > encourage you to put aside the teachings, explanations and excuses of
> men
> > > who have been exposed by the plain teachings of the Scripture and
> instead,
> > > learn of God directly from His Word, the Holy Scriptures, the Bible.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > faith (1 Cor 4:15)
> >
> >
>
> Is this to be the defense for Catholics and Orthodox folk who want to
> elevate their leader to a title reserved for God?
>
> If you say that it is, then I will answer that your response sounds more
> like an excuse than a reason. If you deny that this is the reason your
> elders are called father, then I see no reason to give you an answer.
>
> Your choice ...
>
> Mike
1 Cor. 4:15 is an excuse? You are calling the scriptures an excuse?
- Richard Hutnik
Richard Hutnik
> "Alexander Arnakis" <alexande...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:5e6uhv8urlnogjv5k...@4ax.com...
> > >between the Catholic teaching and that found in Scripture. I would like
> to
> > >encourage you to put aside the teachings, explanations and excuses of men
> > >who have been exposed by the plain teachings of the Scripture and
> instead,
> > >learn of God directly from His Word, the Holy Scriptures, the Bible.
> > >
> > over many generations, to set it down, translate it, and codify it.
> > Remember, it was the institutional Church which was ultimately
> > responsible for setting out the Biblical canon. It's a great mistake
> > to consider the words on the page in a complete vacuum.
> >
>
> assembled books which contained the Law, the Prophets and the Testimonies.
> were already in existence. Later, when the eyewitnesses, including Paul,
> penned their writings, the Christian church could only verify what believers
> already knew: These writings had been inspired by God.
>
> It is ironic the Roman Church would one day have a part in determining the
> Canon of Scripture. For years earlier, they had worked to eradicate every
> copy of any portion of Scripture from individual believers. And, many
> christians would suffer and die in order to preserve the Scriptures which
> later became part of the Canon.
>
>
> Mike
Amazing. This is simply amazing. Do you know anything of the history
of Christianity, or do you subscribe the Landmarkian Baptist school of
the history of Christianity, which also holds that Catholic Church
obliterated all evidence of the true church because they wanted to
keep it secret.
- Richard Hutnik
Robert A. Walker
> Teresita <tere...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<bfon7...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> > In article <WwHTa.20965$ib2.5...@twister.neo.rr.com>, "Christopher says...
snip
>
> Learner
You have much yet to learn, Learner. It took me all of 2 minutes to
find that Romans 12:15 quotes Sirach 7:34. There are hundreds of
quotations from the Deuterocanonicals (the so-called Apocryhpa)in the
New Testament.
Richard Hutnik
> Mike Horyn wrote:
>
> > Canon of Scripture. For years earlier, they had worked to eradicate every
> > copy of any portion of Scripture from individual believers. And, many
> > christians would suffer and die in order to preserve the Scriptures which
> > later became part of the Canon.
>
> actively encouraged scripture reading. For example John Chrysostom,
> bishop of Constantinople around the year 400 A.D., preached that
> everybody should try to get at least the gosples and the letters of Paul
> in a private copy for himself, even though books were quite expensive
> back then as they had to be handwritten. This is also the age we talk
> about when we talk about Canon formation.
>
> The "no private reading" rules were a thing of the High and Late Middle
> Ages, many centuries later.
I think Mike is confusing every form of the Apostolic Faiths
(Catholic, Orthodox, and possible Anglican non-liberal) with
Catholicism. This confusion results in them thinking anyone who
thinks sola scriptura is a wrong way to understand true Christian
teachings, must believe in the infallability of the Pope, and other
such Roman Catholic traditions.
- Richard Hutnik
Joseph Lovell
† wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 17:43:26 GMT, Joseph Lovell <sub...@sonic.net>
>spake thusly in these here little old news 'froups:
>
>
>
>>I take it then that you never ask others to pray for you, right?
>>
>>
>After
>
>
>>all, that would mean that you put your trust in them, right?
>>
>>
>
>
>We ask living people to pray to God the REAL HOLY FATHER for us, in
>the name of Jesus, our Lord, yes.
>
> We do not pray to dead people to ask their intercession, because they
>can do nothing.
>
>God bless :o)
>
You then deny that the saints are alive in Christ? You negate much of
St. Paul? What part of the New Testament DO you believe correct? Just
the Gospels?
Richard Hutnik
Probably the closest thing to this was the Orthodox Church's dealings
with the Borgomils. That is one of the rare cases of the Eastern
Church persecuting anyone. Of course, the Borgomils were in error,
but that is another story.
- Richard Hutnik
Mike Horyn
"Richard Hutnik" <richar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:37bc9e37.03072...@posting.google.com...
I won't take the time to respond to each of your posts because the questions
you've asked have already been answered. You've come upon these posts which
are several days old (i.e., your response, para 1). As to your second
question, that too has been covered previously, however: You Catholics
still need an affirmative declaration from someone other than, "Father
Soandso." Otherwise, your answer is nothing but an excuse.
Jesus said, "Call no man, father." But, Catholics and Orthodox religions
ignore this rule. Why? Because there are others who are also violating the
rule? Have you not heard? Two wrongs do not make a right.
Your third paragraph is merely another form of excuse. That many folks have
misinterpreted Scripture don't not excuse you from it's message. Even if it
were true that the Scriptures were somehow unreliable -- Which they are
NOT -- then, Richard, would it be better to trust the sayings of sinful men?
In such a case, men of faith like Abraham, Noah, Enoch, turned to God alone.
And, not to false religions filled with idolatrous practices and
wickednesses.
Mike
Joseph Lovell
wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:50:17 +0200, Linards Ticmanis
><ticm...@coli.uni-sb.de> spake thusly in these here little old news
>'froups:
>
>
>
>>Such dead people as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?
>>
>>
>>
>
>We still v\are not to PRAY to them.. that wass the point I was trying
>to make :o)
>
>
I think the problem is that you have limited the verb "to pray" and set
it exactly equal to "to worship." It means more correctly "to ask."
From the OED: 1. To ask earnestly, humbly, or supplicatingly, to
beesch; to make a devout petition to; to ask (a person) for something as
a favour or act of grace.
So, when you ask your friends to pray for you, you are praying TO them
that they pray FOR you.
Richard Hutnik
> I won't take the time to respond to each of your posts because the questions
> you've asked have already been answered. You've come upon these posts which
> are several days old (i.e., your response, para 1). As to your second
> question, that too has been covered previously, however: You Catholics
> still need an affirmative declaration from someone other than, "Father
> Soandso." Otherwise, your answer is nothing but an excuse.
I call no man Father. For me, it would be on par with calling the a
pastor or teacher, and that violates a possible way to look at that
verse and its point. What I am saying is your simplistic view just
doesn't do justice to the entire Bible. Several times this has been
discussed and all you have to say is "don't call a man father". Are
you THIS simplistic in thinking? PLEASE reconcile this view with the
other verses that state where Paul called people father. Your
simplistic reasoning makes it sound like the Bible is contradicting
itself.
There needs to be a way to reconcile these verses. Have you even
tried this?
> Jesus said, "Call no man, father." But, Catholics and Orthodox religions
> ignore this rule. Why? Because there are others who are also violating the
> rule? Have you not heard? Two wrongs do not make a right.
And how many rules do the Baptists ignore?
> Your third paragraph is merely another form of excuse. That many folks have
> misinterpreted Scripture don't not excuse you from it's message. Even if it
> were true that the Scriptures were somehow unreliable -- Which they are
> NOT -- then, Richard, would it be better to trust the sayings of sinful men?
> In such a case, men of faith like Abraham, Noah, Enoch, turned to God alone.
> And, not to false religions filled with idolatrous practices and
> wickednesses.
Sinful men? Get real here, will ya. You are sounding increasingly
like a Dore now. Sole Fidelis should be a concept you are familar
with, so tell me why you are bringing in sin here? Do you consider
the Pslams inspired? Did God use David? Was David a murderer and
committed adultry?
Seriously, do know a single iota of the history of Christianity?
- Richard Hutnik
Christopher Robin
"?" <nos...@noway.period> wrote in message
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 20:25:40 GMT, "Christopher Robin"
> <anony...@hotmail.com> spake thusly in these here little old news
> 'froups:
>
> >
> >Except Mary is alive in Christ. Perhaps you missed the part of
> Scripture
> >where Jesus conquered death. Where Paul wrote that death does not
> separate
> >us from the Love of Christ?
>
>
Yes - must have, since you continually post that they are DEAD... Even
though CHRIST said otherwise.
Matthew 19 - Jesus speaks of ETERNAL LIFE. Eternal life indicates that we
are not dead. Our physical body may die, but we live on in eternity with
Christ.
Matthew 25 - once again, Jesus speaks of the righteous in eternal LIFE.
Mark 10
Luke 10
Luke 18
John 3:15 & 16. The very heart of the Gospel. John 3:16 - ETERNAL LIFE.
John 3:36 - Eternal life AGAIN spoken of.
John 4
John 5
John 6
John 10
John 12
John 17
Just to name a few spots in the Gospels where Eternal Life is mentioned.
Perhaps you should trust Jesus' promise about having eternal life before
posting over and over that they are DEAD. Physically, yes, they have died.
But spiritually, they are alive. And it is in Spirit that prayer is most
important. Not physically praying, but truly praying in your spirit. And
in THE SPIRIT. Mary, Peter and the other saints are doing just that - they
are alive in Spirit, and IN THE SPIRIT, praying. Praying, worshiping &
praising God for all eternity.
Also look at Romans 8:35-39 where Paul states clearly that nothing will
separate us from the Love of Christ. If we aren't separated, we are still
of the Body of Christ.
Intercessory prayer - Romans 15:30.
All being part of ONE BODY
1 Cor 12:12-27
> And you ADDED the part where Jesus it was
> 'acceptable' to pray to dead people..............
We added nothing. We simply recognize that the Bible teaches that Christ
conquered death. So death is not something to fear - it doesn't separate us
from Christ. Since it doesn't separate us from the Body of Christ, we are
all still part. And we ask others who are part of the Body to pray for us.
See above for passages where Jesus assured us that we would not die, but
have eternal life.
Christopher Robin
"?" <nos...@noway.period> wrote in message
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 20:24:35 GMT, "Christopher Robin"
>
>
Apparently you missed these parts (from the Little Office):
Lord, have mercy on us. Christ have mercy on us. Lord, have mercy on us.
Christ, hear us. Christ, graciously hear us.
God the Father of Heaven, Have mercy on us.
God the Son, Redeemer of the world, Have mercy on us.
God the Holy Ghost, Have mercy on us.
Holy Trinity, one God, Have mercy on us.
That's the VERY beginning of the Little Office - prayers to GOD to have
mercy. Every reference to Mary is "pray for us"...
Then near the end of the Little Office:
Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world, Spare us O Lord.
Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world, Graciously hear us O
Lord.
Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world, Have mercy on us.
Once again - prayers to GOD. to Spare us, to hear us and to have mercy on
us.
And finally, at the end...
Pour forth, we beseech Thee, O Lord, Thy grace into our hearts; that
we to whom the Incarnation of Christ Thy Son was made known by the
message of an angel, may by His passion and cross be brought to the
glory of His Resurrection; through the same Christ Our Lord. Amen.
Once again - beseeching the Lord for grace.
Your own evidence proved you to be a liar Doc. You ignored those most
significant parts of the Little Office to instead point out a recitation of
titles & honors of Mary. You ignored the huge grammatical difference
between "Lord, have mercy on us" and "Mary, pray for us".
But, in your hatred and malice, you'll continue to refuse to admit that you
are wrong.
Steve Nichols
>Do NOT try to tell me that I pray as Roman Catholics do, because
>you're dead wrong.
It's common, at least in the US (and I'd assume other English-speaking
countries) for legal documents to say such things as "Plaintiffs
respectfully pray the Court grant this motion ..." So I'd recommend
that you never use the court system; otherwise, folks may think that
you're a Catholic who is worshipping the nation's judiciary. (Oy!)
duke32
>And all the petitions to Mary end with "Pray for us."
This part is totally over elaine's head, Joseph. She's already been
told that a dozen times if she was told once.
But, she prefers to live out her little lie in support of her total
hatred of the RCC.
She promised the ng that she would quit name calling, and in just the
last few days, she called one poster, scout lady, a "hag", and
referenced others as "useless trolls".
It's ok to placate her, but don't take her seriously. You should be
very careful around her. She is bad news.
duke, American-American
*****
First Principle and Foundation: Man was created
to praise, reverence, and serve God, and by this
means to save his soul; and the other things on
the face of the earth were created for man's sake,
and in order to aid him in the prosecution of the
end for which he was created.
*****
duke32
>On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 17:43:26 GMT, Joseph Lovell <sub...@sonic.net>
>spake thusly in these here little old news 'froups:
>
>>
>>I take it then that you never ask others to pray for you, right?
>After
>>all, that would mean that you put your trust in them, right?
>
>
>We ask living people to pray to God the REAL HOLY FATHER for us, in
>the name of Jesus, our Lord, yes.
>
> We do not pray to dead people to ask their intercession, because they
>can do nothing.
Mark 12
26Now about the dead rising--have you not read in the book of Moses,
in the account of the bush, how God said to him, 'I am the God of
Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'[1] ? 27He is not the
God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!"
We don't pray to dead people either elaine. We pray to Mary, who is
alive and well in the arms of Jesus right now, to interceed with her
son on our behalf.
Maybe my (G)od is different from your (g)od.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>JESUS is the ROCK<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Elaine, remember, Jesus is Lord, Peter is just the rock.
duke32
wrote:
>You then deny that the saints are alive in Christ? You negate much of
>St. Paul? What part of the New Testament DO you believe correct? Just
>the Gospels?
She has no concept of what you're referring to, Joseph.
Mark 12
26Now about the dead rising--have you not read in the book of Moses,
in the account of the bush, how God said to him, 'I am the God of
Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'[1] ? 27He is not the
God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!"
Scout Lady
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 07/10/03
duke32
Christopher: tell her how we RC's have a personal relationship with
Christ in the 7 sacraments. *REAL* special emphasis is place on the
Holy Eucharist, which she insists is only symbolic.
Then ask her what she has.
Joseph Lovell
† wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:20:33 GMT, Joseph Lovell <sub...@sonic.net>
>spake thusly in these here little old news 'froups:
>
>
>
>>So, when you ask your friends to pray for you, you are praying TO
>>
>>
>them
>
>
>>that they pray FOR you.
>>
>>
>
>
>No I am not.
>
>I would be asking LIVING PEOPLE to pray TO GOD in the name of Jesus
>for my concern.......... I don't pray to other people, dead OR alive.
>
>Do NOT try to tell me that I pray as Roman Catholics do, because
>you're dead wrong.
>
>
And how, pray tell, do you get the idea that I am anywhere suggesting
that you pray in any fashion whatsoever? I pointed out a meaning of the
word "pray" that you seem unaware of and seem to reject out of hand, no
matter that it has several hundred years of use in the manner that I
described.
Again, you seem to be setting "to pray" as the same as "to worship." If
you ask someone to do something you are praying that they do that thing,
simple word substitution there and exactly zero change in meaning. To
pray is simply to ask and is different from worship. Prayer may be part
of worship, but it is not the sum total of worship.
learner
> nat...@hotmail.com (learner) wrote in message news:<c53bb03c.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> > Teresita <tere...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<bfon7...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> > > In article <WwHTa.20965$ib2.5...@twister.neo.rr.com>, "Christopher says...
>
> snip
> >
> > Learner
>
> You have much yet to learn, Learner. It took me all of 2 minutes to
> find that Romans 12:15 quotes Sirach 7:34.
You should have spent more time looking.
Sirach 7:34: "Do not turn your back on those who weep, but mourn with
those who mourn."
Romans 12:15: "Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who
mourn."
Seems pretty vague to me! But then again, Sura 53:43 of the Qur'an
says: "And that He it is who maketh laugh, and maketh weep,"
> There are hundreds of quotations from the Deuterocanonicals (the so-called
> Apocryhpa)in the New Testament.
And all of them are equally vague and unacceptable.
Learner
Alexander Arnakis
Hutnik) wrote:
>
>Probably the closest thing to this was the Orthodox Church's dealings
>with the Borgomils. That is one of the rare cases of the Eastern
>Church persecuting anyone. Of course, the Borgomils were in error,
>but that is another story.
>
Albigensians of southern France: gnostic, dualistic, antinomian to the
core. But unlike the Albigensians, the Bogomils were never completely
stamped out. They converted en masse to Islam -- these were the
ancestors of the modern-day Bosniak Moslems.
learner
> In article <c53bb03c.03072...@posting.google.com>,
> nat...@hotmail.com says...
>
> >That was a good move. The Apocrypha are full of historical,
> >geographical, chronological, and theological errors, proving that they
> >are not inspired texts.
>
> Okay. Just so long as we are clear that Protestants removed from the words of
> the book, and Catholics did not add prophesies to the book.
Okay. Just as long as we understand that these books did not belong
in the Canon. For example, instead of creation being spoken into
existence from nothing bot the word of God, [as affirmed in the
Scriptures(Gen. 1:1; Psa. 33:6-9; Heb. 11:3], the Apocrypha has God
creating the world out of "formless matter" (Wisdom of Solomon 11:17).
The Catholics may have turned a blind eye to many terrible things in
recent years, but they should not do this to the Word of God.
> Rev. 22:[19] And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
> prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the
> holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Rev. 22:18 "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of
this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the
plagues described in this book."
Learner
Robert A. Walker
Try another translation. YOu don't seem capable of learning much, Learner.
Richard Hutnik
Boromilism/Albigensianism/Catharism do pop up from time to time. So,
it isn't surprising they got completely stamped out. My point is that
the Christian East doesn't have the violent history as the Christian
West. I think part of the reason was that it didn't end up at odds
with the Empire it was in, and didn't have to adopt the role of
running a military the way the West had. The Catholic church was all
that was left when it came to a governing structure in the West. This
had it take up arms to protect people. This then lead to the idea of
a "just war" being pondered, and the Crusades most likely.
- Richard Hutnik
Teresita
>Okay. Just as long as we understand that these books did not belong
>in the Canon. For example, instead of creation being spoken into
>existence from nothing bot the word of God, [as affirmed in the
>Scriptures(Gen. 1:1; Psa. 33:6-9; Heb. 11:3], the Apocrypha has God
>creating the world out of "formless matter" (Wisdom of Solomon 11:17).
Gen.1:[2] And the earth was without form
without form = formless
--
Encyclopedia Teresita
http://web.newsguy.com/teresita
Dark Wraith
> "Scout Lady" <pj2o...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
> news:<bfnhsp$ggh6j$3...@ID-87237.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Note to Scout Lady who said that Al is not a Catholic -- Al belongs
>>> to the "True Church"
>>>
>> I agree he belongs to the True Church, but he is not Catholic in the
>> way you
>> understand it, he is Orthodox. He pretty much spelled it out for you
>> below
>> Mike.
>
> ***Of course I'm Catholic...Greek Catholic...an Eastern Ofrthodox
> Greek Catholic!!
>>
>> You might want to read the following to understand the reasons why
>> Catholics
>> and Orthodox do not believe in sola scriptura.
>
> ***We do not subscribe to "sola scriptura" because the Holy Church is
> Christ's Body. What the church teaches is Christ's teaching since
> Christ continues to guide us and teach us through His Holy Body, the
> Church.
>
> Al
Then you are saying that Christ teaches that pedophiles should be protected,
covered-up, and trasferred so as to do it again. This is the teaching of the
Catholic church, teahing by example.
Scout Lady
"†" <nos...@noway.period> wrote in message
news:ajh7iv4tl6r9q4msh8e8r1rn4dsti5vdvc@1docnet...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 19:44:17 GMT, Joseph Lovell <sub...@sonic.net>
> spake thusly in these here little old news 'froups:
>
> >
> If
> >you ask someone to do something you are praying that they do that
> thing,
> >simple word substitution there and exactly zero change in meaning. To
> >pray is simply to ask and is different from worship. Prayer may be
> part
> >of worship, but it is not the sum total of worship.
>
>
> it'll do you. Just don't bother trying to convince me of its
> appropriateness, because it is NOT appropriate.
> BAPTIST Christians do NOT pray to Mary.
> Those who DO pray to her should post it on the Roman Catholic
> newsgroup, not here in the Baptis one
> Thank you.
I'm not sure whether Mr. Lovett is a Roman Catholic Elaine.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 07/11/03
Al Green
"Dark Wraith" <greml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:IsSUa.704$gn6.2...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
This is the stupidist, most idiotic supposition I have ever seen a
:Christian: write. How the heck did you ever come to that conclusion?
However, we Orthodox are not Roman Catholics so I'm not qualified to answer
for the RCC.
Al
Christopher Robin
"?" <nos...@noway.period> wrote in message
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 17:23:26 GMT, "Christopher Robin"
> Even
> >though CHRIST said otherwise.
> >Matthew 19 - Jesus speaks of ETERNAL LIFE. Eternal life indicates
> that we
> >are not dead. Our physical body may die, but we live on in eternity
> with
> >Christ.
>
> Mary is not worthy to receive prayer, and neither is anyone else who
> has died in Christ.
They are all worthy to be asked to pray for us.
> While their soul will indeed live on, as I have stated numerous YEARS now,
> that still doesn't make them QUALIFIED to receive prayer.
>
Prayer is to ask. They are just as qualified to be asked to pray to GOD for
us as any other Christian in the Body of Christ. Unless you wish to dispute
Scripture and claim they are no longer part of the Body of Christ.
> Don't forget that Mary also ADMITTED her own need of a Savior. Would
> one who needs a SAVIOR be qualified to receive anyone's prayers?
> Hardly!
>
Then by your logic, nobody can pray for another. Because we all need the
Savior. And we all receive prayers (requests, are beseeched, etc.) to pray
to GOD for one another.
Paul asked others who needed a Savior to pray for him. As we all do.
Once again, your limited definition of pray doesn't make it correct.
> >Matthew 25 - once again, Jesus speaks of the righteous in eternal LIFE.
> >Mark 10
> >Luke 10
> >Luke 18
> >John 3:15 & 16. The very heart of the Gospel. John 3:16 - ETERNAL LIFE.
> >John 3:36 - Eternal life AGAIN spoken of.
> >John 4
> >John 5
> >John 6
> >John 10
> >John 12
> >John 17
> >
> >Just to name a few spots in the Gospels where Eternal Life is mentioned.
> >Perhaps you should trust Jesus' promise about having eternal life before
> >posting over and over that they are DEAD.
>
> Dream on, Christopher R............. Your ridiculous inference that 'I
> don't trust Jesus' is ABSURD.
> And they ARE dead people.
>
Then you aren't trusting Christ. Christ promised us eternal life. Do they
have eternal life? Are they alive in Christ, Elaine?
> > Physically, yes, they have died.
> >But spiritually, they are alive.
>
> EXACTLY what I have been saying for years. So what's your problem?
>
Your claim that they are DEAD and cannot pray for us.
> > And it is in Spirit that prayer is most
> >important. Not physically praying, but truly praying in your spirit.
> > And in THE SPIRIT. Mary, Peter and the other saints are doing just that
> >- theyare alive in Spirit, and IN THE SPIRIT, praying. Praying,
worshiping
> > & praising God for all eternity.
> >
> They CANNOT hear your prayers or act on them, nonetheless, which is
> something ELSE I have said for years.
Where in Scripture is that??? Please be specific... Where does it state
that they cannot hear us ask them to pray for us or that they cannot pray
for us.
Hebrews 12:1 - a great cloud of witnesses - they are observing what goes on.
Luke 15:7 Rejoicing in all of heaven over 1 sinner who repents. How do they
know if they aren't aware, can't hear, etc.
Scripture refutes you... as usual.
> When WE die and go to be with the Lord forever, WE will not be
> qualified to receive anyone's prayers either, so why do you imagine
> Mary or anyone else who has passed from this world to Heaven is?
> If your parents have passed on, do you pray TO them?
>
Yep... I would ask them for prayers. for they too are part of the Body of
Christ. Physical Death does not separate us from the Body of Christ. And,
as Paul so well put it,
> >Also look at Romans 8:35-39 where Paul states clearly that nothing will
> >separate us from the Love of Christ. If we aren't separated, we are
still
> >of the Body of Christ.
> >
> No one said anything ABOUT anyone being separated from Him. The topic
> WAS on being alive or dead. Kindly stay ON TOPIC or this discussion will
be terminated.
>
That is on topic. You are claiming they are dead - I am pointing out that
physical death does not separate us from the Body of Christ. And you (not
surprisingly) snipped the final Scriptural passage that then indicates that
one part of the Body of Christ (you for example) cannot state that another
part (those who have physically died but are alive in Christ) is not
necessary.
All being part of ONE BODY
1 Cor 12:12-27
Here's verses 21 & 22
21The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot
say to the feet, "I don't need you!" 22On the contrary, those parts of the
body that seem to be weaker are indispensable,
Scripture refutes you.
Christopher Robin
"?" <nos...@noway.period> wrote in message
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 17:28:19 GMT, "Christopher Robin"
> <anony...@hotmail.com> spake thusly in these here little old news
> 'froups:
>
> >
> >"?" <nos...@noway.period> wrote in message
> >news:j1t4ivopvk1pqa85e1opbh0qfsj158eoh7@1docnet...
> >> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 20:24:35 GMT, "Christopher Robin"
> >> <anony...@hotmail.com> spake thusly in these here little old
> news
> >> 'froups:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >All prayers to GOD... Asking GOD to have mercy on us.
> >>
> >>
> >> No-- they are prayers TO MARY. You are fooling no one but yourself.
> >
> >Apparently you missed these parts (from the Little Office):
>
> IT, not me.
>
No, you posted it, you just didn't read it. Didn't read the beginning or
the end of the prayer which were clearly prayers to GOD. You claimed it
started with prayers to Mary... but the beginning quite clearly is prayers
to God for mercy.
You clearly stated on 7/25/03 @ 11:02am [msg
id:<l6f2ivgsra20v3tf2lcmokpn2t3erjrrir@1docnet>]
Notice she is prayed to and addressed with all the 'titles'
FIRST.............
then, the 'prayer' goes on to add:
You neglected to note that FIRST was prayer to GOD
And then the end is another entreaty to GOD.
So, in fact, as usual, your attempt to prove what you claim only proved you
to be a liar.
> >
> >Your own evidence proved you to be a liar Doc. You ignored those most
> >significant parts of the Little Office to instead point out a recitation
of
> >titles & honors of Mary. You ignored the huge grammatical difference
> >between "Lord, have mercy on us" and "Mary, pray for us".
> >
> >But, in your hatred and malice, you'll continue to refuse to admit that
you
> >are wrong.
> >
> Another lie, Christopher, or you did not READ my entire message. I
> went back and looked, and it INCLUDED:
>
> Notice she is prayed to and addressed with all the 'titles'
> FIRST.............
> then, the 'prayer' goes on to add:
>
That's where you were wrong Elaine - You neglected that the FIRST part of
the Little Office is as follows:
"Lord, have mercy on us. Christ have mercy on us. Lord, have mercy on
us. Christ, hear us. Christ, graciously hear us.
God the Father of Heaven, Have mercy on us.
God the Son, Redeemer of the world, Have mercy on us.
God the Holy Ghost, Have mercy on us.
Holy Trinity, one God, Have mercy on us. "
That's the beginning of the Little Office, so that's what is FIRST.
After that Mary is asked to "PRAY FOR US"
> Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world, Spare us O Lord.
> Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world, Graciously hear us
> O Lord.
> Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world, Have mercy on us.
>
> Pray for us O holy Mother of God, That we may be made worthy of the
> promises of Christ.
>
> Pour forth, we beseech Thee, O Lord, Thy grace into our hearts; that
> we to whom the Incarnation of Christ Thy Son was made known by the
> message of an angel, may by His passion and cross be brought to the
> glory of His Resurrection; through the same Christ Our Lord. Amen.
>
> May the divine assistance remain always with us. Amen.
>
> And may the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God,
> rest in peace. Amen
>
>
>
> Why pray to her first,
We prayed to GOD first. Go read the Little Office more carefully - go read
your own post. What's the VERY FIRST 6 lines, Elaine?
> and why pray to her AT ALL?
> She is DEAD, and can do nothing to help you
Scripture refutes you. We've been over this. She's alive in Christ. Romans
8 - She's part of the Body of Christ. You cannot state that one part is not
necessary 1 Cor 12:12-27.
> ..... and not only that, she is not ENTITLED to receive prayers.
>
Then you cannot pray for others either.
She is ENTITLED as a member of the Body of Christ to be asked to PRAY FOR
US. Which is what the Little Office is asking.
> NEXT:
>
> Hail Mary [2676-2678]
> Hail Mary, full of grace; the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou
> among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary,
> Mother of God, Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.
> Amen.
>
> WHO is being given the preference and honor here? It sure isn't the Lord.
>
Sure it is - It is honoring the Lord by recognizing the Honors HE bestowed
upon her. Luke 1.
"Blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus" - honoring Jesus.
MOTHER OF GOD - honors Jesus' diety. Elizabeth herself called Mary the
Mother of my Lord.
In the end - what is asked? For Mary to PRAY FOR US. Asking another in the
Body of Christ to Pray for us.
Joseph Lovell
Scout Lady wrote:
>" " <nos...@noway.period> wrote in message
>news:ajh7iv4tl6r9q4msh8e8r1rn4dsti5vdvc@1docnet...
>
>
>>On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 19:44:17 GMT, Joseph Lovell <sub...@sonic.net>
>>spake thusly in these here little old news 'froups:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Again, you seem to be setting "to pray" as the same as "to worship."
>>>
>>>
>>If
>>
>>
>>>you ask someone to do something you are praying that they do that
>>>
>>>
>>thing,
>>
>>
>>>simple word substitution there and exactly zero change in meaning. To
>>>pray is simply to ask and is different from worship. Prayer may be
>>>
>>>
>>part
>>
>>
>>>of worship, but it is not the sum total of worship.
>>>
>>>
>>Look------ if YOU want to pray TO Mary, go ahead, for all the good
>>it'll do you. Just don't bother trying to convince me of its
>>appropriateness, because it is NOT appropriate.
>>BAPTIST Christians do NOT pray to Mary.
>>Those who DO pray to her should post it on the Roman Catholic
>>newsgroup, not here in the Baptis one
>>Thank you.
>>
>>
>
>I'm not sure whether Mr. Lovett is a Roman Catholic Elaine.
>
I was raised Roman Catholic. Practicing Eastern Orthodox now.
And Elaine seems to be doing what many protestants do and setting "to
pray" as the same as "to worship." Two different things, although prayer
is a part of worship.
Scout Lady
"Joseph Lovell" <sub...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:3F24685D...@sonic.net...
several times. I even tried just posting the definition from the dictionary
and was told the Jesuits changed the definition by someone here in the
Baptist group. All we can do is tell the truth, if they wish to believe that
pray means worship there isn't anything more that can be done.
Og
I can't be sure but it seems there is a differince between
asking someone to pray for you and praying to someone to
pray for you. When you ask Mary to pray for you are you
on your knees with your hands clasped? Does prayer equal
worship? When we pray to Jesus are we not worshipping Him?
As catholics prayer to Mary is not required for salvation.
So why risk it? What if it really is worship?
Og
Scout Lady
"Og" <O...@bashan.org> wrote in message
news:vi927f6...@corp.supernews.com...
follow your conscience but allow others to pray as they feel inspired to
without indirectly implying that they will be condemned for doing so.
Steve Hayes
Who prays on their knees with their hands clasped?
Who doesn't?
--
The unworthy servant of God,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/
Joseph Lovell
† wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:03:13 GMT, Joseph Lovell <sub...@sonic.net>
>spake thusly in these here little old news 'froups:
>
>
>
>>>I'm not sure whether Mr. Lovett is a Roman Catholic Elaine.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I was raised Roman Catholic. Practicing Eastern Orthodox now.
>>And Elaine seems to be doing what many protestants do and setting "to
>>pray" as the same as "to worship." Two different things, although
>>
>>
>prayer
>
>
>>is a part of worship.
>>
>>
>
>Yes indeed, prayer IS part of worship. But I am not confusing the two,
>I assure you, sir.
> To pray TO a dead person is wrong, and Mary IS DEAD.
>
If you truely believe that, then you reject teh words of Christ, St.
Peter, St. Paul.
>
>
learner
> In article <c53bb03c.03072...@posting.google.com>,
> nat...@hotmail.com says...
>
> >Okay. Just as long as we understand that these books did not belong
> >in the Canon. For example, instead of creation being spoken into
> >existence from nothing bot the word of God, [as affirmed in the
> >Scriptures(Gen. 1:1; Psa. 33:6-9; Heb. 11:3], the Apocrypha has God
> >creating the world out of "formless matter" (Wisdom of Solomon 11:17).
>
> Gen.1:[2] And the earth was without form
>
> without form = formless
First of all, the Hebrew word translated as "formless" [to'-hoo]
originates from an unused root meaning "to lie waste".
Second, the Genesis account begins with God creating [Hebrew
baw-raw'] the universe from nothing, where the "Wisdom of Solomon"
mentions nothing of this event. This is contrary to the Catholic
dogma of the "creatio ex nihil", as defined by the Fourth Lateran
Council, and dangerously approaches a form of the heresy of
emanationism.
Learner
Al
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:36:33 -0400, "Og" <O...@bashan.org> wrote:
>
> >Just for the sake of discussion.
> >I can't be sure but it seems there is a differince between
> >asking someone to pray for you and praying to someone to
> >pray for you. When you ask Mary to pray for you are you
> >on your knees with your hands clasped? Does prayer equal
> >worship? When we pray to Jesus are we not worshipping Him?
> >As catholics prayer to Mary is not required for salvation.
> >So why risk it? What if it really is worship?
>
> Who prays on their knees with their hands clasped?
***Roman Catholics, protestants, and some Orthodox.
>
> Who doesn't?
***Most Orthodox. The preferred stance is standing before an icon, or
just standing with one's prayer book in corporate prayer. Kneeling,
however, is not forbidden.
Al
billu
"learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c53bb03c.03072...@posting.google.com...
Just because Solomon doesn't mention it does not mean that it
denies it. Lack of reference <> refutation of an idea. It's a
different book for a different purpose. Or do you think that
every remote reference must contain the whole story to be valid?
That passage above merely recounts that God created the earth
it is not intended as a replacement for the whole Genesis story.
learner
> Ruth, Esther & 2 Kings weren't quoted either. Guess you should rip them out
> of the Bible too. Not to mention several other books.
The criteria for accepting/rejecting texts has nothing to do with
whether [or not] these texts were quoted in the Gospels. Your
counter-argument is nothing more than the tu toque fallacy. The fact
of the matter is that many Apocryphal books contain significant
historical and chronological errors as well as teachings which are in
conflict with the Gospels. That is why they are rejected.
For example, there are two contradictory accounts of the death of
Antiochus Epiphanes, in II Maccabees. One passage says that Antiochus
and his company were "cut to pieces in the temple of Nanaea by the
treachery of Nanaea's priests" (II Maccabees 1:13-16), while another
verse in the same book says that Antiochus was "taken with a noisome
sickness" and so "ended his life among the mountains by a most piteous
fate in a strange land" (II Maccabees 9:19-29).
Learner
learner
> Just because Solomon doesn't mention it does not mean that it
> denies it.
Which shows that it is an inferior text and does not bear the imprint
of Divine Inspiration.
> Lack of reference <> refutation of an idea. It's a
> different book for a different purpose. Or do you think that
> every remote reference must contain the whole story to be valid?
It should be consistent with Genesis on such a key point. Your
defense of the "Wisdom of Solomon" lowers the bar concerning what can,
or should, be considered as Scripture. After all, the Qur'an and the
Book of Mormon also contain stories and themes similar to those found
in the Bible. Should we accept these books even though they do not
contain the "whole story"?
Learner
billu
No but then again they were never approved by the Church as part
of the Bible as Wisdom has been sever times over 1000+ years. Makes
for a different story doesn't it?
Elizabeth Bonello
Genesis 1:1-31--Adam was created *after* cattle and all other creatures.
Genesis 2:4-20--Adam was created *before* cattle and all other creatures.
Since there is a direct contradiction in two consecutive books, I guess we
had better throw out the book of Genesis then....
LittleBit
Christopher Robin
news:<w2gUa.23140$ib2.6...@twister.neo.rr.com>...
>
> > Ruth, Esther & 2 Kings weren't quoted either. Guess you should rip them
out
> > of the Bible too. Not to mention several other books.
>
> The criteria for accepting/rejecting texts has nothing to do with
> whether [or not] these texts were quoted in the Gospels. Your
> counter-argument is nothing more than the tu toque fallacy.
in the NT. Don't complain now that your standard doesn't hold up.
Christopher Robin
> I can't be sure but it seems there is a differince between
> asking someone to pray for you and praying to someone to
> pray for you. When you ask Mary to pray for you are you
> on your knees with your hands clasped?
> Does prayer equal worship?
No.
When we pray to Jesus are we not worshipping Him?
> As catholics prayer to Mary is not required for salvation.
> So why risk it? What if it really is worship?
>
But it's not. It's really asking someone else to pray.
learner
> Genesis 1:1-31--Adam was created *after* cattle and all other creatures.
> Genesis 2:4-20--Adam was created *before* cattle and all other creatures.
> Since there is a direct contradiction in two consecutive books, I guess we
> had better throw out the book of Genesis then....
No. There is no contradiction between Genesis Chapter 1 and Genesis
Chapter 2. Genesis Chapter 1 is a detailed explanation of the six
days of creation, while Genesis Chapter 2 is a recap, and a more
detailed explanation of the sixth day - the day that Adam and Eve were
created. The proof of this is that the animals are not mentioned
until after the creation of Adam because their purpose was designated
by Adam. They did not need to be mentioned until after Adam was
created.
Nice try.
Learner
learner
I never said that this was the only critrion. There are other reasons
why these book are rejected by both the Jews and the Christians.
Historical, geographical and theological errors also come into the
debate.
Learner