Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Amos 1:1 The words of Amos, who was among the sheepherders from Tekoa, which he envisioned in visions concerning Israel in the days of Uzziah king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam son of Joash, king of Israel, two years before the earthquake. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Amos 1:1 The words of Amos, who was among the sheepherders of Tekoa, which he saw [in a divine revelation] concerning Israel in the days of Uzziah king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel, two years before the earthquake. [Zech 14:5] |
Subject: Why do catholic call Mary mother of God. |
Bible Note: "I have to say I have never seen anything like what you have described." I just saw it last week, and I would have to assume, without any other context, that it would be the driver voicing that to the Virgin. "We might have to fight back by hanging out portrait of Luther and Calvin. At least they were Catholics once. :-)" Well, I still am, only imperfectly so, right? ;) "By the way, I can tell my surgeon that my life is in his hands without any connotation of worship. Same goes for my daughter when she is driving and I am riding with her." Yes, but in those instances it is clear what is meant: a physical trust upon the surgeon for one's PHYSICAL survival. On the other hand, what could the driver be expressing by those words? If you are mystified, that is fine, but it's pretty characteristic of the Hispanic Catholicism in these parts, making very much of Mary and not so much of Jesus at all. "I am not sure I fully understand your question on the Eucharist. It lacks your usual clarity. What exactly in Rev 1 are you alluding to?" I was alluding to St. John's vision of the resurrected Christ. His glorified body is indeed different from his earthly one, but it is still apparently finite in nature. I hold that it violates Chalcedon to attribute divine qualities to Jesus' human nature or to attribute human qualities to Jesus' divine nature. Jesus Christ now exists as a permanent hypostatic union between the two natures in one person, without mixing or confusion of the natures. "I see it in the other passages you cite, although you avoid the citation of the instituition narratives of the Gospels and 1 Cor 11, which are key to the doctrine of the Real Presence." I hold to the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Supper (which is also clearly presented in 1 Corinthians 10 as well, and at least has some connection to Jesus' statements at the end of John 6 as well). However, I disagree that Jesus Christ is physically and locally in place of, in, with, or under the substance of the elements. Paul still refers to "the BREAD that we break" (1 Corinthians 10:16) and "as often as you eat this BREAD" (1 Corinthians 11:26; see the following verses as well as he continues to refer to it as "bread"). The doctrine of transubstantiation holds that the bread is no longer there, but the body of Christ is present with only the _accidens_ of bread (which depends not on Scripture, but Aristotelian philosophy). What I believe is Calvin's doctrine of a sacramental union between the elements themselves (which remain physically unchanged) and the body and blood of Christ, which are locally in heaven I do not hold to the prominent view today that they are merely bare symbols, because I agree with you that there is too much Scriptural evidence that we are participating in the actual body and blood of Christ in some fashion, not to mention the fact that partaking in an unworthy manner has very real, physical results as we see in 1 Corinthians 11. But just like baptismal water is a physical means of God's grace while it remains water, so I believe the bread and wine remains bread and wine as we feed spiritually on Christ, with whom the Christian is united. The Heidelberg Catechism illustrates this view well: "Question 75. How art thou admonished and assured in the Lord's Supper, that thou art a partaker of that one sacrifice of Christ, accomplished on the cross, and of all his benefits? Answer: Thus: That Christ has commanded me and all believers, to eat of this broken bread, and to drink of this cup, in remembrance of him, adding these promises: (a) first, that his body was offered and broken on the cross for me, and his blood shed for me, as certainly as I see with my eyes, the bread of the Lord broken for me, and the cup communicated to me; and further, that he feeds and nourishes my soul to everlasting life, with his crucified body and shed blood, as assuredly as I receive from the hands of the minister, and taste with my mouth the bread and cup of the Lord, as certain signs of the body and blood of Christ. Question 79. Why then doth Christ call the bread "his body", and the cup "his blood", or "the new covenant in his blood"; and Paul the "communion of body and blood of Christ"? Answer: Christ speaks thus, not without great reason, namely, not only thereby to teach us, that as bread and wine support this temporal life, so his crucified body and shed blood are the true meat and drink, whereby our souls are fed to eternal life; (a) but more especially by these visible signs and pledges to assure us, that we are as really partakers of his true body and blood by the operation of the Holy Ghost as we receive by the mouths of our bodies these holy signs in remembrance of him; (b) and that all his sufferings and obedience are as certainly ours, as if we had in our own persons suffered and made satisfaction for our sins to God." --Joe! |