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 think from now on I would like to stick to more mundane bible questions." Oh, come on, Emmaus. You have to admit that discussions like these have a lot more significance than the "Cain's wife" question or the percent alcohol by volume of Bible wine! :) 'Look carefully at Catholic doctrinal statements on the Real Presence, including transubstantiation and you will notice that the word "physical" is scrupulosly avoided and absent. The terms used for the Presence are always "substanially" and "sacramentally," but never physically.' Well, if the Catholic definition of "substantially" is substantially different than the common definition of "physically," then precisely what is the disagreement between the Calvinist view and the Catholic view? Here is the WCF, Chapter 29, on the sacrament: "VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses." I also am confused by Merton's statements on the body of Christ not being locally present in the Eucharist. "Locally" comes from the Latin word "locus," meaning place. For something to be local means for it to be in the same place ("location") as the thing it is local to. Now after the words of institution are spoken, what does the Catholic priest hold in his hands? Is it bread or the body of Christ? How can one say that what is being given to the communicants and what they are ingesting is the very substance of Christ's body, and at the same time insist that the body of Christ is not "locally" in the sacrament? Merton seems to be contradicting himself in the very same paragraph. Christ converts the substance of the bread into His body, but doesn't produce it? In the Catholic view, does Christ produces the substance of his body from the bread, or he replaces it with the already-existing substance of His body? If the latter, we fall back into the Chalcedonian problem: Christ's human nature is not infinite. The two natures of Christ exist "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation." To attribute infinity and omnipresence to Christ's body (his human nature) would be confusing and/or changing the natures. You wrote: "Are you teaching techniques for Spanish as challanging as your forum style?" Boy, I hope so! :) "They must hate you now, but the survivors prbably love you later if they gain proficiency." And, unlike on the Forum, I don't have too many students telling me I have got my Spanish wrong! :) May God bless you during this Advent season! --Joe! |