Results 1021 - 1040 of 1443
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Emmaus Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1021 | Why more fish? | John 21:10 | Emmaus | 109283 | ||
Mommapbs, The more I look at this story of Jesus' appearance on the shores of Tiberias, the more I see. The loves and fishes remind of the miracle of the loves and fishes, a Echaristic image. The charcoal fire like the one where Peter denied Christ three times and now Jesus asks Peter three times if Peter loves him. Jesu says, "bring some fish that you have caught." Peter gets the fish, then shortly thereafter Jesus tells Peter, "feed my lambs... feed my sheep" Emmaus |
||||||
1022 | Acts 5-7 just looking for opinions | Acts | Emmaus | 126088 | ||
followinghim, You have it correct. Proto as in prototype or first model of martyrs for the faith. Stephen does not himself prefigure the Second Coming but in his speech he speaks of seeing Jesus standing at the right hand of the Father. (Acts 7:56) This makes me think of Jesus before thew Sanhedrin in Luke 22:67-71. Daniel 7:13-14 which prophcies Jesus' Ascension to the Father to be given all power and glory and dominion. But we also know that he will return on the clouds in glory and power. (1 Thess 416-17). Emmaus |
||||||
1023 | time | Acts 1:3 | Emmaus | 42910 | ||
Hank, Kalos, Scott, Makarios, May I throw into the mix what I find a helful guide regarding how we should approach the relationship between the literal and spiritual sense of scripture? The senses of Scripture "According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church. The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal." The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs. 1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism. 2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction". 3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem. A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses: The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith; The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny." The Catechism Emmaus |
||||||
1024 | What was infused? | Acts 1:3 | Emmaus | 44710 | ||
Tim and Indiana, You might find this opinion of interest in the context of your discussion. It is from a Catholic perspective, but relevent to the current conversation. "It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion takes these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faithful Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. 38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies. This Letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers." Pius XII, Humani Generis, 1950 Emmaus |
||||||
1025 | What was infused? | Acts 1:3 | Emmaus | 44767 | ||
Joe, Humani Generis was written in response to the irresponsible secular and theological speculation in Protestant and Catholic circles that was going on at the time and and to which you obviously and unfortunately were exposed. As you have learned, even authoritative doctrinal statements are not always adhered to by the rank and file, Catholic or Protestant. I quoted only four of fourty three paragraphs. At 43 paragraphs it is not long, but too long for this space. You may find the whole document interesting, especially early passages which set the stage and background for the document itself and the paragraphs I quoted. Here is a link. http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P12HUMAN.HTM Emmaus |
||||||
1026 | who was judus repacement as an apostal | Acts 1:20 | Emmaus | 163591 | ||
Doc, Then I guess the Scripture was not fulfilled, to which Peter referred and that therefore that passage of Acts is not inerrant. In fact and in Scripture, the casting of lots was a venerated method of discerning God's will (Leviticus 16:17-10; Proverbs 16:33)and for assigning certain duties of Levitical priests serving in the Temple (1 Chronicles 24:31; Luke 1:8). But hey, what do I know, I just read it in the Bible. As for Paul: Barnabus was an apostle too, set aside by God and sent for the same task as Paul at the same time (Acts 13:2-3). So not all apostles were counted among the Twelve and if Paul and Barnabus were there would be thirteen. A bookie (the Scriptural kind of course) would be happy to take your bet and prosper. ;-) Emmaus |
||||||
1027 | who was judus repacement as an apostal | Acts 1:20 | Emmaus | 163602 | ||
Doc, Here I was giving you the benfit of the doubt that you knew an apostle was one who was "sent" as Paul and Barnabus were together. By your logic if Peter was in error about scripture being fulfilled in this instance he was probably in error in his subsequent references to the fulfillment of scripture in the rest of Acts. I will stick to Acts and let you puzzle out Revelation along with the sometimes puzzling and changing names of the twelves tribes found in various places in the Old Testament. What is you bet on those names. I hear someone humming Danny Boy in the background. Emmaus |
||||||
1028 | who was judus repacement as an apostal | Acts 1:20 | Emmaus | 163603 | ||
Kalos, "And yet we never hear of Matthias again (by name). He appears to play no significant role in the church." ... "Some Bible teachers view Matthias as an "invalid" member of the 12 apostles," Which begs the question: How many other apostles of the original twelve were never heard of again and were they therefor "invalid" members of the tweleve? Is hearing of them again a valid criteria for determining their "validity" as apostles? Kassy had a simple biblical question which had a simple bibilcal answer, now being complicated by the unstated but very apparent fear and loathing of the possible implications of the text for apostolic succession. That should be another thread if and when someone has a question on it. This thread should have ended five posts ago with the simple and obvious answer to Kassy's simple question. Emmaus |
||||||
1029 | what did he do to be replaced ? | Acts 1:23 | Emmaus | 125404 | ||
prayon, John 20:19-24 does not say there were twelve disciples there only that disciples were there. It only says in verse 24 that Thomas, "one of the twelve" was not there. It does not say Judas was there. The Judas in Acts 1:13 is Judas (Jude), son of James, not Judas Iscariot. If you count the names there are 11. However, I agree that one can harmonize Acts and Matthew's descrition of Judas' death by using ckoked as a translation of the word also translated hang, which is why I phrased my answer the way I did. I see no mention of a cliff in Acts 1:18, just falling down, perhaps after he choked in some manner. Emmaus |
||||||
1030 | what did he do to be replaced ? | Acts 1:23 | Emmaus | 125405 | ||
prayon, The Judas or Jude in Acts 1:13 is also sometimes referred to as Thaddeus or Tude Thaddeus. Emmaus |
||||||
1031 | what did he do to be replaced ? | Acts 1:23 | Emmaus | 125406 | ||
prayon, ARRRRGH! I meant Jude Thaddeus, not Tude thaddeus. Emmaus |
||||||
1032 | Differences Between Protestant Groups | Acts 2:1 | Emmaus | 108962 | ||
date, You should look at this book, which is available in the religion section of many public libraries. Or you can get it at any bookstore or online. It outlines in short articles all the differences in belief and practice of the many denominations. Handbook of Denominations in the United States by Frank Spencer Mead/ Samuel S. Hill Emmaus |
||||||
1033 | WERE THERE ONLY JEWS AT THE PENTECOST? | Acts 2:1 | Emmaus | 133650 | ||
Reighnsky, "Please understand that the Gospel of Christ was not open to Gentiles until the ministry of Paul, without first possessing a prerequisite Judaic conversion under the Law of Moses." Actually the Gospel was opened to the Gentiles before Paul through Peter under the direction of the Holy Spirit when he preached to and baptized Cornelius and his household in Acts 10 and 11. Emmaus |
||||||
1034 | who received the Holy Ghost @Pentacost? | Acts 2:4 | Emmaus | 65238 | ||
FTimA, I thought it was clear from Acts 1 , who was living in the upper room and Acts 2 says "all" were gathered and "all" were filled with the Holy Spirit. Where does it say only the apostles received the Holy Spirit? Now who preached afterward is another story. There it would seem only the apostles preached with Peter as the chief spokeman. Emmaus Emmaus |
||||||
1035 | who received the Holy Ghost @Pentacost? | Acts 2:4 | Emmaus | 65275 | ||
FTimA, "Also, how much time had passed between when the 120 were in the upper room and "When the day of Pentecost had come"? I myself do not know at this time but are we to assume that they ALL stayed in the upper room during this period of time?" According to Scripture , Acts 1:3, Jesus ascended 40 days after his death and resurrection. Pentecost was 50 days after the Passover on the Jewish calender. It is taken that those gathered and living in the upper room praying as Christ commnaded. For nine days they prayered and on the tenth day, Pentecost, the Holy Spirit decended upon them. Emmaus |
||||||
1036 | Church grafted into Israel? | Acts 2:17 | Emmaus | 60993 | ||
Searcher, I thought it said His Spirit would be poured out on all mankind. Does this not refer to the ingrafting of the Gentiles into the family of God and yet also point to the regrafting in of Israel before the Second Coming? Can not scripture be understood on more than one level? It seems to me that many prophetic passages have seen fulfillment in a literal sense in the time they were written, then in the New Testament and also again yet in the future. Why would the Apotle be quoting this passage if it was not being fulfilled as he spoke of it. yet we can see that there is to be also a future fulfillment at the end of our age, just as Acts ushered out the old age and ushered in this age. Of course I may be missing something, since I am rather weak on dispensational theology. Emmaus |
||||||
1037 | The olive tree graft in Romans | Acts 2:17 | Emmaus | 60994 | ||
Searcher , I thought the discussion was abut Joel being quotes in Acts. I am obviously not following this conversation closely enough. i think I will bow out. Emmaus |
||||||
1038 | What did Martin Luther believe? | Acts 2:25 | Emmaus | 95313 | ||
John, I think your misunderstand graceful. She is asserting that her position and that of the WOF teachers about Jesus being tortured in hell for three days are found in Luther's teachings. The WOF teachers say that it was the torture in hell of Jesus, not just His the death on the cross that saved us and graceful is asserting that this is the teaching of Luther and is therefore nothing new. I think that Erasmus is just the website's name. The arguments are not those of Erasmus. This is an odd turn. Graceful is using Catholic arguments against Luther to say Luther was the originator of the WOF position. So are with graceful and the WOF side or EdB and Hank on the other side? It would never have occured to me to put Luther in the WOF camp, but graceful apparently does. I think the WOF theology goes way beyond Luther's position on this one passage of scripture. As for Bondage of the Will destroying Erasmus' arguments. That is I suspect a matter of opinion. ;-) Emmaus |
||||||
1039 | What did Martin Luther believe? | Acts 2:25 | Emmaus | 95330 | ||
John, I have read some of Luther. The local Catholic Seminary, St Mary's, (are you still in Baltimore?) has a set of his complete works, in which I have spend some time. His sermons given on the Marian feast days are very interesting. However, although familiar with the main thrust of Bondage, I can not claim to have read more than excerpts. The image of Satan in the saddle of my will and me with the bit in my teeth is indeed an impressive metaphor, but I prefer to think of God using a rather different method than the Old Sparky, the jockey. The Good Shepherd imagery or even Christ coming in judgement is much more appealing to me and seems more dignified for the Lord. Certainly I would not expect Him to do anything in the same manner as the Adversary. Emmaus |
||||||
1040 | Jesus' name baptism? | Acts 2:38 | Emmaus | 30961 | ||
Savannah, You seem to have forgotten Acts 8:14-17 and the Church's unbroken history of trinitarian baptism according to the command of Jesus. Apostolic men, successors of and closer to the apostles than we are resolved this issue almost two thousand years ago. It is their faith and their understanding of baptism that has been passed down to us. To be Christian is to be Trinitarian. This is basic catechism (quoted below)instruction in the Faith. If believe in the Trinity fails, the distinct Christian vision of God, including Jesus as God incarnate, collapses. Who is he offering Himself as sacrifice up to for us? Any why would we need the Holy Spirit whome Jesus promised and sent? God already had many names in the Old Testament and he has many among the Muslims too. The Christian Trinity is not about names it is about three Persons with one divine substance or nature. " 253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity".[83] The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."[84] "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."[85] 254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."[86] "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."[87] They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."[88] The divine Unity is Triune. 255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."[89] Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."[90] "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."[91] " Emmaus |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 ] Next > Last [73] >> |