Results 841 - 860 of 1443
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Emmaus Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
841 | Them or All of Us? | Mark 16:15 | Emmaus | 63173 | ||
Lionstrong, The Church government theme has been addressed to some extent already, though perhaps not exhaustively. In fact it was briefly touched upon once in an exchange between us under thread # 29291, my post dated 1-17-01, 6:55 pm. In anothere thread #26075 when Hank asked me to adress the question of papal primacy and infallibility. See my posts starting on 12-16-01, 12:37 am. Emmaus |
||||||
842 | Children/Baby baptism Scripture? | Mark 16:16 | Emmaus | 46483 | ||
Makarios, Of course we may disagree on this matter in charity. I have no intention of pursuing the subject further, having made the points I intended to make and thought needed to be made. I have no intent of making a personal attack on anyone. Certainly not an attack against you. I also believe in "believer's baptism," if one has not been baptized and raised in the faith. :-) I was baptised as an infant and raised in the faith. Every Easter Catholics renew their baptismal vows and are reminded of their baptism in a sprinkling rite. My daugther was baptized as an infant and raised in the faith and she continues in the Faith. My wife was born to an atheist Jewish father and a Presbyterian mother. My wife's mother, who died a few months after her husband died and a few months before I met my wife, believed in believer's baptism. She raised my wife in the Methodist Church without having her baptized. My wife, after we had been married 12 years, was baptized at the age of 38 at an Easter Vigil Mass. No one was more surprised than me when she announced that she intended to be baptised and enter the Church. So you see, in my household we cover both sides of the issue. Blessings to you also. Your brother in Christ, Emmaus |
||||||
843 | Is baptism for salvation? (Mark 16:16) | Mark 16:16 | Emmaus | 99955 | ||
Aixien, "It is true. Look it up and you will find a long conversation, accusations, different opinions, and no agreement. Wouldn’t it be nice if you could come to a place like this and find an authoritative answer?" Yes it would be. I count myself fortunate to have such a place in the teaching authoity of my Church. Th buck stops somewhere there and these type of thorny debates are eventually put to rest by an authoritative pronouncement. For example, on this forum there is a lot of debate about whether John 3:5 refers to baptism. For me it is a settled issue. That is one of maybe seven passages which my Church has declared difinitive authortative interpretation. A few others that I can immediately think of in the same category are the interetptation of John 6 with Luke 22:17-22, Mark 14:22-24, Matt26:26-28, 1 Cor 11:23-25 and James 5:14-15. Emmaus |
||||||
844 | I need a reflection on Luke: 13-35 | Luke | Emmaus | 42139 | ||
St Dick, One of my favorite passages. I focus on two major points in the Emmaus story: the instruction by Jesus on typology in studying the scripture and the recognition of Jesus in the Breaking of the Bread. Anyone from a liturgical church that uses the three year cycle lectionary will recogonize that most Sundays the selections for Old Testament reading, Psalm and Gospel reading have typological connections. And then we proceed to Communion where we recognize our Savior in the Breaking of the Bread. Emmaus |
||||||
845 | the first account written to the ophilus | Luke 1:3 | Emmaus | 74161 | ||
CDBJ, I usually hear the Gospel of Mark referred to as the teaching of Peter recorded by Mark who is the John Mark of Acts, Paul's letters and also seen in 1 Peter 5:13. A writing of one the early Church Fathers, Papias, dated 135 A.D., describes mark as Peter's "interpreter." That view is also found in other patristic writings. Emmaus |
||||||
846 | the first account written to the ophilus | Luke 1:3 | Emmaus | 74168 | ||
CDBJ, Luke says in his prologue 1:1-4 that he has investigated, but does not cite his sources. One tradition is that he got some things such as the infancy narative and some other parts from Mary herself, but I don't think that can be proven in any way.It is one of those unsolved mysteries where only educated guesses can be made without any final answer, at least in this world. Emmaus |
||||||
847 | the first account written to the ophilus | Luke 1:3 | Emmaus | 74328 | ||
Ed, Here are two links. The first is an article on Papias, which dicusses some disputed questions and the second is the "Fragments" of Papias. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11457c.htm http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0125.htm Emmaus |
||||||
848 | the first account written to the ophilus | Luke 1:3 | Emmaus | 74332 | ||
Ed, I was at the bookstore on my lunch hour and was looking over a new Study Bible on Acts. The final part of the introduction overview spoke about some features of Acts that appeared to be an apologetic defense of Paul's ministry against his detractors who were trying to undermine his unique status as a post Resurrection Apostle, who rather than helping to establish the Church had actually persecuted it. 2Cor 11:4-6; 12:11; Gal 6:12. Luke establishes Paul's credentials by comparing him to Peter in these ways: Both delivered inaugural sermons focusing on the Davidic Covenant. 2:22-36; 13:26-41 Both appealed to Psalm 16 in relation to the Resurrection. 2:25-28; 13:35 Both healed cripples. 3:1-10; 14:8-10 Both filled with the Holy Spirit. 4:8; 13:9 Both were renowned for extraordinary miracles. 5:15-16; 19:11-12 Both conferred the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands. 8:14-17; 19:6 Both confront and rebuke a magician. 8:18-24; 13:6-11 Both raise the dead. 9:36-41; 20:9-12 Both refuse divine worship. 10:25-26; 14:11-15 Both delivered from prison miraculously. 12:6-11; 16:25-34 Paul also called by Jesus. 9:1-19; 22:3-16; 26:2-18 So demonstrating by parallels that Peter and Paul had the same preaching, the same power and the same protection. Emmaus |
||||||
849 | Please clarify: Word vs. word | Luke 1:3 | Emmaus | 116365 | ||
Amen, Ray! | ||||||
850 | Primary purpose of the written Gospels | Luke 1:4 | Emmaus | 48822 | ||
Joe, "It seems that some of them were definitely written for that primary purpose." By this do you mean internal catechesis and buidling up, or evangelization or both? And when you say the Jews were the primary recipeients of Matthew do you mean Jewish believers in Christ or the others.? I asked my initial question because it seems to me that many disputes over scripture may grow out of a presumption of belief or failure to disclose by one or more parties whether they are coming from a believeing or non believeing posiiton. And although I have read of those who have been converted merely by the reading of Scripture. But it is a rare situation. It seems more common that those being converted to belief were already somewhere along the path of conversion by the Holy Spirit working through one or more believers and their personal lived and or spoken witness, long before the written Gospel takes hold. In fact they may have read the Gospels more than a few times without receiving the message at all, but the personal encounter with Christ through a personal or community witness opens them up to see what they did not perceive before in the written scripture. It would seem that the preaching of the Gospel in the sense of a personal witness is still the primary means of evangelization in most cases. And only then does the full impact of the written Gospel take hold. I think this also applied in different variation even in family which are raising their children in the faith. Emmaus |
||||||
851 | Priesthood and marriage | Luke 1:5 | Emmaus | 48535 | ||
Makarios, You may be surprised to learn that there are married Catholic priests. And that celibacy is a discipline which can be changed, not a doctrine of the Catholic faith. As for Peter. Scripture does not make it clear whether or not his wife was still alive when he began his ministry. Emmaus |
||||||
852 | Priesthood and marriage | Luke 1:5 | Emmaus | 48762 | ||
Janik, The word sometimes translated as "wife" in this passage 1 Cor 9:4 can also be translated as "woman" or "sister" as in a sister in Christ. In fact in this very passage Paul is defending his right to such companionship on missionary travels.And we know he was not talking about a wife for himself. So although one interpreation allows for wife it also allows for the "woman" or "sister" interpretation. Therefore, I stand by my previous statement that scripture is not clear about whether or not Peter's wife was alive when he began his ministry. It is ambiguous. Emmaus |
||||||
853 | John Baptist's Jewish legal credentials? | Luke 1:5 | Emmaus | 134268 | ||
Reignskye, Consider that John's was a baptism of repentance (Mark 1:4)and Jesus' baptism was a baptism of the Spirit Acts 19:1-6). Both baptsims were with water. Emmaus |
||||||
854 | Please help me to find this out for this | Luke 1:27 | Emmaus | 23433 | ||
Shadow, You may find the following Scriptural explanation of the Catholic view of interest if you are still in dialogue with your Catholic friend. The Catholic position is not unbiblical. It is a matter of which tradition of interpretation you accept. Mary, Ever Virgin: Ezekiel 44:2 "And the Lord said to me, 'This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut." Early Christians recognized this passage as a prophecy of Mary's perpetual virginity, a doctrine that even the Protestant Reformers Luther and Calvin accepted. Gospel references to the "brothers and sister of Jesus" implying other children of Mary do not hold up under close examination. Matthew 13:55 is undone by Matt 28:1 and 27:55 and John 19:25 and Jude 1:1 which points out that James and Joseph and Jude, the "brothers of Jesus " are in fact cousins and the sons of another Mary. It is also interesting to note that nowhere in scripture is anyone described as a son or daughter of either Mary or Joseph other than Jesus. Only Jesus is ever described as the "son of Mary" of Nazareth. There are references to the brothers or sister of Jesus, but the original words used in those contexts can be found in other places in scripture where they are without doubt used to describe kin in a broader sense: i.e., Genesis 14:14 29:15, 1Cor 15:6, Rom 8:29, 1 Peter 5:2, Mark 6:4. In the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint: 1 Mac 9:44; 11:73; 12:27,28; 28: 13:52; 15:52; 15:16; 2 Mac.11: 20; Proverbs 13:21. In the Hebrew OT the same usage is found: Gen 14:14 and Gen 29:15. You can use the King James Version for these references except for the Macabees which are now left out of the King James, but which were in the original 1611 version of the King James, a fact she can even be confirmed through Protestant sources. If Jesus had brother and sister, why would he give his mother to John at the foot of the cross? This would be a serious violation of Jewish custom, in which the children were responsible to take care of their widowed mother. |
||||||
855 | Please help me to find this out for this | Luke 1:27 | Emmaus | 23551 | ||
You are correct.I meant that the interpretation of Matt 13:55 is undone by Matt 27: 55 and Jude 1:1 |
||||||
856 | Please help me to find this out for this | Luke 1:27 | Emmaus | 23554 | ||
"Yet, none of the verses you listed say that the brothers of Jesus were cousins, or that they were the sons of another Mary! This seems to be pure assumption of your part!" Tim, It is also an assumption that they are brothers and not cousins, since the greek "adelphous" is used in the New testament in both the sense of brother and kinsmen. See Matt 4:21-22 and Acts 9:17. See also the African American use of "brother" in our time, which is even broader. "Also, as Searcher56 pointed out, Mt. 1:25 clearly indicates that Joseph and Mary did have sexual relations after the birth of Jesus. The exact wording is, "He did not know her until she gave birth to a son!" Again you have a greek word "heos" (until) that does not necessarily mean that after a certain point in time, a different action occurred. See Matt 1:25, 1 Cor 15:25. You also have to assume sexual relations occurred in your interpretation, since it is not explicit in the pasaage cite.What is explicit is that they did not have sexual relations before the birth of Jesus. My point is that everyone brings a point of view or "presumptions" to their interpretation and that the Catholic interpretation is not unbiblical, but merely different from some Protestant interpretations, which in many cases disagree with one another on the interpretaion of some scripture passages. |
||||||
857 | Please help me to find this out for this | Luke 1:27 | Emmaus | 23616 | ||
Arks of the Covenants. On a less controversial note about Mary, some may find the following example of an Old Testament foreshadowing or type fulfilled in the New Testament interesting. Exodus 40:34: "Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle." Luke 1:35: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God"John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt (pitched his tent) among us." 2 Samuel 6:9 "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" Luke 1:43 "And why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" 2 Samuel 6:11 "The ark of the Lord remained for three months in the house." Luke 1:56 "And Mary remained with her about three months." 2 Samuel 6:16 "David leaping and dancing before the Lord." Luke 1:41 "The babe leapt in her womb." _________________________________________ Hebrews 9:4 "... the Ark of the Covenant...which contained a golden urn holding the manna and Aaron’s rod that budded, ...and the tables of the covenant." Exodus 16:32-34 Mary is the ark of the new covenant that carried the Word of God and the manna come down from heaven, the bread of life, Jesus, our great high priest. John 6:31-35 “Our fathers ate manna in the wilderness.... The bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world... I am the bread of life." |
||||||
858 | Mary | Luke 1:28 | Emmaus | 79972 | ||
To all my friends on the forum. Let us agree to disagree on the subject of Mary. I have already been through the Marian wars here once before. Anyone interested in my position can search my previous posts starting in November 2001. Emmaus |
||||||
859 | Mary | Luke 1:28 | Emmaus | 81436 | ||
Yes it is. | ||||||
860 | Name of the Angel that visit Mary | Luke 1:28 | Emmaus | 139097 | ||
Dave, "The only gospel that contains the story about the angel visiting Mary is the gospel of Luke(Luke 1:26-38). But he doesn't mention a name." Yes he does mention a name. Luke 1:26 "Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth," Emmaus |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 ] Next > Last [73] >> |