Results 81 - 100 of 1443
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Emmaus Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | How did Luke meet Christ, where in Bible | NT general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 145416 | ||
T'oma, I do not have it, but my father did when I was growing up. I browsed it back then. I do have his Dictionary of the Bible which came out in 1965 and is still in print from Touchstone, a division of Simon and Schuster. McKenzie was one of the leading Catholic Scriptures scholar in the U.S. in the 40's, 50's and 60's. The Two Edged Sword published in 1956 established his reputation. Another of his books, The Power and the Wisdom, about the New Testament was published some years later. Emmaus Emmaus |
||||||
82 | How did Luke meet Christ, where in Bible | NT general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 145364 | ||
T'oma Men and women who belong to catholic religious orders usually have initials after their names which are abbreviations indicating the name of their particular order. S.J. stands for "Society of Jesus", the formal name of a relgious order of men more commonly known as The Jesuits. I was educated in one on their High Schools in Washington D.C., the same one attended by Patrick Bucahnan and William Bennett. The order was founded in the 16th century by St. Ignatius of Loyola, a Basque soldier who, while recuperating from an battle wound caused by cannon fire while fighting in the Spanish army, underwent a profound conversion experience. Here are a few links related to the order. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14081a.htm http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07639c.htm What is the title of the book you have aquired and the author's name? Emmaus |
||||||
83 | One born of God cannot sin? | 1 John 3:9 | Emmaus | 144976 | ||
CDBJ, Apology accepted. My issue was not about the sin nature aspect of your post, but rather with the argument about the significance of the first breath, because that is one of the main arguments used to justify abortion right up to partial birth abortion as a child is being delivered. Life first, theological disputes a very distant second if not further down the list. Emmaus |
||||||
84 | One born of God cannot sin? | 1 John 3:9 | Emmaus | 144931 | ||
CDBJ, A child who has just been born and started to breathe through its lungs , rather than through its blood, is still dependent upon its mother or father or someone to ustain its life. An infant cannot feed, shelter or clothe itself. It must be protected and fed even by breat or hand feeding. The concept of the independent infant, thereby making it a real human being, is absurd. Emmaus |
||||||
85 | Is the bride of christ the church? | Eph 5:32 | Emmaus | 144602 | ||
Tim, I did not think your were disagreeing. Metaphor is by definition indirect and implicit rather than direct and explicit. Emmaus |
||||||
86 | Is the bride of christ the church? | Eph 5:32 | Emmaus | 144584 | ||
Tim, I have heard that St Augustine knew a little about Scripture. He wrote a book titled The City Of God, which equated the City of God and the Church. So if the New Jerusalem is the City of God and it is inhabited by the Saints of God and the New Jerusalem is the Bride, I think we can decue that the Church is the Bride. Scripture also says that Bride and the Groom become "one body." Hmmm! The Church is the "body" of Christ. hmmm. Emmaus |
||||||
87 | MJH, Why limit it to adding abuse only? | Matt 19:9 | Emmaus | 144483 | ||
Searcher, A point no one seems to be making is that the sin in these verses comes not with the divorce, but with marriage to another after a divorvce. And divorce was pretty much a one way street in Biblical times. The man did the divorcing at his pleasure. I believe getting beat with a baseball bat or even with fists is a good reason for getting a divorce and God does not expect any woman to be a punching bag for her "husband". One who is being battered must respect and protect their body which is the temple of the Holy Spirit. In today's world that often means divorce. The biggest problem in many case is getting the battered woman to leave the abusive man before he does permanent damage and even kills her. I have seen it. Emmaus |
||||||
88 | Is the bride of christ the church? | Eph 5:32 | Emmaus | 144481 | ||
Sam, The Church is the New Jerusalem. When we become members of the Church, we become citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem. Through our worship, prayers, and works in Christ we participate in the heavenly life. Similarly we refer to "Church" simultaneously as the structure and the people who are in the structure. So it is with the Bride, the Church, the New Jerusalem Phil 3:20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; Emmaus |
||||||
89 | Is the bride of christ the church? | Eph 5:32 | Emmaus | 144462 | ||
Sam, These metaphors was common even in the Old Testament. See Hosea among other references and see all the references to Zion and daughter Zion throughout the OT. Emmaus |
||||||
90 | Where in Bible does it say no meat on Fr | Bible general Archive 2 | Emmaus | 144174 | ||
Doc, Here is a link to another article on the history of fasting and abstenance in the Bible and in Church history. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01067a.htm Emmaus |
||||||
91 | Where in Bible does it say no meat on Fr | Bible general Archive 2 | Emmaus | 144171 | ||
Doc, It is simply a spiritual discipline practiced by the Catholic Family. It is not a doctrine or dogma and the nature of the Lenten fast and asbtenance has changed over the years. Catholics are slackers compared to the Eastern Orthodox who abstain from all meat and dairy products and eggs for the whole period of Lent. Catholcs used to do that stricter discipline also back in the Middle Ages. I am not sure when things slackened off for us. Certain monastic orders in the Catholic Church still observe theses fasts and abstenances. But again that is a discipline of the particular order, not a doctrine. It is a sacrifice and a discipline of the passions and carnal appetites to abstain for a time from good things to focus on the higher goods. "Q: Can you offer any biblical justification for the Catholic Church's former teaching that it's sinful to eat meat on Fridays? A: Yes, but, if you recognize the fact that Christ's Church is divinely authorized to teach, sanctify, and govern, there should be no need to "prove" it with biblical examples. If you don't recognize that, consider the following biblical facts. Jesus guaranteed that when his Church teaches it teaches with his authority and that anyone rejecting his Church's teachings rejects him (Luke 10:16). This authority extends to Church discipline as well as doctrine. When the Church imposes a discipline, its members are bound to obey it, unless they are dispensed for a proportionate reason. This exercise of authority is seen in Acts 15, where the Church, in its first major council, bound all Christians to the discipline of abstaining from meat that had been sacrificed to idols or that had come from strangled animals (19-29). When the Church promulgated its teaching about abstaining from meat (Acts 15:28-29), no Christian was free to disregard the discipline without committing sin. But since Paul explained that meat in itself is not unclean and the eating of meat is not inherently sinful (Rom. 14:1-23, 1 Cor. 8:1-13, 10:23-32), a Christian who violated the apostolic teaching in Acts 15 sinned not because the eating of meat was wrong but because he disobeyed a commandment of the Church. When the Catholic Church imposes a discipline such as not eating meat on Fridays, the same principle holds. Consider this parallel example. A mother tells her son not to eat the cookies she just baked because it's close to dinner time and eating the cookies will spoil his appetite. The son ignores his mother's wishes and, when she's not looking, sneaks a few cookies. His sin is not the eating of cookies (a morally-neutral act in itself), but of disobedience. Finally, we should mention why Friday abstinence was imposed. The Church recognizes that, since meat is a chief part of most meals served in most places, and since meat is usually the most valued or expensive part of a meal, abstinence from meat on Fridays is a good way for Christians to unite themselves more closely to the sufferings of their Lord (Rom. 8:16-17, 1 Pet. 2:21) by denying themselves something they enjoy. Abstinence from meat is a sacrifice which unites them in penance and strengthens the solidarity of the Church through mild suffering. It's also a good form of mortification, which disciplines the soul and strengthens its resistance to concupiscence. Paul practiced and recommended mortification: "I drive my body and train it, for fear that after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor. 9:27)." http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9212qq.asp Here is another link to an article that addresses the abstenance from meat discipline in the second half of the article. http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9212qq.asp Emmaus |
||||||
92 | Samaritans Examined by Priests? | Luke 17:15 | Emmaus | 142805 | ||
Doc, Good point. By the way I cited The Jerusalem Commentary in error. I meant The Jerome Commentary. The Samaritans did follow the Torah, but acknowledged only the five books of Moses, no other Scripture. They did have priests for sacrifices just as the Jews. It would make sense that they did the rest of what the Torah required of them.If he was "between Gallilee and Samaria that would still be north of bot Mt Gerizim and Jerusalem, so all ten could in theory have ended in the same general direction, South, although the Jewish lepers unlike the Samaritan would likely have skirted Samaria. Emmaus |
||||||
93 | about Centurion servant mircle | Matt 8:5 | Emmaus | 142795 | ||
Thank you Doc, They are the other readings from the Lectionary for the Sunday on which that passage of Luke's Gospel is read. The Sunday and daily Lectionary readings are a great structured plan for reading and studying Scripture. |
||||||
94 | Satan: On the hook and God won't let him | Mark 1:24 | Emmaus | 142740 | ||
I read this recently and found it striking. Satan: On the hook and God won't let him off. "Sin leads to death; not so much to the "act" of dying - which lasts only a moment - as to the "state" of death, that is precisely to what has been called "mortal illness," a state of chronic death. In this state the creature desperately tends to return to being nothing but without succeeding and lives therefore in an eternal agony. From this state comes damnation and the pains of hell; the creature is obliged by One stronger than himself to be what he does not consent to be, that is dependent on God, and his eternal torment is that he cannot get rid of either God or himself. Kierkegaard rightly said that "the formula for all desperation is to refuse to be what one is." "Satan embodies this state. In him sin has run its entire course and is shown in its extreme consequences. He is the prototype of those "who know God (and how he knew him!) but do not give him the glory and thanks that belong to God." It is not necessary to fall back on theological speculation to learn Satan's feelings on this point because he himself shouts them into the hearts of those whom God still allows him to tempt today, as Jesus was tempted in the wilderness: "We are not free," he shouts, "we are not free! Even if you kill yourself, your soul lives on; you cannot kill it, we cannot say no. We are obliged to exist forever. It's all deceit! It's not true that God created us free!" Such thoughts make us shudder as it would seem that we are directly listening to the eternal argument between Satan and God. He, in fact, would wish to be free to return to nothingness. Not because he doesn't want to exist or to be God's antagonist, but because he does not want to be what he is, dependent on God. He wants to exist, but not "through the grace of another." As the power above him is stronger than he is and obliges him to exist, this is the way to pure deperation." Raniero Cantalamessa from Life in Christ translated by Frances Lonergan Villa Vineyard Publishing Freehold, N.J. 1991 |
||||||
95 | Satan: On the hook and God won't let him | Mark 1:24 | Emmaus | 142737 | ||
I read this recently and found it striking. Satan: On the hook and God won't let him off. "Sin leads to death; not so much to the "act" of dying - which lasts only a moment - as to the "state" of death, that is precisely to what has been called "mortal illness," a state of chronic death. In this state the creature desperately tends to return to being nothing but without succeeding and lives therefore in an eternal agony. From this state comes damnation and the pains of hell; the creature is obliged by One stronger than himself to be what he does not consent to be, that is dependent on God, and his eternal torment is that he cannot get rid of either God or himself. Kierkegaard rightly said that "the formula for all desperation is to refuse to be what one is." "Satan embodies this state. In him sin has run its entire course and is shown in its extreme consequences. He is the prototype of those "who know God (and how he knew him!) but do not give him the glory and thanks that belong to God." It is not necessary to fall back on theological speculation to learn Satan's feelings on this point because he himself shouts them into the hearts of those whom God still allows him to tempt today, as Jesus was tempted in the wilderness: "We are not free," he shouts, "we are not free! Even if you kill yourself, your soul lives on; you cannot kill it, we cannot say no. We are obliged to exist forever. It's all deceit! It's not true that God created us free!" Such thoughts make us shudder as it would seem that we are directly listening to the eternal argument between Satan and God. He, in fact, would wish to be free to return to nothingness. Not because he doesn't want to exist or to be God's antagonist, but because he does not want to be what he is, dependent on God. He wants to exist, but not "through the grace of another." As the power above him is stronger than he is and obliges him to exist, this is the way to pure deperation." Raniero Canalamessa from Life in Christ translated by Frances Lonergan Villa Vineyard Publishing Freehold, N.J. 1991 |
||||||
96 | Why identify the cities and not the man? | Luke 10:30 | Emmaus | 142137 | ||
mommapbs, Good company indeed! Emmaus |
||||||
97 | Why identify the cities and not the man? | Luke 10:30 | Emmaus | 142135 | ||
mommaps, I haven't really thought a lot about it. I suspect that this passage may have come to the minds of some of Jesu' listeners as he told the parable. What I found interesting is that it involve Samaritans (northern Israel), Jews (Judahites). they closthesd them, annointed them with oil, place them on thier donkeys and took them to Jericho. Verry similar to what the Good Samaritan did. Beyond that I have not given it much additional thought. Emmaus |
||||||
98 | The section that it is in the Holy Bible | 1 Peter | Emmaus | 141613 | ||
Mark 14:66-72 | ||||||
99 | Clean Heart | Heb 9:11 | Emmaus | 141006 | ||
Ray , I am not sure I understand you question. Were you answering your own question in the rest of your post? It is the purifying blood in the various passages that I cited that ties them together together. Hysop is also mentioned in several passages related to the sprinkling of the blood. Emmaus |
||||||
100 | Romans 2:14-15 commonly mutilated? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Emmaus | 140796 | ||
Greentwiga, One could say that the proper context for Romans 2:14-15 is found between Romans 1:5 and Romans 16:26 which are the bookends of Romans that speak of "the obedience of faith" which is the obedience of a member of God's family as contrasted with the obedience of a slave who is not in the family, but rather under the Law. This is brought out in more detail in Romans 6-8 and 12-15, but especially in 8:1-16. See also Galatians 4:21-31 in relationship with Romans 9. Emmaus |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [73] >> |