Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Quote:
Infact we still say in the creed that we "believe in one holy catholic and Apostollic church,"
Wow, is that right? I didnt know that - so non-Catholics say that too in the creed, how interesting.
Aspen/Selene, peace and love, brother/sister - Can you tell me what Puis X is all about, please?
Mike
Selene, in case you are wondering if I missed your posts to me.... No, I see your posts to me, posts filled with evil lies. I am ignoring you for now on.
*NEWS FLASH*We have not had these translations for 1500 years, try again.
Not only incredibly condescending, your remark doesn't address my statement at all
Can you prove any of that? The only translations that have it translated this way are founded and started by...... surprise, surprise... Catholics.
Seems you have the majority vs minority confused.
Nothing surprising about it at all - the Roman Catholic Church, Coptic, and Orthodox understanding of scripture were the only forms of orthodoxy for the first fifteen hundred years of church history.
And I am not sure how you have concluded that a commentary / concordance (Strong's) of the King James Bible is a majority translation - not that it matters, but the majority of Christians no longer read the KJV.
NO, THERE ISN'T! How hard is it to understand that the Greek wording is EXACTLY THE SAME in both of these texts?
There are no "different terms" applied.If you want to see what is original, look to the original Greek, not the "definition according to aspen".
Testy, Testy.....get a hold of your caps....this is just a discussion. A different term is used for Mary than for Stephen.
Sure you will. To ensure you actually do, I'll post it.
John 1:14
Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.
Acts 6:8
Στέφανος δὲ πλήρης χάριτος καὶ δυνάμεως ἐποίει τέρατα καὶ σημεῖα μεγάλα ἐν τῷ λαῷ.
"full grace"... These are exactly the same. If you want to maintain Christ as sinless and perfect and elevated and blessed especially among people you must also do the same to Stephen (unless, of course, you can admit the Scripture doesn't actually support what you're claiming- then this entire argument goes away).
John 1:14 is a limited description of Christ - it doesn't tell us about every aspect of Jesus. Jesus is full of grace in the same way Mary is and in the same way Stephen is, which are different. The crazy thing about this whole argument is that if the same term was used to describe Mary as was used to describe Jesus, you would try to cheapen it in an attempt to claim that Catholics were trying to elevate Mary to the same level as Christ. Just because Stephen is described as full of grace like Christ was doesn't mean that he is omnipresent, omnipotent or omniscient - being full of grace alone doesn't mean you are divine.
This "full grace" phraise is NOT in Luke 1:28 anywhere:καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν· χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ.
If you ignore grammar, you are correct. Of course, neither is the word Trinity.
So, aspen, you've now seen the Original Greek these were written in. Would you like to call John and Luke liars? Or would you like to admit your translations are fatally biased and flawed and do not support "full of grace"?
I do not like to call anyone liars, especially inspired authors of the gospel whose words are being mistranslated by you. Love the false dichotomy too - either the gospel writers are liars or I am - classic.
Ah so when Scripture contradicts your belief you just say it's because of our "modern eyes".
Not always - only when people fail to recognize the difference between cultures of the ancient Middle East and today.
From Anastacia: I know that aspen and Selene will be glad to explain Pius X to you, but since I was falsely accused of belonging to his form of Catholicism, and not Roman Catholic, I'd like to say a few things here. Yes Pius X is a traditional Catholic, but he choose to NOT be in good standing with the Holy See/Vatican
LOL...no, the word I was looking for was hypocrite. And you are showing yourself to be a hypocrite. You say that I do something wrong when I defend myself....and then you do nothing here yourself except try to put me down. Maybe you should take Ann Coulter's job? Hypocrite much? You did everything here that you said I do!!! lol
Hey Aspen,
Did you catch what Anastacia posted? :lol: She posted this:
This post is so funny!!! LOL!!! She adtually posted that "Piux X chose not to be in good standing with the Holy See/Vatican"...and he WAS the Holy See! LOL!!!! :lol:![]()
Ah so you "meant" to write a sentence incorrectly - my mistake. Sorry but, "Hypocrite much" is not proper English either, but don't let rules stop you, Anastacia. I really think it is amazing that you believe all I have done on this thread is insult you. Selene and I have gone to incredible lengths to ignore your constant goading, mocking, scoffing, and ridicule of ourselves and our beliefs - it has been so blatant that noncatholics have noticed and spoken out against it, only to be ridiculed by you as well. Yet, you have apparently justified treating us like this because you believe we are wrong and you are right AND on top of all of this you are also the victim! Hilarious. I am speechless, Anastacia.......this is not the way to treat your worst enemy, let alone people who interpret the same sacred scripture differently, for shame.....
BTW, where did I claim that you were apart of Pius X? I am not sure how you can justify making a claim like this.
Traditional Catholic? Where you in communion with Rome? Or were you in some schism church like Pius X?
Catholic means universal.
Hello Mike,
Pope Pius X is mainly known for standing against modernism. Modernism means an exaggerated love for modern ideas and Pope Pius X opposed it vigorously because it meant to go against the authority of the Pope. Modernism declares that the authority of the Pope and its constitution are irrelevant. Pope Pius X taught that obedience to the Pope was necessary - something which the founder of the Traditional Catholics did not follow. Their founder stood against Vatican II, went against the Catechism, and was found to be disobedient to Pope John Paul II. Their founder was excommunicated by the Vatican.
You shouldn't laugh so hard at someone, Selene. Through all your posts standing up for the lies of the Catholic religion....I did not laugh at you as you did me. What you do is much too serious to laugh about. And I'm not laughing at your wrong explanation of pope Pius X and traditional Catholics. Pope Pius was a traditionalist.
[font="tahoma][/font][/color]
[color="#5d5d5d"][font="tahoma]
[/font][/color]
[font="tahoma][color="#8b0000"]Overlooking the overwhelming odor of condescension in this post; I wish it were true that you did understand why Catholics "do the things they do" Anastacia, but you have confirmed with everyone of your posts that you do not even understand what Catholics believe, let alone why we believe what we believe.[/font]
[font="tahoma][/font][font="tahoma][/font]
[color="#8b0000"]Looks like you got me again, Anastacia.....[/color]
Now, why don't you answer my question about how you can say you were Catholic and reject the teachings of Pope JPII? And, BTW is this the post where I accused you of being a member of Pius X? Questions are not accusations / accusations are not questions.
Just admit you made a mistake, Anastacia
I did
That is your false belief to say I don't understand what Catholics believe. I was a Roman Catholic for many years. You and Selene twist and ignore things I say. I explained to you that traditional Catholics believed the teaching that popes are infallible, and they believed the popes when they said no one outside the Catholic Church would be saved. Pope John Paul II changed that belief about those outside the church for ecumenical reasons. Other things about the Catholic church were changed too, but the traditional Catholics liked it the way it was. I also explained that many traditional Catholics are in good standing with the Vatican.
And you need to stop putting me down as to why I expose the Catholic religion for it's falsenss. I told you I do it because of love.
No Catholic who rejects the teachings of Vatican II is in communion with the Vatican - it is a fact. The Traditionalist groups that are in communion with the Vatican accept Vatican II and the teachings of all the Popes, but they prefer the Tridentine Mass. A preference is much different from what you claimed your group of Catholics believed about JPII.
As far as "putting you down" - it sounds like you want me to stop complaining when you are beating me for my own good. What you are doing here is strengthening the faith of all the catholics present, demonstrating that anticatholic attitudes and material are ugly, and that there really is a wrong way to witness to people. I know what love is - what you are doing is not love, but akin to clanging a gong.
I admitted I made a mistake when I was in false religions.
So you admit that you were wrong, but now you are right? That took some guts........
What mistake do you want me to admit?
Well, I have a list, but how about starting with not understanding anything about Pius X?
Did you and Selene not teach here that pope Pius was excommunicated?
I did not see this idea being taught by either of us. I failed to place the words "Society of" in front of Pope Pius X in my post - I have no problem admitting I am wrong when I make a mistake.
My mistake was believing that you knew what you were talking about when you said pope Pius X was from a schism church. I admit I should of checked on what you said on not of figured you knew what you were talking about.
So you admit that I made you make a mistake - lol......wow. GUTS!
What do you think about the dead bodies the Catholic church puts on display for veneration?
I think they are a cheap and vain attempt to draw controversy upon the Catholic Church by displaying outdated practices, which were emphasized during times in history when all religious people relied on outward expressions of faith; in order to garner sympathy for your over-the-top hatred for the red herring you claim as Catholic doctrine. It is a side show, not presented to educate, but to horrify. For shame......
Will you please answer my question about the crowing of the statues?
[font="tahoma]I think they are a cheap and vane attempt to draw controversy upon the Catholic Church by displaying unique practices, in order to garner sympathy for your over-the-top hatred of Catholic doctrine. It is a side show, not presented to educate, but to horrify. For shame......[/font]
![]()
Notice the crown on the statue of "Mary."
![]()
The present Pope praying to the lady of Fatima.
The Catholic religion teaches that the highest honor a pope can give is to crown the statue of Mary, or the statue of the Infant Jesus of Prague.
Question: Is it the highest honor for the statue of Mary? Or is it the highest honor for Mary? Is it the highest honor for the statue of the infant Jesus? Or is it the highest honor for Jesus? Or, is it the highest honor for the pope to get to do the crowning on the statue?
Please answer my question.
I must warn you though, any answer you give will be in error!
Revelation 9:20
The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood—idols that cannot see or hear or walk.
Aspen, Will you please answer my question about the crowning of the statues? And will you admit you were wrong when you said the displays of the decaying "saints" is no longer practiced by the Catholic church? Refrain from falsely judging why I posted them, but do tell what you think of the practices.