jasJis Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 Anybody listening to that sentence would believe the man jumped. The grammatical construction and wording used in that sentence all indicate that the man jumped. You'd have to use different wording in order to make your illustration work. You'd probably need another example altogether. Not true. It's just YOUR interpretation that anyone reading that would assume they jumped. Be honest. It's a good analogy and an excellent illustration. In fact, your post further illistrates my point. Thanks. Keep posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freaky Chik Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 Hey, hey, Freaky. I hope you've been well. We've missed you hahaha we? or just you? I've missed ya too! you're a gentleman I've been away on holidays the past week and a bit, to the other side of my country Soaking up the sun and spending time with my sister and doing all the theme parks Was good! But glad to be home again I hope your christmas and new year has been a blessing for you!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 I'm without a doubt that the majority here miss you. It's that most of them won't admit it. My Holidays are great. The worst thing is I didn't get a prize in my Christmas Cracker and my paper Crown was yellow instead of my favorite, green, :king: and nobody here in the States can understand my dissappointment. The only time they've seen Crackers is on a Mr. Bean episode when he utilizes a pile of them with a bucket of paint. :cyclops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicAndFanatical Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 Welcome back Freaky Chic, its good to see you made it home safe. Have a wonderful New Year! And yes you was missed :bunnyears: amesome stuff catholicandfanatical! heres for more reading... http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp God bless! +JMJ Thank you flowy :breakdance: CatholicAndFanatical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DojoGrant Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 That's interesting. Ezekiel 44 is speaking about a temple however, and if you want to say that is Mary, you could have a lot of problems in the passage on your hands. Why is that? The Old Testament prophecies had dual meanings. That is why Jesus "radically" fulfilled the prophecies, and the Jews did not believe Him to be the fulfillment because He was an ultimate fulfillment. Just look at the promise of God to David through Samuel, about God being a Father and David his son. No one at the time forsaw God Himself coming as the Son of God to earth in the line of David. There was an Old Testament understanding that was a mere shadow to the ultimate fulfillment in the New Covenant of Jesus Christ. The parallels we're providing aren't happenstance. They exist because they are meant to exist, to show how the Old was a shadow of the New and complete Covenant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted December 31, 2003 Author Share Posted December 31, 2003 (edited) the Old Testament prophecies had immediate and future fulfillments much of the time, I can agree with that. Why the Jews didn't have any possible clue Jesus was coming as He did? Because they thought several people were needed to fulfill the prophecies of messiah, and the messianic prophecies are also written showing a suffering messiah, and also a reigning one. How could that work in one man? However, those prophecies are also clear about predicting a messiah. The Ezekiel passage is clearly talking about a temple. What does my circle of protestants do with that? We say that there will be a temple! And because we hold to a future millennium, it makes sense that it will be there! That would be a literal interpretation of the passage. Anything other is something not there at all (hope that responds well, I'm getting sloppy in my answers, too much work to proofread! of course note as well that mull and bruce may disagree with me on this passage. This is my dispensational blood speaking and they may be covenantal.) Edited December 31, 2003 by Circle_Master Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 JasJis, I knew you were connected with Limey's! (Or maybe some other ppl's do this as well?) I can say that word 'cause some of the relatives are Brits. Crackers and crowns abound here, too, on major holidays. :rolling: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 JasJis, I knew you were connected with Limey's! (Or maybe some other ppl's do this as well?) I can say that word 'cause some of the relatives are Brits. Crackers and crowns abound here, too, on major holidays. :rolling: I'd like to say 'limey', but my Brit wife won't let me. For many years, her grandfather (who was a card carrying Mason) would say that his grand-daughter married a 'bloody papist' The Brits are awful civilized until it comes to crackers, pouring beer, and soccer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Jaslis you forgot fish and chips Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 (edited) Aye, well, gotta love those Limey's (Sir Thomas More, ora pro jasJis and me!). Through the writings of the Saints and Fathers I believe Mary was perfect; meaning that she practiced domestic arts and everything else to perfection as she did the virtues. No burned food from Our Lady! (We thinks not, O Precious). She was completely unique and singular; and her most chaste spouse, Joseph, was so, as much as one not immaculately conceived could be; and both spouses grew upward from there. The Church reminds us through the celibate clergy and nuns that in the world to come, as regards marriage, all shall be like the angels. Why shouldn't we marvel, instead of scoff, that The Blessed Trinity by marrying these two individuals, thus protected the virginity of both? The Scripture scholars down the ages would have a hard time with the Precious Blood which saves us all, being taken from anyone not perpetually inviolate in virginity, nor free from original sin. This is God Incarnate we are talking about and it is unthinkable that He would cleave to a fallen womb and Mother; that the matter from which His Person and Precious Blood could be associated in any way with sin. Let's remember that her mystical spouse is the Holy Ghost. From the Denzinger: "For neither would the Lord Jesus have chosen to be born of a virgin, if he had judged she would be so incontinent, that with the seed of human copulation she would pollute the generative chamber of the Lord's body, that palace of the eternal King." [exceprt of #9;, from the Epistle "Aceppi Litteras Vestra" to Anysius, Bishop of Thessalonica, 392]. I think that people have a problem not with Our Lady's Perpetual Virginity or Immaculate Conception per se; but that these necessarily place our own selves comparatively as "the seed of human copulation... would pollute the generative chamber of the Lord's body." Yet who more champions marriage and the begetting of children than the Catholic Church? So we see that human copulation in this context alone is holy and very good, but not fitting at all for the Word Made Flesh and His Mother. Edited January 1, 2004 by Donna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted January 1, 2004 Author Share Posted January 1, 2004 Through the writings of the Saints and Fathers I believe Mary was perfect; meaning that she practiced domestic arts and everything else to perfection as she did the virtues. No burned food from Our Lady! (We thinks not, O Precious). no one agrees with you here . They were saying she is sinless, not perfect. The Church reminds us through the celibate clergy and nuns that in the world to come, as regards marriage, all shall be like the angels. Why shouldn't we marvel, instead of scoff, that The Blessed Trinity by marrying these two individuals, thus protected the virginity of both? Why would you want to be like an angel? The angels look at us with wonder. The angels are also under us now as we are in Christ. Angels long to be like us. The Scripture scholars down the ages would have a hard time with the Precious Blood which saves us all, being taken from anyone not perpetually inviolate in virginity, nor free from original sin. it's not really tough, the sin nature passes through the father. solution given. Let's remember that her mystical spouse is the Holy Ghost. actually she wed Joseph. The insemination was merely by the Holy Spirit. Yet who more champions marriage and the begetting of children than the Catholic Church? So we see that human copulation in this context alone is holy and very good, but not fitting at all for the Word Made Flesh and His Mother. hm.. protestant churches do as well. and we don't require out leadership to be single as some of the Catholic Church rites do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Jaslis you forgot fish and chips I cannot forget about fish & chips, but I didn't mention them for 2 reasons. 1- They are very civilized about them. Even though they're wrapped in paper. It's neat and tidy. 2- In London, ethnic "English" do not make them. I would always call them Hajbib's fish & chips. (Though I didn't know if they were middle eastern or Indian). Very, very good, but not strictly "Brit" any more. Speaking of food in England. Nobody can imagine the quality and stunning variety of sandwiches you can get there. If one could rule the world by sandwich. They would be the lone superpower, and we would all be waving leafy branches. :rolling: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Speak for yourself, and don't try that "no one agrees with you" bit. It really doesn't read well and is a bit arrogant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted January 1, 2004 Author Share Posted January 1, 2004 I said that before if you read through the first 4 pages of this post, every single Catholic said "she was sinless" and some even argued she wasn't perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 (edited) Thank you for such curteous replies, Mr. Master. I am aware that no one here has agreed with my belief that the Blessed Mother was perfect. It matters not whether I want to be an angel or not. The point is in heaven no one is given to marriage. The beatific vision in heaven is what we were created for, and the things and state while in heaven is what we are supposed to like, or at least have an admiration or longing for. The Church reminds us of no marriage in heaven by "enuchs for Christ", those celibate clergy and nuns. In the hierarchy of persons: Divine, angelic, human. Yet it is so the angels would want to be like us so as to receive the Blessed Sacrament. "Conceived by the Holy Ghost", Whom is the mystical spouse of the Blessed Mother. St. Joseph: Our Lady's "most chaste spouse." There is no other that most champions marriage and begetting of children than Holy Mother Church. Edited January 3, 2004 by Donna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now