wad caused the 'breakaway'?
-
actually the word 'woman' in the original is a term of affection and endearment. When people utterd this word it is spoken in tenderness.
The Lord was affectionately and tenderly addressing his mother here.
Let;s read that again imagining a son tenderly and affectionately replying to his mother:
Joh 2:4 Jesus said to her, "Woman ["gunai" is the word used not "gune"], what does that have to do with you and me? My hour has not yet come." -
different flavor from the highly esteemed term leh.Originally posted by Ironside:actually the word 'woman' in the original is a term of affection and endearment. When people utterd this word it is spoken in tenderness.
The Lord was affectionately and tenderly addressing his mother here.
Let;s read that again imagining a son tenderly and affectionately replying to his mother:
Joh 2:4 Jesus said to her, "Woman ["gunai" is the word used not "gune"], what does that have to do with you and me? My hour has not yet come." -
this is my hunch. Often translators have a hard time finding englisn equivalents to the original language from which they are translating. Probably, the translators cannot find a word for 'gunai' in the english language.
Do english speaking people have words of endearment to females? It seems to me they only have "woman", "girl", "lady". But these words do not convey in any way affection and endearment.
What to do? It seems to me 'gunal" got lost in translation.
my two cents. -
the chinese one is worse .. I think translators call her "nu ren".Originally posted by Ironside:Do english speaking people have words of endearment to females? It seems to me they only have "woman", "girl", "lady". But these words do not convey in any way affection and endearment.
What to do? It seems to me 'gunal" got lost in translation.
my two cents.
-
no leh, check mine, its translated as 'mu qing', which means mother or dear mother.Originally posted by Icemoon:the chinese one is worse .. I think translators call her "nu ren". 
-
Does that prove that the Bible is falliable? Or that God prefers to convery his wisdom down through a man?Originally posted by Icemoon:Those are not the main reason.
The main reason was - the Catholic Church did not accept the sole authority of the Scripture. -
Dear ppl, if you think that the Catholic church was based on Peter holding the keys to eternity, then you are dead wrong. The Founder of the RC is Emperor Constantine. Read about this guy and how he transformed the "church" with his own tradition.
Think about this,
For the Protestants,
Jesus mentioned that he will build his church which will last through eternality. If the church is not through the RC, then where is the church where Jesus is building?
For the Catholics,
If the RC is the true church of Christ, then Protestants must be lost issit it? -
erm, i disagree with this statement in more ways than one. anyway, let me read your sources before i quote u mineOriginally posted by ventin:Dear ppl, if you think that the Catholic church was based on Peter holding the keys to eternity, then you are dead wrong. The Founder of the RC is Emperor Constantine. Read about this guy and how he transformed the "church" with his own tradition. -
Let me give u guys a few links to church history & from there u can trace the "breakaway"
http://www.saintignatiuschurch.org/timeline.html
http://www.churchtimeline.com
http://chi.gospelcom.net/index.php -
http://www.saintignatiuschurch.org/timeline.htmlOriginally posted by babyys:Let me give u guys a few links to church history & from there u can trace the "breakaway"
http://www.saintignatiuschurch.org/timeline.html
http://www.churchtimeline.com
http://chi.gospelcom.net/index.php
http://www.churchtimeline.com
http://chi.gospelcom.net/index.php -
yeah i was trying to do the direct link thingy but duno how haizzz....Originally posted by vince69:
-
reinforcements on the way!Originally posted by ben1xy:traidition should nv contradict scripture. that's the main point people miss out.
ok ... now i expect u to list out things that we Catholics do that contrsdict scripture... i sure wish Macross or Oberditica was here! i need back up! -
ask you one question, don't look at Bible first.Originally posted by despondent:to: ben1xy...
no u havent answered my qn...my qn was catholics believe tat mother mary was perfectly sinless...so wheres the basis for tat?
Is Jesus perfect? Is He sinless? -
Well, your definition is a notch lower than 'Woman' being a honorific of great esteem, but it's definitely than those who actually think that Jesus was rebuking His own mother!Originally posted by Ironside:actually the word 'woman' in the original is a term of affection and endearment. When people utterd this word it is spoken in tenderness.
The Lord was affectionately and tenderly addressing his mother here.
Let;s read that again imagining a son tenderly and affectionately replying to his mother:
Joh 2:4 Jesus said to her, "Woman ["gunai" is the word used not "gune"], what does that have to do with you and me? My hour has not yet come." -
The Church at that time was in a terrible state. Priests and religious were slack, too lax. But there were also other important socio-political factors, religious orthodoxy aside.Originally posted by despondent:eh, tink we have deviated a little...i wanna noe wad exactly caused the breakaway? i noe catholics n protestants have diff. beliefs on wad caused the breakaway so can u guys clarify? thanx!!!
If you haven't already, read this article. It's a good explanation. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12700b.htm -
they were not only slack and lax .. they were theologically corrupt.Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:The Church at that time was in a terrible state. Priests and religious were slack, too lax. But there were also other important socio-political factors, religious orthodoxy aside.
If you haven't already, read this article. It's a good explanation. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12700b.htm
Luther was right in pinning the 95 theses. -
And what is wrong with the Theology?Originally posted by Icemoon:they were not only slack and lax .. they were theologically corrupt.
Luther was right in pinning the 95 theses. -
how come your 'theology' is with a capital T?Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:And what is wrong with the Theology?
-
So my English not good enough for you ah?Originally posted by Icemoon:how come your 'theology' is with a capital T? 
-
I scared leh .. 'cos it has suddenly taken on a 'sacred' meaning .. like God, Bible etc.Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:So my English not good enough for you ah?
Thou shall not take the Theology in vain? -
hello i am back!!! so far onli icemoon have given me an answer for the breakaway...perhaps the catholics in tis forum can provide me their answers as ro wad caused the breakaway? thanx...
-
MArtin Luther deciding that the Catholic church was sinful and he needed to pull away. that's as straightforward an answer as i can giveOriginally posted by despondent:hello i am back!!! so far onli icemoon have given me an answer for the breakaway...perhaps the catholics in tis forum can provide me their answers as ro wad caused the breakaway? thanx... -
I hope you are just joking.Originally posted by ben1xy:MArtin Luther deciding that the Catholic church was sinful and he needed to pull away. that's as straightforward an answer as i can give
Yes, the Church was sinful .. but Luther didn't want to pull away. He was driven up Liangshan.
Like sgmacross said, Luther approached the leadership but red tapes abound. -
u see to me, in the end he still pulled away from the Papacy. albeit being driven out, etcOriginally posted by Icemoon:I hope you are just joking.
Yes, the Church was sinful .. but Luther didn't want to pull away. He was driven up Liangshan.
Like sgmacross said, Luther approached the leadership but red tapes abound.
that's y my use for the terminology
he thought that his way was better. i know everyone here would disagree. but that's my view.
U can disagree, but after he pulled away, he started making claims like faith alone
and he wanted to remove the book of James
which i disagree with -
this is for despondent also.
Exercepts from Sola Scriptura - Martin Luther and the Question of Authority : On April 18,1521, in Worms, Germany, a young Augustinian monk stood before a council that had been convened to determine the orthodoxy of his teachings.
by Dr Herbert Samworth
Defining clearly the major issue in the dispute between
Luther and the church is crucial to our understanding. Some
Church historians define the major issue as a dispute over the
sale of indulgences, payments made to the church to reduce the
time spent in Purgatory. Purgatory is wrongly believed to be the
place of temporary punishment where deceased persons were
purified from their venial sins. However, subsequent events
reveal that the major issue was one of authority. The issue at
hand was the locus, or seat, of authority of the Christian religion.
Some were persuaded that the locus of authority was
found in the Bishop of Rome, in his office as the supposed successor
of Peter. Others believed the supreme authority rested in
Church councils that were convened to settle controversial
issues. However, Luther rejected both of these positions and
declared that the supreme authority of the Church was located
solely in the Word of God.
Technically this should not have been a matter for dispute
because high regard was ascribed to the Sacred Writings. The
problem occurred when the word sola (alone) was linked with
Scripture. Over the course of centuries additional books called
the Apocrypha had been added to the Bible and the unwritten
tradition of the apostles had been elevated to a position of equal
authority with Scripture. Teachings and practices of the
Medieval Church, including the doctrine of Purgatory and the
power of indulgences to free souls from it, were based on these
additional writings. When the teachings contained in these doctrines
could not be located in the books recognized as Scripture
from the earliest times, the truthfulness of Medieval religion was
called into question. This is what caused Luther to question the
power of indulgences and led to the Reformation of the sixteenth
century.
..
The stage was thus set for the clash of the two authorities.
Only one of them could be correct. Luther was concerned that
the ChurchÂ’s teaching be in agreement with what the canonical
Scriptures taught. There is no evidence to believe that he had set
out deliberately to challenge the authority of the Church. To the
contrary, there is every reason to believe that Luther was convinced
that Pope Leo X sincerely desired the reformation of the
Church but was being hindered by other church officials in
Rome. He remained confident that when Leo saw the truthfulness
of what he had protested against, he would take the lead in
bringing about reform.
However, rather than heeding LutherÂ’s protest, the Pope
demanded that Luther recant. Through a period of nearly three years, including preliminary discussions held in the cities of
Heidelberg and Leipzig, Luther remained convinced that reform
would come from the Papal seat. We can imagine his crushing
disappointment when a Papal bull was issued against him
demanding that he renounce his teachings. His response was to
burn the Papal bull and continue writing against the abuses of
the Church. In 1520, Luther penned three of his most influential
tracts that outlined his beliefs: The Address to the German
Nobility, The Freedom of the Christian Man, and The
Babylonian Captivity of the Church. In each of them he
reinforced the principle that only the pure Word of God is
authoritative for matters of faith and practice.