hopeful1 Posted June 27, 2004 Posted June 27, 2004 Hey i own a NIV and NAB, so you're not the only one with more than one translation. I may even have more lying around the house that belong to my parents or old ones from school that i don't even know about.
hopeful1 Posted June 27, 2004 Posted June 27, 2004 [quote name='MorphRC' date='Jun 26 2004, 08:15 AM'] Lol. Come on people, you cant be honestly surprised by this?! I mean in the past two decades the Anglican Church has managed to deny: -Christ's Ressurection -Christ's actual place in history -The Sanctity of Marriage -The Danger to believers, with Atheist Bishops -Almost 1/9th of Anglican Bishops deny the existence of God. But believe there is some form of supernatural being that doesnt conform to God. -Supported Women priests -The Eucharist Prescence, then believed it again. NOW: A PC Version of the Bible. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I wonder how much longer the Church is gonna consider Anglicans Christian? [/quote] It's always the anglicans that start stuff, aren't they!? (just joking to those who were forming anglicans, present faithful anglicans and those new to PM). But seriously, if you were an atheist, why even bother becoming a bishop? Denying the ressurrection ??? ok, sanctity of marriage i may agree with you with because i know they were the first to say BC was morally acceptable, and the thing with gay marriages, (although i'm sure there are some in the anglican/episcopalian church that would disagree), and i know they allow women to be priests, but to be fair do you have proof to back the other stuff up?
RandomProddy Posted June 27, 2004 Posted June 27, 2004 [quote name='Raphael' date='Jun 27 2004, 06:40 AM'] I doubt it, Proddy (my father, an Irish Catholic, changed his name to "Mick"...so I've gotta love your name )...most bishops' crests look pretty similar. [/quote] Most bishops mitres don't have crowns at the bottom
Thy Geekdom Come Posted June 27, 2004 Posted June 27, 2004 [quote] Most bishops mitres don't have crowns at the bottom [/quote] True, what's your point? The pope is a head of state, too, you know. It's a legitimate symbol.
Ellenita Posted June 27, 2004 Author Posted June 27, 2004 A previous Bishop of Durham (anglican) said that it didn't matter if the Virgin birth, or the bodily resurrection was true or not. He was widely misrepresented in the press though as saying that they didn't occur - I heard him speak about it and he was making the point that these things might have happened because with God all things are possible, but that faith in God was what was important rather than the sign itself.....least that's what I think he was saying! I haven't ever heard of any atheist bishops - I couldn't imagine anyone could be an atheist and remain in the church at any level, let alone as a bishop.....most atheists run as far from God as they possible can in their effort to deny His existance!
RandomProddy Posted June 27, 2004 Posted June 27, 2004 [quote name='Raphael' date='Jun 27 2004, 10:13 PM'] True, what's your point? [/quote] It's pretty...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted June 27, 2004 Posted June 27, 2004 [quote]I haven't ever heard of any atheist bishops - I couldn't imagine anyone could be an atheist and remain in the church at any level, let alone as a bishop.....most atheists run as far from God as they possible can in their effort to deny His existance![/quote] Not if their best way to be heard is in a position of the Church. It's just like the heterodox priests who have slipped past review panels. It's very unfortunate. Satan pushes very, very hard on priests. He knows that if he can get them, he can use their authority. I am reminded of the priest who didn't believe in the Real Presence and saw the Eucharist change visibly before his eyes. I am reminded of all the priests who became heretics, left the Church and her teachings, throughout the years...Arius, Nestor...others, whom I will not mention out of charity. It's difficult, I'm sure.
VeraMaria Posted June 27, 2004 Posted June 27, 2004 There's only one Bible in my house...and it's a New American Bible
Ellenita Posted June 27, 2004 Author Posted June 27, 2004 Raphael, you make a good point which I hadn't considered....you're probably right, though I wish you weren't!
VeraMaria Posted June 27, 2004 Posted June 27, 2004 [quote name='Raphael' date='Jun 27 2004, 05:20 PM'] Not if their best way to be heard is in a position of the Church. It's just like the heterodox priests who have slipped past review panels. It's very unfortunate. Satan pushes very, very hard on priests. He knows that if he can get them, he can use their authority. I am reminded of the priest who didn't believe in the Real Presence and saw the Eucharist change visibly before his eyes. I am reminded of all the priests who became heretics, left the Church and her teachings, throughout the years...Arius, Nestor...others, whom I will not mention out of charity. It's difficult, I'm sure. [/quote] We need to pray for priests to represent Mother Church the way she should be...
Iacobus Posted June 27, 2004 Posted June 27, 2004 [quote name='VeraMaria' date='Jun 27 2004, 03:20 PM'] There's only one Bible in my house...and it's a New American Bible [/quote] Only one I read.
RandomProddy Posted June 28, 2004 Posted June 28, 2004 [quote name='MorphRC' date='Jun 26 2004, 02:16 PM'] Yeah because some parts were copied directly from the DRV. [/quote] And the other way around. According to Newadvent: "It is generally admitted that the Authorized Version was in almost every respect a great improvement on any of its predecessors. So much was this the case that when Bishop Challoner made his revision of the Douay Bible (1749-52), which is now commonly in use among English-speaking Catholics, he did not scruple to borrow largely from it. Indeed, Cardinal Newman gives it as his opinion (Tracts Theol. and Eccles., 373) that Challoner's revision was even nearer to the Authorized Version than to the original Douay, "not in grammatical structure, but in phraseology and diction"."
curtins Posted June 28, 2004 Posted June 28, 2004 (edited) [quote]St Paul gives stronger advice in another section of the Corinthians. [/quote] I love how they say St. Paul said this- he didnt say that sum nutcase thinking he knows Christianity said it Edited June 28, 2004 by curtins
MorphRC Posted June 28, 2004 Posted June 28, 2004 [quote name='hopeful1' date='Jun 28 2004, 05:45 AM'] It's always the anglicans that start stuff, aren't they!? (just joking to those who were forming anglicans, present faithful anglicans and those new to PM). But seriously, if you were an atheist, why even bother becoming a bishop? Denying the ressurrection ??? ok, sanctity of marriage i may agree with you with because i know they were the first to say BC was morally acceptable, and the thing with gay marriages, (although i'm sure there are some in the anglican/episcopalian church that would disagree), and i know they allow women to be priests, but to be fair do you have proof to back the other stuff up? [/quote] Why? Have you ever heard a Anglican Priest take a vow of poverty ..lol You should see some of these houses these archbishops live in! Id wanna know why, there still there! and havent been kicked out. When I worked in Parliament House, there are like 30 books of Anglicanism, 14 concerning what Ive mentioned here. The others were like 'Why Christianity must change or Die', which is funny coming from NON-CHRISTIANS!..lol.
RandomProddy Posted June 28, 2004 Posted June 28, 2004 [quote name='MorphRC' date='Jun 28 2004, 06:35 AM'] You should see some of these houses these archbishops live in! [/quote] They are nice to be fair, lol. Bear in mind the places you talk of are older than the Constitution of the USA so it's natural over the course of [i]one thousand six hundred years[/i], preists in England have accumulated so much. Quick story: the Bishop up here (Durham) was debating selling a set of twelve paintings the diocese owned of the twelve sons of Abraham. Many people complained and wanted them kept in the region, they were worth something like $4 million each. The bishop's palace (Auckland Castle, has the largest private chapel in Europe apparently) is one of the biggest complexes in the county, apart from the Cathedral peninsula. The Bishop also owns my old boarding school and the acres around it... York and Canterbury's palaces (Bishopthorpe and Lambeth Castle respectively) are insane..
RandomProddy Posted June 28, 2004 Posted June 28, 2004 [quote name='Ellenita' date='Jun 27 2004, 10:15 PM'] ..he was making the point that these things might have happened because with God all things are possible, but that faith in God was what was important rather than the sign itself. [/quote] he has a point about faith being more important but that's a silly way of saying it.
MorphRC Posted June 28, 2004 Posted June 28, 2004 $4M WOW! I know the paintings in the Vatican are priceless, literally, no one could buy them. Its weird how just some basic colouring materials can get so much money. Amazes me at people who pay out millions over one painting.
RandomProddy Posted June 28, 2004 Posted June 28, 2004 Most of the time it's not a matter of how much it would cost to replace, many of the items in question are irreplaceable. There's a book the churches up here want that the British Library in London is looking after. They worry if it gets damaged on the trip. Not that it's a big problem normally, but when the article in question is a one-of-a-kind 1,280 year old Gospel codex...
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