Lilio Candidior (Offline)
Write a Message
You are not able to post a message.
Showing 1 to 10 of 11
I feel like such a numpty now it's a simple ablative of comparison
You know how I posted on your wall about your username not making sense in Latin?
Well I realised the other day that it did...
It means 'whiter than a lily'.
Hi again Lilio! Listen, it's been a little while since we last talked so I'm just assuming things have calmed down at your end because I am once again in need of some Christian wisdom If you are still busy, just say! What I was going to ask was how do you explain the inconsistencies between the infancy narratives of Jesus? One says Jesus went to Egypt, the other has no mention of this, one has the Magi, the other has the Shepherds. Are these narratives all historically accurate, or are they constructed to link Jesus with Old Testament prophesy?
Would be grateful for any reply
No problem, take all the time you want
And thank you for yours; having this conversation forced me to think about and research my own views as well
Ok, with the most sincere respect to you Lilio (and I do respect your views very much on theological issues), I simply cannot agree with you on this. Every part of me rejects this idea of God, and if it were indisputably the case, then I could not worship God as for me, he would be unjust the idea of God choosing certain people to have the 'vocation' for salvation, although producing a pleasant rhyme , doesn't fit with my idea that God wants us all to be saved; if he did, and he had power over faith, he would surely save us all. It seems to me to make so much more sense to say that God wants us all to be saved, but only some accept it (by faith), whilst others reject it (preferring worldly things instead). I think this does fit with the quotes you provided: (John 6:44) the commentaries I have read on this seem to suggest 'drawing' is not like a puppeteer and his puppet with no free will involved, but more like being drawn of one's own will; St. Augustine answers from the poet, Trahit sua quemque voluptas; a man is attracted by that which he delights in. This seems clear and right; no man would turn to God unless God was 'attractive'. Ephesians 2: 8 is talking about grace. Ephesians 2: 10 relates to the change we undergo following Christ, into a 'Christ-self' as CS Lewis said; in such a spirit of God-conciousness/nearness, what we do that is good of our own will is also God's will, and indeed comes from the holy spirit which is part of us as individuals.
I do accept that you won't agree, and that you think differently to me on this, so perhaps we should leave this issue out of mutual respect?
I think I agree with you if I understand you correctly I completely agree on your points about worldly freedom, and also about our inability to will ourselves free from sin, and into salvation. Where I would say freedom lies is faith; we are free to turn to God and accept that only his grace can forgive our sins. Would you agree with this?
Thank you, you're welcome.
'Lilio' is dative/ablative of 'lilium' ('lily'), so that's 'to/for/by/with/from a lily'. 'Candidior' is the nominative/vocative (so the subject of the phrase/sentence or else being addressed, "O..."-style) comparative adjective of 'candidus', meaning 'shining white'/'clear'/'bright'.
The two words aren't in the same case so they don't agree
To agree, it would have to be 'lilium candidior' (nominative/vocative), 'lilium candidiorem' (accusative), 'lilio candidiori' (dative) or 'lilio candidiore' (ablative). Then it would mean 'shining white lily' or something else, depending on the case.
Did you know that your username doesn't make sense in Latin?
Where I study
- About me
- Last Activity 30-08-2013
- Join Date 04-09-2007
Join Date 04-09-2007
Total Posts 885