Posted on 11/24/2009 4:10:44 PM PST by NYer
Statistics released Nov. 24 by the FBI show hate crimes against religious groups increased by 9% from 2007 to 2008.
USA Today reported that in 2008, there 1,519 incidents against people based on their religion, the statistics show.
The figures reveal that while anti-Jewish attacks made up the highest percentage of the attacks (17%), there was an increase in hate crimes against Catholics — 75, up from 61 in 2007.
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said the increase may be due to the Church becoming more vocal on life issues such as abortion and homosexual unions.
As the Catholic bishops take a stronger stance, he said, it filters down to the laity, and as more traditional Catholics become more vocal, they become targets for those who disagree with them.
“Unfortunately, it spills over into violence,” he said, adding that it’s just going to get worse before it gets better.
“I’ve never seen our country so culturally divided and so polarized,” he said. “These issues are not going away.”
Nor I.
Every now and then it's nice to find the things we agree about.
"οι παρ αυτου", in itself, does not indicate any kind of familial relation. Do a search on "παρ αυτ%" in http://unbound.biola.edu/ and you'll find that it means nothing more than "those with him": the expression can apply even to inanimate objects. For example,
δαπανησασα τα παρ αυτης παντα (Mark 5:26) -- had spent all that she had
With a definitive article it is a very vague way to point to people. St. Mark clearly is not identifying anyone in particular either by familial relation or as being a disciple as he introduces the first group, whereas for the second group he choses direct "brothers and the mother".
It is used to indicate agency or perhaps discipleship as well:
παρ αυτου ειμι (John 7:29) -- I am from him
Most hits without a definitive article simply preposition αυτος to mean something like "of him":
επυνθανετο παρ αυτων που ο χριστος γενναται (Mt 4:2)-- inquired of them where Christ should be born
“This type of pulling-of-teeth kind of reading convinces me more than anything that God had nothing to do with the scriptures. God would have never made such a mess!”
This kind of tooth-pulling has more to do with the foolishness of man than poor decisions by God. We often delve into details that God didn’t choose to reveal, then blame God for not satisfying our curiosity.
If annalex wants to believe there were two groups, well, I disagree. So what? He seems to believe it demeans Mary if Mary had doubts or fears. I do not. John the Baptist had doubts. It is human to have doubts and fears. It seems to me that if Mary doubted at this point, she was human. As a Protestant, I believe Mary was a sinner blessed by God.
In addition to this text, we know she didn’t fully understand when Jesus was at the Temple as a youth. We know the brothers of Jesus - even if you prefer to call them kinsmen - didn’t believe. Shoot - Peter & the others were with him daily, and THEY didn’t understand until the Resurrection!
And frankly, I think it makes the response of Jesus more understandable. He seems a bit rude to me, if his mother came by to bring him a cup of tea, and he says, “Who is my mother...” But if they were coming because they didn’t understand his ministry...it seems natural.
However, that is my opinion. Others don’t have to agree. This is not a question of great doctrine or critical belief, unless a belief that Mary was sinless is required by someone. And in that case, I guess I won’t be part of their church...
The Trinity has been a cause of much debate - but most of it is philosophical. I became a Christian when I was 12, but I received little teaching in anything for 2-3 years. I went several years without being baptized because I didn’t know what it was, and no one told me. I didn’t have to believe in ‘The Trinity’ to be saved. The Trinity is consistent with what I’ve read in the Bible. It has been taught for 1700 years or so. And it seems most everyone who denies the Trinity also denies other parts of what God has revealed.
So I accept the Trinity - but in all honesty, if we were sitting around having a cup of coffee (at a Greek festival? or would it involve drinking something else?), and you asked me to define the Trinity, I probably couldn’t.
Sola Scriptura does NOT claim the scriptures teach us everything. It says the critical stuff is clearly taught, and that other teachings should not conflict with what we find in scripture - but scripture is meant to guide us to salvation by grace through faith in Jesus, and to teach us to live in a manner pleasing to God.
The way I figure it, if God wanted us to know with certainty the details of his being as God, or to be able to discuss it in a philosophically pleasing manner, He would have revealed it. Since He didn’t, we should admit our limited knowledge and press on with what scripture teaches IS important to God - being born again as new creations by God’s grace thru faith, and putting aside the desires of our old nature and walking in the Holy Spirit.
It isn’t wrong to debate other issues, provided we have the humility to accept that God hasn’t revealed everything to us, nor could we understand if He had.
< / sermon >
Et cum audissent sui, exierunt tenere eum
The subject is simply omitted. Its role in Greek was purely grammatical.
Your disagreement is with the way the scripture is written, not with me.
He seems to believe it demeans Mary if Mary had doubts or fears
Not at all: I pointed out on this thread (453) that Mary probably had them and that it does not demean her in any way.
Fair enough. I don’t speak Greek, and various translations have it differently. The NASB, which I think is usually a very good translation, has it “His own people”. I still think it was one group being referenced, but I don’t see it as critical.
If you do, then we will have to just disagree on interpretation.
I DO, however, object to the idea that it is dishonest to think one group is referred to. As a rule of thumb, if Baptists and the Vatican both have the same interpretation, it is NOT something that requires dishonesty to believe.
Yes.
Now you're just makin' stuff up.
There is no such thing as an Elim wife swapping cult, my dear. Another lie from Petronski who belongs to a cult of Mariology and has no room to talk about anyone else, LOL.
Oh, sure. I’m the one who is sad. You are a sad sack, dear one.
Excellent find.
Of course not, the PC claims of "bigotry" are made to silence any who disagree. It's a liberal tactic to try and frame all debate so those that present sound doctrine to refute heresy such as "co-redeemer" are marginalized.
The anti-Catholic tenor of the Elim cult is strong in you.
The best information I found regarding this is found here as far as I can tell
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P1.HTM
Personally,all that matters to me is that I believe we have the interpretations correct handed down through Church history because it seems almost impossible to translate with 100% accuracy of what we believe are original to translations in various modern languages.
I have never in the 25 years of attending an Elim church heard ONE person or ONE pastor who has ever said anything negative about the Catholic church. That is a petronski lie. In fact, my former pastor was a born again Catholic and he never said anything either, neither has my husband who was a former Catholic. YOU are mistaken or just trying to get back at me because I disagree with the tenets of your church and its lies.
Interesting phraseology. Did God die on the Cross?
“if we were sitting around having a cup of coffee (at a Greek festival? or would it involve drinking something else?),”
A silly question! Ouzo, of course, because we are Balkan Mountain bandits, men not sissies! :)
A result of the Nicea Council, called and paid for by Constantine. The debate was about terminology Theotokos (Mother of God) vs. Christokos (Mother of Christ). An issue that has never been resolved because of politicking at the council.
If the term "Mother of God" is more apt who died on the Cross? Are you supporting the position God was killed?
If the term "Mother of Christ" is more apt it was the perfect humanity of the Christ that was killed.
“Did God die on the Cross?”
The Mohammedans say no. I understand some Protestants have accepted that tenet of Mohammedanism.
Otherwise, in answer to you question, yes. The hypostasis of the Incarnate Word died. Since God is ousia composed inseparably by the union of three hypostases, God died on the Cross and His Body lay in the tomb for three days.
N: I will refrain from posting freeper names. Their records stand before them.
When did fierce disagreement with your church become a crime?
“A result of the Nicea Council, called and paid for by Constantine.”
Wrong Council, WF. You want the Thrid Ecumenical Council in 431.
“If the term “Mother of God” is more apt who died on the Cross? Are you supporting the position God was killed?”
Yes, of course.
“If the term “Mother of Christ” is more apt it was the perfect humanity of the Christ that was killed.”
That’s Nestorianism and a heresy which, until resurrected by American Protestants within the past 150 years (or less) had pretty much died out since the 17th century when its remaining devotees gave up the ghost in China except in a few small groups in Iraq which have since repudiated it (and become, I believe, in communion with Rome).
LOL!
Man, you are on a roll.
Sharp, this is a topic that came up when I was talking with a muslim. He was questioning Christianity because we claim God was killed.
Otherwise, in answer to you question, yes. The hypostasis of the Incarnate Word died. Since God is ousia composed inseparably by the union of three hypostases, God died on the Cross and His Body lay in the tomb for three days.
You need to drink some more ouzo and ponder this. Think about it this way, if you will, can souls be destroyed/die?
K: That’s Nestorianism and a heresy
I know, I know, I know. You guys throw out the word "heresy" at the drop of a hat. It's almost like "anathema" for the RC's.
The question is a good one though. If souls don't die once they are created how did God die on the Cross.
That's your M.O. You admitted it (bragged of it, actually).
“Think about it this way, if you will, can souls be destroyed/die?”
The soul is not immortal by nature. The immortality of the soul by nature is at base a pagan notion. The Fathers are in accord on this. For example:
“”The teaching that the human soul is naturally immortal is from the devil” +Irenaenus of Lyons
Only God is immortal by nature, WF.
“If souls don’t die once they are created how did God die on the Cross.”
But that, WF, is incorrect. Souls most certainly can “die”, or be destroyed or cease to exist.
“”And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell””
Exactly. The soul is not by nature immortal.
Psalm 16:10
For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption
Luke 20:38
For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him
1 Thess 5:10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.
Theologically, yes—in his human nature; no, in his divine nature.
Dear +Ireanaeus didn't think this through, it seems. By definition, the soul is God's own breath (and as such by nature immortal). The word soul in Hebrew and Greek means breath, wind, a metaphor for that which animates, quickens—life itself. Only that which has no life is dead.
Theologically, if God is life, then life (soul) is immortal by nature. That's why taking a life is a mortal sin. As such, the soul is not "created" but given.
Matthew's apparent babble (Mat 10:28) to fear the one who can destroy not only the body but also the soul was probably interpolated by a scribe at some point, because it does not reflect the biblical teaching that life is God's own breath, a divine substance, and as such cannot be destroyed.
“The bible does teach that the soul is immortal, yet it exists as the Lord allows.”
It does, eh? Where? Not in the passages you quote. Immortality is an attribute of God. If one “attains” by grace theosis, one becomes or has become, like God. That’s what we were created for. In that state, the soul spends “eternity” with God; immortality I suppose. Otherwise, by our fallen nature, the soul “dies” or is “destroyed”...just like +Matthew says. Immortality of the soul is a gift from God not a natural attribute of the soul.
Do you believe that everyone is saved?
Sure. I just don't read into things.
(II Samuel 7:12-14)
Wrong place, wrong time, wrong person...perfect formula for misundersdtanding.
“Dear +Ireanaeus didn’t think this through, it seems. By definition, the soul is God’s own breath (and as such by nature immortal).”
You disagree with The Church, Kosta. It is paganism to say that the soul is by nature immortal. Read Kalomiros or Fr. Romanides again. Here’s a link to a paper by Fr. John which touches on the subject:
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.11.en.the_ecclesiology_of_st._ignatius_of_antioch.01.htm
:) WF, Dr E and Mr R, the proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon explain all of this....
ha ha
Then perhaps you need to write to the Vatican and tell them to stop promoting NAB as the Catholic Bible of choice for English speaking faithful on their official site!
Even though, the Vatican believes it is the best thing since sliced bread, with no less than 25 Bible scholars devoting their professional careers to perfecting it, you can tell them your expertise puts them to shame.
Please do. I am looking forward to reading their readiness to immediately consult you for corrections. Hopefully you will share their humble submission to your irrefutable arguments. And in the future, don't bother providing any references to the Vatican, since they obviously are not qualified. Your authority will suffice.
And I was foolishly thinking the Catholics are not allowed to interpret privately...so, are you going to that annual Calvinist meeting next year?
he he
I believe it was JPII a few posts ago posted by Mr Rogers, quoting direclty from one of papal encyclicals.
Yes, that is certainly a significant observation.
Luke 16:19-31: 1And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
No it doesn't. Also, if God really wanted to preserve his word, he would have made sure the originals were saved in a pristine, indisputable appearance, and language.
We often delve into details that God didn’t choose to reveal, then blame God for not satisfying our curiosity
Ia ma not blaming God for anything. It is men who claim God was involved in writing this mess to give their own writings an air of authority and acceptance.
No I don't, Petronski. If the official Vatican site offers only one version of the Bible in English, it is official.
Thank you SFA for the thereference.
Yes, I remember family gatherings. Folks would say, "Look - there's Bob's mother, and his mother's daughter..."
That is soooo much easier than just saying 'mother and sister', isn't it?
;>)
Christologcially, yes. Christ defined as both God and man, two natures, separate and unconfused, in one person, means that in his human nature, as a true man, he was mortal and subject to passion, even temptation and death.
Otherwise he was not a true man but only a God who took on human appearance, a deceitful act because he not only fooled his disciples but he staged his own death (a perfect reality TV scenario!).
That is heresy, WMF, not just in Catholic and Orthodox faiths, but in all mainline Protestant denominations, I owuld say in at least 90% of communities who consider themselves Christian.
If God (Jesus Christ) did not die (in his humanity) on the cross, then he was immortal not only in his divinity but also in his humanity and therefore his humanity was a lie.
Yes, you do.
If the Vatican says it is official it will do so by--wait for it--saying it is official.
YOU don't have that kind of power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.