Posted on 07/02/2012 6:30:14 AM PDT by Cronos
I want to thank Archbishop William E. Lori for reminding me once again why I'm an ex-Catholic ("Fight for freedom," June 27). With the so-called "Fortnight for Freedom," the church leadership is deliberately and cynically using a mixture of patriotism and religion in a blatant and manipulative attempt to influence the outcome of the upcoming elections.
I can't seem to recall any recent news about Catholic churches being bombed in the United States or attempts to bar American Catholics from attending mass. I do know that the Catholic Church has been using its "religious freedom" for decades to aid and abet child abusers, to recently attack nuns in the United States who are at the forefront of what used to be one of the church's primary missions to aid and comfort the poor and needy, and that the American church has over the past few decades formed an alliance with some of the most strident and politically active right-wing religious groups in the U.S. Archbishop Lori even received an award in May from a coalition of some of those groups.
I am proud to be an American, and I am a strong supporter of the Bill of Rights. I support freedom of religion, and I support freedom from religion. And, at this moment in time, I am also very proud and happy to be an ex-Catholic.
Sandy Covahey, Baltimore
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
Is that all part of what is called the New Apostolic Reformation?
WRONG! He does it through Scripture.
If that's what you really believe, then it goes to show that you also reject the authority of the Catholic church you claim to be part of.
I have already posted a message from heaven of which I approve. It's called Scripture.
I'd go further and say he's not even a Christian.
He's an agent of the Deceiver.
We've been warned about those like him in Scripture. You need to take the warning to heart.
1. About Revelation 3:14.
As for Rev 3:14, you’re right, the meaning of the text is not esoteric. But neither should these words be forced to say things the inspired writer didn’t actually say.
For example, the passage reads:
Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
Note the last clause. The word “arche” is used. Per the Louw-Nida lexicon, arche can mean any number of things, depending on the semantic context:
a beginning (aspect): 68.1
b beginning (time): 67.65
c first cause: 89.16
d sphere of authority: 37.55
e ruler: 37.56
f supernatural power: 12.44
g elementary aspect: 58.20
h corner: 79.106
You can see that “arche” always has to do with primacy of some sort, but the exact kind of primacy must be determined by context. Given what we learned from John 1:3, that God through John does not want us to consider Jesus a created being (remember, the text explicitly confirms that all created beings without exception are in fact creations of Jesus, and you have not refuted this) we know that the primacy of arche here has to do with either authority or causation (see semantic category 3 above), or even perhaps both.
And so the passage could as easily read:
Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the [first cause,source,origin] of the creation of God;
Bottom line, John 1:3 remains your obstacle to any theory of creature-Creator agency relationship. The creature you need to have in place does not exist until Jesus creates him. He is an undocumented creature. You have yet to refute this.
2. On Agency
But you may say, well, what about having some statement somewhere that Jesus and God are indeed the same being? Wouldn’t you need to have that to discredit the idea of agency?
No, because your agency theory breaks down all by itself in the light of Scripture. Agency, when it occurs in the Bible as related to God, has certain properties. The angel in Revelation is a great example. You notice what happens when John gets confused and begins to treat the agent as being fully the principal:
Rev 22:8-9 “And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. [9] Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.”
What are those last two words? Worship God. Any creature who is an agent of God MUST refuse worship, for only God may be worshipped. Or do you wish have it suggested that God has instituted the heinous idolatry of angel worship? God forbid. I believe to a certainty you oppose idolatry.
As did the apostles, who were more than once accounted as gods among the pagans, and who uniformly reacted as did the angel of Revelation, refusing to accept worship that was due only to God. See Acts 10:25-27
This demonstrates an important fact about God. However willing he may be to delegate tasks to his creatures, he is careful that none be worshipped but himself:
>>>>>
Isa 48:11 “For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.”
And in all those creature-Creator agency relationships that the Bible actually documents, that is exactly how it works. But with Jesus there are new rules:
Mat 2:2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
Mat 8:2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. [3] And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
Mat 9:18 While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live. [19] And Jesus arose, and followed him, and so did his disciples.
Mat 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God. [34] And when they were gone over, they came into the land of Gennesaret.
Mat 15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. [26] But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.
Mat 28:17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
John 9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? [36] He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? [37] And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. [38] And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
Luk 24:51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven. [52] And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy: [53] And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.
Joh 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. [28] And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. [29] Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
<<<<<
So here’s your dilemma. If, as you have said, we must follow Scripture wherever it leads, and I agree with you on that, then it is imperative to resolve this apparent breakdown in your theory of agency, because Jesus is righteous and if he were a righteous creature, he would have in every instance above refused to accept the worship due only to God.
To worship less than God is what idolatry is by definition, and a righteous creature, no matter how lofty, could not insult the glory of God by receiving worship. God does not give his glory to another. If Jesus was a mere creature, and accepted worship, he would be a defective agent, acting out of scope to his duties, and not serving the stated purposes of the principal, thus making himself morally inferior to the apostles and the angels, and that is impossible.
3. On John 1:1
Nevertheless, because God knows we are prone to ignore the obvious, he has provided us with an unmistakable way-marker in John 1:1. Of course I agree capitalization is something the translator does. However, the caps chosen for this verse are well within the bounds of reasonable translation practice, as the Logos is clearly Christ by simply reading the passage as a whole.
Furthermore, John makes sure the reader understands that the Logos is not a pure identity of or quality of God, by stating that he was with God:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The personal identity of the Word is made crystal clear in John 1:14, where the Word becomes flesh and dwells among us. This is the same being who was both with God and was God, per John 1:1.
But what about the so-called missing definite article in the third clause? Is the NWT correct to translate it “a god,” as opposed to God? No, it is a patent mistranslation. Ask your expert AT Robertson. Put in short form, the word order plays a big role in the Greek, and confirms the traditional Trinitarian translation. Here’s the clause:
kai theos en ho logos
In literal sequence:
And God he was, the Word.
The comma is supplied because the subject is confirmed to be Logos by the definite article “ho.” Therefore what John has done is emphasize Christ’s deity by pushing it to the front of the clause, what is called the emphatic position. If he were a poster on FR, an equivalent rendering might look like this:
And !!!GOD!!! he was, the Word.
Emphatic indeed.
But why no definite article in front of “theos?” Because if, in Greek, he had said this:
The God is The Word…
He would have been establishing a textual basis for Modalism, where there is an absolute identity between God and Jesus. Basically, by leaving out the definite article on “theos,” he short-circuits the Oneness Pentecostals and all other such groups.
Alright you say, then why isn’t theos an indefinite object, as in one of many gods, as in the NWT? If it lacks the definite article, why can’t we just supply the indefinite article?
Because Greek just doesn’t have an indefinite article. If you want to know whether or not to use one, you have to look at each case one at a time, using the rules of common Greek usage to make your decision. And in this case, it’s not hard to figure out, not esoteric, as you say, but sitting right out there in plain sight.
For a quick demonstration of this, take a quick look at John 1:6, just a few verses below:
John 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
Now look at the Greek:
Egeneto anthropos apestalmenos para theos, onoma auto Iwannes
Notice “para theos.” It means “from God,” right? Not “from a god.” Else the passage would have to read:
John 1:6 There was a man sent from [a god,] whose name was John.???
So then what’s the rule? To be consistent with the proposed NWT rule that gave us the “a god” translation in John 1:1, that same rule should be applied equally in every case, should it not? But then we end up with a boatload of nonsense. How does John 1:12 read under the NWT rule?:
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of [a god], even to them that believe on his name: ???
Sounds positively Mormon to me. Or verse 13?
Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but [a god]???
Or verse 18?
Joh 1:18 No man hath seen [a god] at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.???
Do you get the point? The NWT rule is utter nonsense, perpetrated on well-meaning people who haven’t a clue how Greek works and willing to believe what other people who haven’t a clue about how Greek works tell them how it should be. It’s a Greek tragedy. All the good verses die.
Well what’s left then, if not definite, and not indefinite? Ah, but we are not dealing with a strictly binary system here. This is Greek, home to some of the brightest minds in human history, and it has other possibilities.
In particular, when neither the definite nor the indefinite article applies, we are no longer talking strictly about objects, but have entered the realm of categories or classes of things. Thus, “theos” is metadata about Jesus. It describes the class of things he belongs to. Put another way, it is a qualitative assessment of who he is by his very nature. It asserts that he has the nature of God. That’s the class of beings to which he properly belongs, and as there is only one such being in that class by definition, the conclusion is irresistible. Jesus is God.
This is not rocket science. This is really what John said:
And the Word was !!!GOD!!!.
Conclusion:
Like you said, the word of God sometimes leads us to places we don’t expect and even places we don’t like. Here the word of God leads us to an unsolvable puzzle. How can God be one being, yet really three persons? It seems impossible. Yet there it is. Refute it if you can, but accept it if you cannot. Let God be true, but every man a liar.
Peace,
SR
I’m with you on that one metmom.
No, we actually don’t profess that. We actually agree with Jesus.
“Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” John 6:28-29
“Is that all part of what is called the New Apostolic Reformation?”
I believe so. I actually live next to a church where they have the so-called five-fold ministry. Basically, they refuse to recognize that the apostolic age is over. Furthermore, they have an eschatology that involves them conquering the political domain via spiritual warfare. Their apostles, so they say, are the eventual supernatural rulers of the new order coming. Latter Rain. Blues versus Grays. Grays are the people who think - gray matter, get it? - the grays are doomed to lose in the new order - not kidding. For neighbors I have this. Oy Vey!
"In July of 2011 the Lord began to give me warnings for His people to shake them awake so that they may prepare themselves (spiritually) for the days ahead and to enter His (spiritual) ark of rest. In response to that charge, I have begun this blog. "
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
There will be no further Revelation
66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".
Kevin Barrett's revelations do not belong to the deposit of the Faith. Furthermore, they cannot be judged valid until examined by the Church and declared valid. Therefore this Catholic must consider Kevin Barret's blog and writings invalid. I urge both Catholic and non Catholic alike, who are faithful to the Revelation of Christ, to reject this man's writings.
Appreciate the interjection. The convincing factor became the extensive ping list though.
Agreed. I just posted on the subject up a couple of posts.
Are you Roman Catholic? I didn’t reply to your PM, it wasn’t sincere or friendly so I wasn’t sure.
I already posted reference to paragraph 66 and 67 a
few pages back when private revelation was rejected again
by our dear brothers and sisters in Christ.
see...paragraph 67.
They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, BUT TO HELP LIVE MORE FULLY BY IT in a certain period of history.
And what does paragraph 66 say....
Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made COMPLETELY EXPLICIT; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
Prophecy, private revelation, approved and yet to be approved make God’s revelation more EXPLICIT, yes, it is a help.
Read Kevin’s message, it confirms Catholic Truth. All the new replies this evening, what a fuss but still no comment on the paragraph excerpt itself.
Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the [first cause,source,origin] of the creation of God;”
Or in keeping with the meaning of “arche” could read “...the first created one of the creation of God” which would make more sense seeing the Father is the Origin and First Cause since “all things” were created through the Son.
“Bottom line, John 1:3 remains your obstacle to any theory of creature-Creator agency relationship. The creature you need to have in place does not exist until Jesus creates him. He is an undocumented creature. You have yet to refute this.”
You’re arguing, I think, that “all things” cannot have any exceptions as John 1:3 says,
“All things came into being through him” (the Logos is an agent of creation as all things were through (dia) him.)
“and without him not one thing came into being”
Of course “all things” and “not one thing” excepts the Logos himself unless you make the argument he created himself, which isn't likely.
Paul use similar language in Col. 1:15-18 calling the Son not God or God the Son but the image of God and the firstborn of creation adding that “all things have been created through (dia) him”.
Paul doesn't need to make an exception in “all things” to the Son himself as that would be understood that he wasn't created through himself.
At another time “all things” has the exception noted as “all things” obviously excepted God to who the Christ would be subject. (1 Cor. 15:27)
So “all things” is not quite as tight a definition as you've described and John 1:3 presents no problem.
“What are those last two words? Worship God. Any creature who is an agent of God MUST refuse worship, for only God may be worshipped. Or do you wish have it suggested that God has instituted the heinous idolatry of angel worship? God forbid. I believe to a certainty you oppose idolatry.”
The word usually translated “worship” is the Greek “proskuneo”, a word that basically means to bow down, to prostrate ones self before a superior. It can also mean “obeisance” or “homage”. Which word is used often depends upon the judgment/bias of the translator and the context.
For example at Matthew 18:26-34 Jesus told the story of the slave who owed a great deal of money to his Lord. He falls before his master begging patience, he is either worshiping, doing obeisance, or homage as he prostrates himself depending upon the translation.
“John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
By the trinitarian definition of the term “God” the Logos was with himself. And the Logos being “God” consisted of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Of course that makes no sense but then I don't think the trinitarian definition of God makes sense.
“Alright you say, then why isn’t theos an indefinite object, as in one of many gods, as in the NWT? If it lacks the definite article, why can’t we just supply the indefinite article?”
The NWT is not alone in its ue of “a god” or similar but that's for tomorrow.
When there is no article the context can determine whether or not to use on in English. In John 4:19 the woman at the well says to Jesus, “I see you are prophet”.
She wasn't saying he was THE prophet or the prophet from somewhere but A prophet, one of several that could be called “prophet”.
She could see Jesus was a prophet by what he did not by birth or appointment or even self proclamation.
But when the article is used there is no question of being definite as in John 1:1, “the God” vs. “god” without the article.
“It asserts that he has the nature of God.”
And that is what? Power, knowledge, spiritness?
But God is unique, not a class likes “gods” that includes humans. Paul could say that were many gods and lords but it was the Father that was God, not the Son. (1 Cor. 8:6)
Son, I have been fighting for the Faith on FR since 2004. My record is intact. My PM is sincere but cautious. I invited you to explain yourself. You have, now.
Please cease and desist from identifying yourself as Catholic. Occasionally we actual Catholics find ourselves playing the role of:
“Kevin Barrett’s revelations do not belong to the deposit of the Faith. Furthermore, they cannot be judged valid until examined by the Church and declared valid. Therefore this Catholic must consider Kevin Barret’s blog and writings invalid. I urge both Catholic and non Catholic alike, who are faithful to the Revelation of Christ, to reject this man’s writings.”
~ ~ ~
Correction, “Kevin Barrett’s revelations” and all private
revelation do not belong to the deposit of the Faith. About
his message from Jesus.
Kevin’s message spoke the truth, it is faith and works, not “Faith Alone.” If Kevin’s message from Our Lord had supported Luther’s heresy, Protestants here would be jumping for joy, commenting on every line of the excerpt.
Jesus is correcting, teaching, preparing non-Catholic Christians to accept the faith, Roman Catholicism.
Catholics can believe or disbelieve private revelation, approved or yet to be approved. The Church is prudent, it takes time to approve. Plus very important, certain events spoken of in current prophecy haven’t take place yet.
The only private revelation to be avoided, rejected, is private revelation CONDEMNED by the Church. Too bad, very sad rejecting prophecy, your own messengers. The time ahead is going to be confusing.
1 Corinthians 12:28
And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly PROPHETS, thirdly doctors; after that miracles; then the graces of healing, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.
That kind of thinkng is starting to infiltrate pentecostal churches.
Son, I have been fighting for the Faith on FR since 2004. My record is intact. My PM is sincere but cautious. I invited you to explain yourself. You have, now.
Please cease and desist from identifying yourself as Catholic. Occasionally we actual Catholics find ourselves playing the role of:
~ ~ ~
What can I say, don’t begin a post with your condescending “son”....
You aren’t sincere, you also said to someone else, “this should be interesting”, like a true know it all. Your posts today show you aren’t always right. Be kind instead.
If you are truly Catholic, you would stand up for what
was stated in that one prophetic paragraph, it was Catholic.
Instead, you are following the Protestants, helping their
rejection of the faith. Jesus rejects “Faith Alone”
more than once and very simply.
God bless you,
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Protestants here, they’ve been running away, from being specific for a couple of days, they won’t say what is false in this message. Please, you read it and comment. Where is the falsehood that goes against the faith? I would appreciate it.
~ ~ ~
Kevin’s website: http://hearhisheart.wordpress.com/
an excerpt fro the April 1, 2012 message:
Oh hear Me, My people. Why do you listen to the hirelings and false teachers and prophets? Did I not say in My word that not all that say to me ‘Lord’ ‘Lord’ shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, save those that DO the will of the Father who is in heaven? Then why do you still go about doing your own will and tell yourselves that you are My bride? My people, you have been lied to by the enemy of your soul. Seek Me in these things. Surely I will reveal My truth to you. I love you, My dear children, and it is My desire that each of you share My throne with Me. But unfortunately only a remnant shall overcome. For too many have listened to the lies told by the FALSE shepherds and prophets. They speak of how you each are already cleansed and adorned in righteousness simply by your BELIEF on My name. These are all lies, My people. For does not My word say that he who DOES righteousness is righteous? Yes, My people, you are made righteous by your faith in Me, but it is FULLFILLED BY YOUR OBEDIENCE to My voice. IT IS NOT IMPUTED TO YOU BY A ONE-TIME CONFESSION OF MY NAME. Oh, My people, you have been lied to. Read My word for yourselves. Why listen to those that fatten themselves by fleecing My sheep? I have not sent many of the shepherds that are out there. They have sent themselves for their own glory and their own profit. Oh, My people, did I not say in My word to judge them by their fruit? Then where is the fruit, My people? Oh, but those that have itching ears care not about the fruit. They want to be told all is well and that they shall PROSPER if they simply believe on My name and My promises. Lies, lies, lies, I tell you.
It’s interesting.
Although we may disagree on which authority is to be used to verify or validate these so-called “prophets”, nevertheless, we both recognize that no one should take the words of any of these guys seriously on their own merits.
It also appears that pio doesn’t consider you a Catholic either.
It’s ironic because at this point, I don’t consider him a Catholic either. There’s simply no solid evidence of such.
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.