Actually, we can take a pretty good guess.
which is a rather attractive option when you contrast:
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 ...
Championing individuals who claim to speak revelation from God is not a good way to share messages from Heaven.
Unless and until the Church rules on Barrett, I will consider him a false prophet and will call upon true believers in the Faith to do the same.
Idiots who claim to speak for God usually speak for themselves, or for some other master...
“So whose interpretaton of the prophecies are we to accept?
What is this now?
No YOPIOS but YOPIOP?
How do you know that you’re interpreting it correctly? The Catholic church teaches against one’s own personal interpretation of Scripture. How then, can one’s own personal interpretation of prophecy be acceptable?”
~ ~ ~
Thanks metmom, the answer is the Church, God gave the Church the gift to interpret Scripture. Look to her interpretation, her teaching on meaning of Scripture. Private Interpretation of Scripture, PIOS is wrong, look
at it’s fruit.
You can start with a Catholic Bible, read the footnotes
on difficult verses, then you’ll better understand why
the Church teaches what she does.
Your second question, prophecy (private revelation) helps one better understand God’s plan, it doesn’t change it. It’s whether you choose to believe private revelation or not, I wish you would. When a message goes against Church teaching, there’s your way to know. It doesn’t happen very often. God isn’t silent, He knows what He wants to say.
Pride makes people dismiss the prophetic, they shouldn’t.
The same has happened with approved messages, one example, the messages of Divine Mercy. Thank Pope John Paul II for bringing them up for examination again.
God bless you,
Appreciate the kudos, but there really is only One...
Luke 9:35...
Taking you at your word that you are indeed Catholic you have a duty to not foster and propagate unsubstantiated private revelation, but rather to take it to your pastor and bishop so that the Church can assess its merits. It alone has been entrusted by Jesus with a teaching authority.
Correct. We have a duty not to stray off like lambs into the wilderness. Wildly preaching the newness of revelation is compelling, to be sure, but can we be sure that it is of God? That is why private revelation is held separate from the Deposit of the Faith, and why it is not held true until judged true.
“Championing individuals who claim to speak revelation from God is not a good way to share messages from Heaven.
Unless and until the Church rules on Barrett, I will consider him a false prophet and will call upon true believers in the Faith to do the same.
Idiots who claim to speak for God usually speak for themselves, or for some other master”...
~ ~ ~
The Church can’t possibly investigate every messages
from Heaven and as I said even if they could, they must
wait for the divine events stated in the present yet to be approved messages to take place. They haven’t taken place yet but they are “soon”, trust God.
They must be close...Heaven keeps repeating what is ahead and more urgently every day. Another reason for repeating His plan, God knows our prideful human nature.
You NEVER replied and I posted it again, where is the
error in the paragraph excerpt in the message to Kevin
Barrett from Our Lord? You sound like the Protestants here.
Catholics can’t confirm their disbelief of Catholic teaching and their rejection of prophecy.
I wish you the best, no hard feelings. Many people dismiss the current messages from Heaven.
Well, keep in mind the early believers were pretty excited about Jesus coming back too. It took a little time for it to settle in that this was for the long haul.
And then everybody loves a good detective novel, so deciphering the Daniel-Revelation code for some of these folks becomes an obsession. I’ve seen it.
Others of course get into the fray because there’s money to be made cashing in on people’s curiosity and concern about the future.
But bottom line, I can’t think of anything more natural than for the people who most love Jesus to most desire his return and the blessings of his kingdom that will follow. My wife bugs me about it all the time. She has a real problem with all the pain in the world, and looks to Jesus to come and end the foolishness we put ourselves through.
BTW, Harold Camping has repented publically of his repeated errors concerning the matter. I give him a lot of credit for that, but really it should have happened right after his first miss. I’ve always told people, look, how are we goning to know better than Jesus did whan his return was going to happen. If he didn’t know, how do ya think we’re gonna know? And another thing. He told us he was coming back when no one would be looking for it. Ipso facto, if we’re all looking for it right now, it’s pretty unlikely to happen right now.
I like what DL Moody once said. Somebody asked him, what would you do today if you knew for sure Jesus was coming tomorrow. His answer, IIRC, was “plant a tree,” by which I think he meant, he wouldn’t do anything different than what he was already doing. If we are living in true faith of the Son of God, and our sins have been washed clean by his blood, and we have his Spirit, what would we need to do different?
Peace,
SR
“Correct. We have a duty not to stray off like lambs into the wilderness. WILDLY PREACHING the newness of revelation is compelling, to be sure, but can we be sure that it is of God? That is why private revelation is held separate from the Deposit of the Faith, and WHY IT IS NOT HELD TRUE UNTIL
JUDGED TRUE.”
~ ~ ~
Third time, what was “wildly” preached in the message
excerpt given to Kevin Barrett from Our Lord?
State the error, name it?
Kevin’s website: http://hearhisheart.wordpress.com/
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.
Your last sentence Mark, repeating the same but leaving out, I’ll say again, we can believe OR disbelieve private revelation, that includes yet to be approved private revelation not only approved private revelation. It’s the CONDEMNED PR we are to avoid.
“You want us to point out lies to you? OK. Here you go. This one for a start; the same one Satan tempted Eve with; “ You shall be as gods.....”
I love you, My dear children, and it is My desire that each of you share My THRONE with Me.
Right from the pit. God shares His glory with no other.
It is a lie that righteousness isn’t IMPUTED BY FAITH. It most certainly is.”
~ ~ ~
Post the entire message you took the prophetic sentence from metmom.
It could be Mary speaking, she is Queen of Heaven but the
capital My and Me, shows it most likely Our Lord or God the Father speaking.
See why the lie of “Faith Alone” creeps destructively
into every area of Protestant belief. Change on one
heresy, this will help before the Great Warning.
Okay, I’ll settle (I don’t want to) for praying you’ll recall when the time comes.
Spiritual discernment makes people dismiss the false prophets..
The same has happened with approved messages, one example, the messages of Divine Mercy. Thank Pope John Paul II for bringing them up for examination again
Apples and oranges. This is not an approved message so the comparison is not valid.
And neither is the message.
There are at least four things that trouble me about these "revelations":
1) He makes a specific about those who call themselves the "Bride of Christ" (aka the Catholic church).
2) The speak about endlessly about a remnant and end times, all very unCatholic themes.
3) He uses archaic English grammar and word choice to sound scriptural. In all private revelations I have read the communication was in the vernacular of the recipient and was in plain and simple language.
4) There seems to be a never ending stream of revelations suitable to meet his blog requirements (his blog contain commercial solicitations).
The history of the world is full of cases where one individual would say "God speaks to me and I will tell you what He says, in exchange for something I desire. Eventually, the seer takes the position of speaking on behalf of and with the authority of God at all times. Christianity has been significantly different fro all of the other shams. Kevin appears to me to be a struggling to break into the cult industry in a leadership position.
Peace be with you
I trust God. I don't trust Barrett, and given your championing of him, I don't trust your messages either. If a private revelation is not approved by the Church, then we are not to believe others. The Church must investigate every claim of Divine communication. That is part of their very existence. If you as a Catholic do not know that, I would be very curious to know the other gaps in knowledge.
You NEVER replied and I posted it again, where is the error in the paragraph excerpt in the message to Kevin Barrett from Our Lord? You sound like the Protestants here. Catholics can’t confirm their disbelief of Catholic teaching and their rejection of prophecy.
I do not need to go any further than what I stated: that the claim of Divine prophecy and communication unsubstantiated is to be rejected by all Catholics. It does not matter the coincidence of certain aspects - a stopped clock is correct twice per day.
I wish you the best, no hard feelings. Many people dismiss the current messages from Heaven.
I don't know that they are from Heaven. When a Bishop of the Church, or even better a Council of Bishops, declare that it is true, then I will defer to their judgement. Until then, I consider Barrett no different than, for example, Joseph Smith.
No. Jesus is NOT the Father, but he IS Almighty God in the flesh. Just as the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Holy Spirit, so the Holy Spirit is not the Son or the Father, YET they are all ONE God. The problem, I believe, is trying to explain something that is unfathomable for our finite minds. The Holy Spirit inspired the writers of Scripture to state certain things using words people understood but those words express a concept that can not be fully understood by human logic.
So, it boils down to what I said earlier...who or what IS Jesus? Is He a man, a god, an angel or some other creation? Scripture says there is NO other god but the LORD God. So that means Jesus is not "a" god. Scripture says that angels are created beings - which John 1:3 says Jesus created, so He did not create Himself. Jesus is not just a man because Scripture says ALL men have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Also, a mere man could not be from everlasting as Scripture says Jesus is. As to Jesus being some "other" creation, there is NO Scripture that defines Him that way. There is ALL creation and there is the Creator of it, nothing in between. Either Jesus IS God in the flesh as Scripture says numerous times He is or Scripture is wrong. If that is the case, then our faith is based upon nothing, we are dead in our sins and without hope in this world. So, who do YOU say Jesus is?
I copied and pasted from YOUR post.
It’s there for all to see and I am not performing for you on demand. I do not answer TO you.
If you can’t even be sure abut what is being talked about in the prophecy, how in the name of common sense can you expect ANYONE to take these prophecies seriously? Nobody can when nobody is even sure what they’re about.
It was what created the urgency to write the New Testament. The lunacy of the 990's surpassed even the lunacy approaching the year 2000.
But bottom line, I can’t think of anything more natural than for the people who most love Jesus to most desire his return and the blessings of his kingdom that will follow. My wife bugs me about it all the time. She has a real problem with all the pain in the world, and looks to Jesus to come and end the foolishness we put ourselves through.
I think that we're in it for the long haul, too. I live my life as if my children and grandchildren will have children and grandchildren.
You have some wisdom about you, sir.
I need go no further than state the manner of the claim of the message. It ain't Catholic until it has been declared Catholic. False visions of Jesus in the frying pan and magic Mary messages in the mind don't cut it. I don't care if the message somewhat aligns with the Faith at least on the surface. The enemy prowls about like a lion, seeking whom he may devour. His wiles are beyond most men - without Christ to buttress them.
Your last sentence Mark, repeating the same but leaving out, I’ll say again, we can believe OR disbelieve private revelation, that includes yet to be approved private revelation not only approved private revelation. It’s the CONDEMNED PR we are to avoid.
Negative. We are to reject all private revelation until it has been approved by the Church.
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. “
“Quite frankly I’ve never understood the entire “Rapture” piece (the Harold Camping version, not the Blondie version — the blondie version I get :) — why get so obsessed about what’s going to happen in the end-times? Be good, follow God and don’t worry about tomorrow.
I also find these guys highly amusing, like Jerry Duplantis (youtube Jerry Duplantis visits heaven!) — it’s funny to watch”....
~ ~ ~
Cronos, you shared from Kevin’s blog, well here is an excerpt from a message given to Kevin about the “pre-trib
rapture.” Seee...Kevin’s messages aren’t light, they
are teaching messages from Our Lord. He is showing
Protestants the errors in their beliefs. Jesus is preparing non-Catholics to accept the faith.
Read further, the “time of knowing” and “My invitation” are the Great Warning, sometimes called the “illumination of conscience”..Rev 6:15-17. Protestants are familiar with it in prophecy, referred to as the “awakening.”
message to Kevin Barrett
May 3, 2012
http://www.hearhisheart.wordpress.com/
Hear My warnings, little ones. This all shall come upon the earth very soon. Many have been deceived into believing the “PRE-TRIB RAPTURE” LIE. They shall be greatly disappointed as they did not prepare themselves for the tribulation and instead put their hope in lies. Oh, My people, why? Why do you still believe the lies of the devil? Soon and very soon all will know his lies and how they all have been deceived. But at that TIME OF KNOWING, it will be too late for the ones deceived. But know this, My people, I am raising up My beautiful bride to be shown to the nations and she shall not be deceived as she will only cleave to her lover and bridegroom. Will you accept MY INVITATION to be part of My bride? I love you, My people, and do not desire that any of you should perish. But those that do not abandon themselves to Me shall be swept up in the darkness that shall cover the earth.
Actually, we can take a pretty good guess.
which is a rather attractive option when you contrast:
Third time, what was “wildly” preached in the message excerpt given to Kevin Barrett from Our Lord? State the error, name it?
“I need go no further than state the manner of the claim of the message. It ain’t Catholic until it has been declared Catholic. False visions of Jesus in the frying pan and magic Mary messages in the mind don’t cut it. I don’t care if the message SOMEWHAT ALIGNS with the Faith at least on the surface. The enemy prowls about like a lion, seeking whom he may devour. His wiles are beyond most men - without Christ to buttress them.”
~ ~ ~
I NEVER said the message was to a Catholic messenger. It is
a Protestant message with a Catholic Truth explained in it
by Our Lord.
Sorry, a weak excuse first to avoid my question of show exactly where the error is in Kevin’s message? And next, you’re giving in slightly, your words in CAPS. I am not smiling at you saying “somewhat aligns” with the faith. I thought it was clear, Jesus repeats Himself on this to instruct, we have to be a “doer” of righteousness. That’s Catholic, cancels Luther’s false “Faith Alone.”
The point again, the Protestants here will not answer to
three Scripture verses that boldly and absolutely say “Faith Alone” is a lie. So, share another means, a current prophecy given to Protestants to help them see.
From Jesus Himself....
may the Two Hearts J+M keep you safe,
I don't think this is the first time it has been said here but for there to be an "Everlasting Father", there must be an Everlasting Son.
I understand what you’re saying but don’t see the logic of it.
“If you can’t even be sure abut what is being talked about in the prophecy, how in the name of common sense can you expect ANYONE to take these prophecies seriously? Nobody can when nobody is even sure what they’re about.”
~ ~ ~
Thanks Mark. And metmom,
Well, when you reject the Truth, prophecy today would be
pretty confusing. You have just stated why Protestantism and it’s new teachings are lies, falsehoods.
Do you not think the first Christians understood and passed
on the Truth? Pretty important, the faith concerns our eternal life. How could those who knew Christ personally get it wrong?
The first Christians were Roman Catholic. Read their quotes and writings.
Oh the present day prophets! How better to be led astray.
Paul said:
“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth , there be gods many, and lords many,)
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” (1 Cor. 8:5,6)
Paul here calls God, the Father, the origin and Jesus,the Son, the channel of all things.
Who do I say Jesus is? I agree with Paul.
How about you?
I don’t reject the truth. I completely accept eveything written in Scripture as true and as truth.
What I don’t accept as truth is the delusions and deceptions of the enemy or his agents who are false prophets and claim they are messages from heaven.
They are messages from the pit of hell, the father of lies himself.
Nobody but you is accepting them as prophecy or as true.
Just a thought...... Your name wouldn’t happen to be Kevin, would it?
My impression of people like this is they have no real investment in studying the Scriptures and the history of the Christian faith. They lack the credentials that would require years and years of concentrated study and experiential knowledge to be able to teach the Word of God. They are much like people such as "Reverend" Al Sharpton, who claims he preached his first sermon at the age of FOUR and was licensed and ordained a minister at the age of nine or ten. These so-called "seers" or modern-day "prophets" claim a special gift to relay messages directly from God and they seldom bother with knowing the actual revealed Word of God first. They then go about drawing in the gullible and downtrodden seeking a personal experience with God.
Rather than filtering whatever this self-described prophet states is from God through the already-revealed Holy Scriptures, his followers are encouraged to also bypass Scripture and trust in whatever this seer "sees". It is far from the spiritual gift of prophesy described in I Corinthians 14:1 which was to be qualified to speak in a manner that would be edifying to the church under the power of the Holy Spirit. This is quite different than prophets who spoke directly from God such as in the Old Testament and through others such as Paul, John and Peter and who were used by God to reveal NEW truths. This gift was to be able to make the truths of God clear so that the church was edified or built up and strengthened.
I join you in being dubious of anyone who claims to be speaking "for" God. God speaks to us through His word and through the indwelling Holy Spirit who teaches us all truth. It is spiritually dangerous to take the word of someone over what God clearly states in Scripture and we KNOW that he will not contradict His word - EVER!
1. On Firstborn
What you appear to be doing is roughly this. There is a word we all use, “goodbye,” that happens by history to be a sharp contraction of “God be with ye.” But over time the word’s raw etymology gave way to common usage, and it is now a simple way of saying “I am leaving now,” or some such thing. Were an atheist to say it, we would not assume he had suddenly become a believer in God. We would assume he was simply talking about departure.
Similarly, the word prototokos, meaning “firstborn,” has a long and well-established history. It’s etymology in classical Greek did give more credit to the notion of biological birth in time. But by the time the LXX was created, the word had shifted significantly, such that the “tokos” component, “birth,” had receded in importance, and “proto,” meaning “first,” had become the controlling element.
For a modern example, when we say Prime Minister, we do not mean the first minister ever in time, we mean the minister of greatest importance. “Proto” has nearly exactly the same sematic value.” The “tokos” is now just coming along for the ride.
For a Biblical example, see:
Psa 89:27 Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.
What is interesting is that the LXX translators used prototokos here, not in a biological or temporal manner, but purely as a function of rank, designating Messiah to be the preeminent one, because one cannot already exist, and then be made into a firstborn. You either are or you aren’t, if taken in the strictly temporal sense. But taken as a function of rank, it more naturally describes promotion to the highest level of authority.
This is what we find in the NT, which was not only written well after the LXX, but was deeply affected my it’s approach to translating the Hebrew into Greek. Hence, when Paul says:
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: [16] For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: [17] And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. [18] And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
… his use of firstborn in verse 15 corresponds to the point he is driving home and brings to a crescendo in verse 18, “that in all things he might have the preeminence,” which corresponds perfectly to the LXX usage of expressing rank, but has nothing to say about time of birth or following some earlier act of creation.
So we conclude that in the broader context, the use of firstborn actually strengthens the argument for the deity of Christ, because as we know, God will not give his glory to another, yet here we see repeatedly in Scripture that as the firstborn he is the rightful inheritor of all that is the Father’s, that he is to be made preeminent in all things, king of kings, Lord of Lords, that at his name, every knee will bow and every tongue confess that he is Lord. This bespeaks deity.
2. On Monogenes
“monogenes” is often translated “only,” or “unique,” or “uniquely begotten” or some such thing. See here:
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
But I do understand the Arian/Gnostic position is that this should be translated “only generated,” which they surmise would help their angel theory.
But why would we assume that God is like a man? Because that is exactly what this “generative” approach slides into under the Gnostic/Arian influence. It reduces God to human categories and makes no allowance for the uniqueness of God being God.
Let me explain. Humans are time-bound, finite little creatures skittering around the planet like little bugs. When one of them gives birth, they do it in the context of human biology. That is, for humans, when we give birth, we “generate” another finite, time-bound little bug, because what we generate is more of us, and that’s all we can generate, and that’s the only way we can generate.
But God is the supreme Creator of all things. He upholds the universe by the word of his power. He stands alone and above and outside of our finite limitations of time and space. What would it mean for him to “generate” in like kind? Can any mortal mind even begin to conceive that? Would not eternal generate eternal? Would not infinite generate infinite? Would it be right to say it had a beginning? But how could that be right, if time only limits us little bugs, but not the Creator of time itself?
Is the Son like the Father? Absolutely. You keep trying to press folks back to the question of Jesus being the Father, but there’s another way to look at that, which also avoids your angel-agency theory. Simply this, that as anyone knows, when you look into the face of a son, you do see the father, because the son is genetically from the father, and therefore the father is genetically present in the son.
I get this all the time with my son. We look so alike we get people, total strangers, coming up to us and asking us if we are father and son. We must be, they reason, because the genetic cues are unmistakable. He has my eyes, my nose, my hair, my posture, my way of walking, and to top it all off, he grew a beard! We are unmistakably father and son, and he can honestly tell people, if you’ve seen him, you’ve seen me. And yet he is still him, and I am still me.
And all of this goes quite well with John 1:1, the final clause, “And GOD he was, the Word.” Remember we said that due to the emphatic position and the lack of a concretizing article, this was effectively saying Jesus belonged to the class of things we call God, of which there is only one member.
But having said all that, we find that even “monogenes” is not consistently used as a description of generative relationships, but may also sometimes describe the primacy of a relationship:
Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
Here, if we use a rigidly biological or generative definition for “monogenes,” we would have a contradiction in Scripture, which can never be, because Abraham had two sons, not one, and his firstborn son wasn’t even Isaac. It was Ishmael. Here, the notion of primacy of importance, rather than primacy of generation, is the only way to reasonably explain this language.
3. Back to John 1:1
Therefore, as none of your proposed evidence has dislodged the clear statements of John 1:1-3, I thought it might be good to take another look there, especially since you raised (if perhaps inadvertently) the question of punctuation.
First, as you are probably aware, there is no punctuation in the original Greek. It’s all caps too. It’s easy enough to read if it’s your main language. But what if you were a first century Gnostic, whose goal in life was show that Jesus was just a created angelic being? Well, there was such a man, and his name was Valentinus. How do you suppose such a man would feel about John 1:3? Well, he wouldn’t like it, not one bit. So he recommended numerous changes to the Biblical text, to promote his view of what it should have said (the sheer presumption of the man!).
One of those recommended changes was inserting punctuation to break the final “ho gegonen” (“created things”) away from the end of John 1:3 and attaching it to verse 4 instead. The result in verse 4 is what can only be described as an abrupt end to a classically rhythmic Johannine passage, with the word “one” teetering off the edge waiting for a referent that never arrives. Whereas verse 4 ends up being redundant, having “created things,” designed in tense to flow with the previous sentence, tacked crudely onto “in him was life.” It really makes no sense:
From page 118 of The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, by John Burgon, 1896, we have the following:
“Epiphanius, who points out that the sense is not complete until you have read the words [Greek: ho gegonen]. A fresh sentence (he says) begins at [Greek: En auto zoe en][476].”
“Chrysostom deals with the latter. ‘Let us beware of putting the full stop’ (he says) ‘at the words [Greek: oude hen],—as do the heretics. In order to make out that the Spirit is a creature, they read [Greek: ho gegonen en auto zoe en]: by which means the Evangelist’s meaning becomes unintelligible[477].’”
And why do such violence to an orderly and beautiful passage? Because Valentinus “found it simply unmanageable.” Ibid.
Wow. Do you see the extremes to which so many have gone to avoid the plain and easy sense of John 1:3? And why? To hang on to an undocumented angel, a mere creature, when what God is offering us in his own Son … is Himself.
Peace,
SR
message to Kevin Barrett
May 3, 2012
http://www.hearhisheart.wordpress.com/
Hear My warnings, little ones. This all shall come upon the earth very soon. Many have been deceived into believing the “PRE-TRIB RAPTURE” LIE. They shall be greatly disappointed as they did not prepare themselves for the tribulation and instead put their hope in lies. Oh, My people, why? Why do you still believe the lies of the devil? Soon and very soon all will know his lies and how they all have been deceived. But at that TIME OF KNOWING, it will be too late for the ones deceived. But know this, My people, I am raising up My beautiful bride to be shown to the nations and she shall not be deceived as she will only cleave to her lover and bridegroom. Will you accept MY INVITATION to be part of My bride? I love you, My people, and do not desire that any of you should perish. But those that do not abandon themselves to Me shall be swept up in the darkness that shall cover the earth.
~ ~ ~
Hi, especially for Protestants reading the thread,
Yesterday, a Catholic Seer in her newsletter shared a vision
she was given about the Great Warning, also known as the “ILLUMINATION OF CONSCIENCE.” To Kevin Barrett in his May 3rd, 2012 message from Our Lord, Jesus referred to the Great Warning as “My invitation”, “the time of knowing.” Truly, every person on the earth will know how God sees their soul during the moments of the Great Warning. (Rev 6:15-17).
Yahoo Groups, - Seers2
message #36407
7/18/12
Sadie Jaramillo
In the beginning of the many messages and visions I was given, I was shown a particular vision of something at the time I did not understand. It came in 3 parts. The first scene I could see the earth far, far away, from someplace out in space...because the earth looked very small..and the blackness of space is all around me. Next, I see the earth is much closer....third, I see the two surfaces inches apart, the surface of this heavenly body, and the earth. Then I was shown like an explosion of light....and then a man falling to his knees crying.
Jesus told me that He had just shown me what would cause man to fall on his knees, for we would be seeing ourselves as if we were going through our particular judgement. We would see what God sees, when we stand before him after we die. You see, it is not God who condemns the soul. The soul instantly knows where it should go, i.e., heaven, purgatory or hell.... because it is standing before the light of JESUS.
FOR JESUS SAID:
I AM THE WAY THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE. John 14:6
and again in the Gospel of St. John:
[John 8:12] Again therefore, Jesus spoke to them, saying: I am the light of the world: he that followeth me, walketh not in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
So there is nothing that will escape us before the throne of God in our own particular judgement when we die or in the illumination of conscience, which will be similar....everything in our lives that we ever did, said, thought, etc., will be played for us like a movie of our lives.
This is a perfect example of the tactics of the enemy, confirming our suspicions of him/her being a false prophet. Satan always corrupts the Word of God.
The verse in its entirety reads .....
John 14:6 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Aside from cherry pickng sections of vere, the enemy also uses them out of context. In this case, I do not see what possible connection there is between what was sais and the use of this verse. Adding it just to make something sound spiritual is smoke and mirrors that anyone with a lick of discernment can see through.
Since you're so big into great warnings, here is one for all the lurkers on this thread. The material posted from these alleged seers is NOT from God. There are no credentials given, never any reason why we should accept said "prophecies", nor has any information been forthcoming about the source of these prophecies, specifically how they are received by the so-called prophet. They are not recognized as valid by ANYONE on this thread, Catholic and Protestant alike.
You see, it is not God who condemns the soul. The soul instantly knows where it should go, i.e., heaven, purgatory or hell.... because it is standing before the light of JESUS.
Chapter and verse? Or perhaps you could point to somewhere in Catholic teaching that supports this.
Since pio posted something from a *Catholic seer* perhaps the Catholics on this thread could give us their input. Is this person whom is allegedly a Catholic seer REALLY a seer approved by the Catholic church? Does what she said really have the approval of the Catholic church?
metmom, spending a lot of time taking anything I post apart
sentence by sentence. You are helping people come to the
faith.
~ ~ ~
“You see, it is not God who condemns the soul. The soul instantly knows where it should go, i.e., heaven, purgatory or hell.... because it is standing before the light of JESUS.”
~ ~ ~
Catholics and Protestants accept there is a judgement at death, obvious, we don’t know exactly what happens at our first judgment called the Particular Judgment. Our Lord explains, makes explicit in Private Revelation.
metmom, rejecting more of God’s revelation (the oral, Tradition and Scripture, the written Word, the magisterial teachings of the Church for 2000 years and Prophecy) than you accept is your problem.
~ ~ ~
“Chapter and verse? Or perhaps you could point to somewhere in Catholic teaching that supports this.”
~ ~ ~
Chapter and verse? The Bible, a Catholic book is your
lone authority where are these Protestant heresies in
Scripture?
1. Bible Alone
2. Faith Alone
3. PIOS
4. Man is Completely Depraved
I am helping people see the truth.
I don’t reject Scripture. I reject the lies of the enemy put forth as truth from heaven by self-proclaimed *seers* and *prophets* who nobody ever heard of before andfor whom you have provided no credentials for, even when asked.
You didn’t answer my question for chapter and verse to support your contentions. I am not so blind as to not see the deflection technique of turning it around and asking questions of me without answering the ones put to you first.
You constantly complain that nobody addresses your posts even when they do and it’s shown to you, and here you don’t even extend the same courtesy to others you demand of them.
Where is the answer to my questions?
ALL of them because to date, I can’t recall seeing that you have answered a one of them.
The point again, the Protestants here will not answer to three Scripture verses that boldly and absolutely say “Faith Alone” is a lie. So, share another means, a current prophecy given to Protestants to help them see.
Negative. It is not a prophecy and there is no contact between God and this man. You might stop quibbling about the coincindence between some aspects of his posts and Catholic teaching and enquire a little more closely into his bona fides.
Hint: he doesn't have any. In the words of Gollum - wicked, tricksy, false. If he cannot prove that he is of God and that God actually sends him the message, then let him be anathema. He may serve his master, but that does not mean that Christians should follow his lead.
The state of Protestantism does not justify Barrett's blog. Just because something is wrong does not mean that something else is right without proof.
The first Christians were Roman Catholic. Read their quotes and writings.
What an idiotic statement. The first Christians were the Catholics of the church in Jerusalem, headed by James. Peter eventually went to Rome and over time, the Roman Catholic came to be, along with the other four original Churches.
Again, we find ourselves in agreement. Good question...
No such animal. I call on stpio to cease and desist from calling himself Catholic and to refrain from posting nonsense. There ain't no such thang as a 'Catholic seer'. Next, we'll be hearing about Barrett talking to a burning bush. And having it talk back...
Three ages of the Earth: pre-incarnate Jesus, incarnate Jesus, and post-incarnate Jesus.
May He have mercy upon us all.
A Catholic cannot embrace and espouse non-Catholic and false doctrines and still remain in communion. I see a person who no doubt has a love of God and an affinity for what he believes the Church to teach. I would advise you to seek a spiritual director by talking to your parish priest or Director of Religious Education
You find the truth not only by grasping truth, but also by recognizing and rejecting what is not true. Catholics call this process discernment. You appear to hear a calling, but lack the tools and support for proper discernment.
As taught by St. Ignatius Catholic should share everything with a director who can see things objectively, without being swayed by pride, ambition, emotions or passion. Discerning whether something is good (the influence of God, the Church, one's soul) or bad (the influence of Satan, the world, the flesh) is at work requires calm, rational and objective reflection. Catholics are called to a collective communion because no one can succeed alone.
Peace be with you
“Paul here calls God, the Father, the origin and Jesus,the Son, the channel of all things. Who do I say Jesus is? I agree with Paul.”
Well, I’m not so sure you actually do agree with Paul, not even in this passage. For review, here’s the text, with a little more context:
1Co 8:4-6 “As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. [5] For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) [6] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”
It is very clear Paul is setting up a contrast between true and false gods. Corinth was a particularly pagan place to live, with all manner of deities to choose from. Of course as you can see from the above passage, Paul didn’t regard false gods as anything.
But we also know that the church at Corinth was in a conflict over these deities. Could you buy the meat, and eat it, if it had been offered to a false god? Some said yes (it was cheaper by the pound, after such an offering), and some said no. What should a good Christian do?
So Paul reminds them, sure there are a lot of false deities around, “But to us” there is “one God,” and to us there is “one Lord.” We are monotheists. We can get past this confusion.
So riddle me this. If your theory is that the phrase “one God, the Father,” excludes all other beings as true God (remember, Paul’s contrast here is with false gods), then why does an equal rule not apply to the phrase “one Lord [KURIOS] Jesus Christ?” Does that mean that God the Father is the only true God, but that the Son is the only true Lord? Is not God also called Lord?
Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord [KURIOS] God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
So then we either have a contradiction in Scripture, or we have a misunderstanding, which I find to be more likely.
Consider this also. This is a contrast for the Corinthians between true and false. Whatever is on the true side is true, right? So if your rendering is correct, Jesus cannot be considered a god of any degree, for the passage says “one God,” does it not? How then is it proper to give Jesus any title of deity? Because any such title, according to you, has just been declared false.
This would mean that John 1:1 being rendered “the Word was [a] god” has just been rendered invalid by 1 Cor 8:6. Not to mention a few other passages:
Isa 45:5-8 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: [6] That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. [7] I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. [8] Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it.
Now this passage is interesting for several reasons. “There is no God beside me” is an expression that most ordinary readers would take at face value. Though there many be many forms of authority in the world, and there many be many, many false Gods, there is only one true God. Therefore, Jesus cannot be “a god.”
But wait, you say, all that delegated authority just makes him look like God, so it’s fair to call him a god. Really? Let’s look at your delegation theory in Isaiah. Whom does the one and only true God say helped him with creation? Anyone? What does he say?
Isa 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
So here we have Jehovah (a nice English word, BTW, but almost certainly not the proper name of God) making it plain that HE is the Creator of all things. Not only does he not subcontract the job, he specifically repudiates the idea that he would do so, here:
“that stretcheth forth the heavens ALONE;
And here:
“that spreadeth abroad the earth BY MYSELF”
God doesn’t lie. He didn’t use a sub. He did it himself. He said so, and with such plainness and clarity in the OT Scriptures that the Corinthian Christians, who were well-trained in Hebrew monotheism, could not mistake Paul’s real meaning. There were false gods and false lords, but there was one true God the Father, and one true Lord Jesus Christ, and though they did have different roles in creation, they are both properly seen as the unitary Creator.
One of the best clues that this is what Paul was getting at in 1 Cor 8:6 is the parallel between his expression and the famous Shema Y’israel:
Deut 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
The parallelism of thought is so striking some have suggested what Paul was actually offering here was a Christological monotheism. In simpler terms, he was actually asserting the full deity of Christ, not denying it.
For example, the word for “one” here, echad, is not the word that would typically be used for simple numerical oneness. It is a word that often used to describe a multiplicity of things that comprise one thing. For example:
Eze 37:19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one [echad] in mine hand.
So when Paul declares there is one God the Father, he is not excluding the Son from being God any more that he is excluding God the Father from being Lord. But by putting them both in the same formulaic relation as the Shema, he is in fact asserting their sameness of being, while preserving their difference of person and role.
And in the broader context, this is the only possible conclusion, because John 1:1-3 sets forth the nature of Christ as that of God, and yet likewise differentiates him as a person from the Father, and furthermore forecloses any possibility of mistaking him for a created being by declaring quite clearly that without him not even one created being was created.
BTW, I found the following link very helpful in formulating my response. You may wish to take a look at it: http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_paul_on_one_god.htm
What is so intriguing about that site is that Islam and Arianism both use essentially the same method to attack the deity of Christ, right down to the same passages and the same arguments. This fascinates me because it exposes the common root they both have in pagan Gnosticism. Which is why I find it so ironic that the Arian groups here, that pride themselves on being anti-Christmas and anti-Easter and anti-cross, etc., have strained at those tiny little gnats, only to swallow whole the camel of pagan Gnosticism, along with their Islamic counterparts.
Peace,
SR
Well spoken.
The same holds true for those who would have us believe that they bridge the gap between Christianity and Judaism in some way, shape or form. Saturday worship, and so on. The Judaizers were identified as not being Christian early on in Acts. The Jews are our elder brothers, yet we are not Jews.
How Paul used the term “firstborn” is evident in Heb. 11:28 when he recounts the Israelites splashing blood on their door posts to prevent the death of their “firstborn”, a term applied to both man and animal.
In the usual sense of first one born Paul uses the term “firstborn” at Romans 8:29. And it is that obvious sense that Jesus was called the “firstborn” of Mary at Matt. 1:25.
That one might find exceptions to the usual and normal usage such as Isaac being treated as firstborn though Ishmael was born earlier should not cause us to treat every usage as the exception.
Attempting to explain Christianity in Greek philosophical terms produced thinking like Origen’s that spoke of “eternal generation” (a nonsensical term) of the Son while calling him the “firstborn”.
“Were an atheist to say it (good bye),.....)”
We would assume he meant it in the most typical and often used way unless we could find him making an exception.
“So we conclude that in the broader context, the use of firstborn actually strengthens the argument for the deity of Christ, because as we know, God will not give his glory to another”
A faulty conclusion based upon a misunderstanding I think.
The angel that appeared after Jesus birth shared God's glory (Luke 2:9) and Jerusalem coming down from heaven shared God's glory (Rev. 21:9,10), Christians even reflecting that glory. (2 Cor. 3:17,18)
“But why would we assume that God is like a man? Because that is exactly what this “generative” approach slides into under the Gnostic/Arian influence. It reduces God to human categories and makes no allowance for the uniqueness of God being God.”
The description of the relationship between God and Jesus as father and son was not invented by Arius and the Gnostics but by God Himself. That it is not same in every fine detail is obvious but it well describes the gist of their relationship as it would to any Middle Eastern mind.
“Col. 1:15
… his use of firstborn in verse 15 corresponds to the point he is driving home and brings to a crescendo in verse 18, “that in all things he might have the preeminence,” which corresponds perfectly to the LXX usage of expressing rank, but has nothing to say about time of birth or following some earlier act of creation”
Again Jesus is the “image”, the “firstborn” not the invisible God and “all things are made through him (Jesus)”.
There is a difference between the image and the thing imaged. Between the coin and Caesar's eikon, image on it.
“Monogenes
Both mono and generate were commonly and regularly used by the NT writers (neither Arians nor Gnostics) in just the way we understand the meaning: Mono, only without others, as when Jesus went off alone and
ginomai, made, as when the water was made into wine.
How that classical Greek used such terms is another matter.
“Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,”
It wasn't an elevation of Isaac to the position of firstborn, he, indeed, was the first born of Abraham and Sarah.
John 1:1-3
“Wow. Do you see the extremes to which so many have gone to avoid the plain and easy sense of John 1:3? And why? To hang on to an undocumented angel, a mere creature, when what God is offering us in his own Son … is Himself.”
‘undocumented angel, a mere creature”...These are your words not mine. Perhaps it's just hyperbole....
It might be helpful to consider the trinitarian definition of God when reading John 1:1-3.
Three persons in one God. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Do I have that reasonably correct?
Then when I read these verses I read the Word (pros)was with God and the Word was God and was in the beginning (pros)God.
Who is the God that the Logos was “with”? Father, Son, Holy Spirit? John said the Word became flesh (vs 14) so “the God” that the Logos was with leaves Father and Holy Spirit. But..
The God (first instance) could just as easily be the Father alone and so “the God” would refer only the Father that the Logos was with.
The Word was God but not “the God (theon)” as there is no article with God (theos) in the second instance. Is the Logos fully “the God”? or 1/3 of “the God”? Or both?
In beginning the Logos is with “the God” (theos).
This is where trying to force the trinitarian definition of God to John 1:1-3 leads...an incomprehensible redefinition of the Greek words used by John.
“From page 118 of The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, by John Burgon, 1896, we have the following:.....”
Was there any text other than the King James translation and the Received Text that Burgon did not consider corrupt?
“Is the Son like the Father? Absolutely. You keep trying to press folks back to the question of Jesus being the Father, but there’s another way to look at that, which also avoids your angel-agency theory. Simply this, that as anyone knows, when you look into the face of a son, you do see the father, because the son is genetically from the father, and therefore the father is genetically present in the son”
And you might have a grandson that closely resembled you but you wouldn't call those three person the husband of your wife no matter their similarities.
When “the God” is defined as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and the Son is called God, then the trinitarian definition does indeed confuse Father with Son.
In Col. 1:14-20 Paul said all things were creaed in, through and for the Christ. In vs. 18 Jesus is called the firstborn of the dead. How so?
First in importance certainly but the larger sense first in time since he was the beginning of the church being the first raised to heavenly life from the dead.
How Paul used the term “firstborn” is evident in Heb. 11:28 when he recounts the Israelites splashing blood on their door posts to prevent the death of their “firstborn”, a term applied to both man and animal.
In the usual sense of first one born Paul uses the term “firstborn” at Romans 8:29. And it is that obvious sense that Jesus was called the “firstborn” of Mary at Matt. 1:25.
That one might find exceptions to the usual and normal usage such as Isaac being treated as firstborn though Ishmael was born earlier should not cause us to treat every usage as the exception.
Attempting to explain Christianity in Greek philospical terms produced thinking like Origen’s that spoke of “eternal generation” (a nonsensical term) of the Son while calling him the “firstborn”.
“Were an atheist to say it (good bye),.....)”
We would assume he meant it in tne most typical and often used way unless we could find him making an exception.
“So we conclude that in the broader context, the use of firstborn actually strengthens the argument for the deity of Christ, because as we know, God will not give his glory to another”
A faulty conclusion based upon a misunderstanding I think.
The angel that appeared after Jesus birth shared God’s glory (Luke 2:9) and Jerusalem coming down from heaven shared God’s glory (Rev. 21:9,10), Christians even reflecting that glory. (2 Cor. 3:17,18)
“But why would we assume that God is like a man? Because that is exactly what this “generative” approach slides into under the Gnostic/Arian influence. It reduces God to human categories and makes no allowance for the uniqueness of God being God.”
The description of the relationship between God and Jesus as father and son was not invented by Arius and the Gnostics but by God Himself. That it is not same in every fine detail is obvious but it well describes the gist of their relationship as it would to any Middle Eastern mind.
“Col. 1:15
… his use of firstborn in verse 15 corresponds to the point he is driving home and brings to a crescendo in verse 18, “that in all things he might have the preeminence,” which corresponds perfectly to the LXX usage of expressing rank, but has nothing to say about time of birth or following some earlier act of creation”
Again Jesus is the “image”, the “firstborn” not the invisible God and “all things are made through him (Jesus)”.
There is a difference between the image and the thing imaged. Between the coin and Caesar’s eikon, image on it.
“Monogenes
Both mono and generate were commonly and regularly used by the NT writers (neithr Arians nor Gnostics) in just the way we underst6and the meaning: Momo, only without others, as when Jesus went off alone and
ginomai, made, as when the water was made into wine.
How that classical Greek used such terms is another matter.
“Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,”
It wasn’t an elevation of Isaac to the position of firstborn, he, indeed, was the first born of Abraham and Sarah.
John 1:1-3
“Wow. Do you see the extremes to which so many have gone to avoid the plain and easy sense of John 1:3? And why? To hang on to an undocumented angel, a mere creature, when what God is offering us in his own Son … is Himself.”
‘undocumented angel, a mere creature”...These are your words not mine. Perhaps it’s just hypebole....
It might be helspful to consider the trinitarian definition of God when reading John 1:1-3.
Three persons in one God. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Do I have that reasonably correct?
Then when I read these verses I read the Word (pros)was with God and the Word was God and was in the beginning (pros)God.
Who is the God that the Logos was “with”? Father, Son, Holy Spirit? John said the Word became flesh (vs 14) so “the God” that the Logos was with leaves Father and Holy Spirit. But..
The God (first instance) could just as easily be the Father alone and so “the God” would refer only the Father that the Logos was with.
The Word was God but not “the God (theon)” as there is no article with God (theos) in the second instance. Is the Logos fully “the God”? or 1/3 of “the God”? Or both?
In beginning the Logos is with “the God” (theos).
This is where trying to force the trinitarian definition of God to John 1:1-3 leads...an incomprehensible redefinition of the Greek words used by John.
“From page 118 of The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, by John Burgon, 1896, we have the following:.....”
Was there any text other than the King James translation and the Received Text that Burgon did not consider corrupt?
“Is the Son like the Father? Absolutely. You keep trying to press folks back to the question of Jesus being the Father, but there’s another way to look at that, which also avoids your angel-agency theory. Simply this, that as anyone knows, when you look into the face of a son, you do see the father, because the son is genetically from the father, and therefore the father is genetically present in the son”
And you might have a grandson that closely resembled you but you wouldn’t call those three person the husband of your wife no matter their similarities.
When “the God” is defined as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and the Son is called God, then the trinitarian definition does indeed confuse Father with Son.
It is no coincidence. The Arians found their strength on the fringes of the Roman Empire especially within the barbarian areas of Northern Europe and Arabia.
Peace be with you.
“It is no coincidence. The Arians found their strength on the fringes of the Roman Empire especially within the barbarian areas of Northern Europe and Arabia.”
Interesting. Geography matters, doesn’t it.
Peace,
SR
I understand what you’re saying but don’t see the logic of it.
Some things of God are not able to be understood by human logic. :o)
One of the names used for Jehovah is Everlasting Father. For Him to BE an everlasting father implies there must be also an everlasting son, else He would not be called everlasting "Father". The word used in Isaiah 9:6 for everlasting is עַד or "'ad" and it means:
1) perpetuity, for ever, continuing future
a) ancient (of past time)
b) for ever (of future time)
c) for ever (of God's existence)
The words in Isaiah 9:6 translated as everlasting father is " `ad `ab" with BOTH words being masculine nouns: אֲבִיעַד. The word "everlasting" is used 49 times in the Old Testament and speaks of eternity or forever. Granted, it is used sometimes to mean "from now on", but when used as applying to God, it speaks of eternity - always was, always will be. Jesus is also said to be "from everlasting to everlasting" and it ties back into the everlasting father being the father from eternity having a son from eternity. An eternal father with an eternal son.
One of the many Messianic prophecies is Micah 5:2, which says:
But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
WRT Jesus being called "Everlasting Father" (Isa. 9:6), from the Barnes' Notes on the Bible:
Thus, the father of strength means strong; the father of knowledge, intelligent; the father of glory, glorious; the father of goodness, good; the father of peace, peaceful. According to this, the meaning of the phrase, the Father of eternity, is properly eternal. The application of the word here is derived from this usage. The term Father is not applied to the Messiah here with any reference to the distinction in the divine nature, for that word is uniformly, in the Scriptures, applied to the first, not to the second person of the Trinity. But it is used in reference to durations, as a Hebraism involving high poetic beauty. lie is not merely represented as everlasting, but he is introduced, by a strong figure, as even the Father of eternity. as if even everlasting duration owed itself to his paternity. There could not be a more emphatic declaration of strict and proper eternity. It may be added, that this attribute is often applied to the Messiah in the New Testament; John 8:58; Colossians 1:17; Revelation 1:11, Revelation 1:17-18; Hebrews 1:10-11; John 1:1-2.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible puts it as:
When Jesus said to the Jewish religious leaders of His day that he is the I AM, that God is His Father, they knew very well what He was saying and they took up stones to stone Him because, "that thou, being a man, makest thyself God" (John 10:33). When I asked you what you believed Jesus to be, you said, "What Paul believed Him to be". This is what Paul said of Jesus, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." (I Tim. 3:16) and "Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." (I Cor. 2:8)
here are some of the ways other translations read:
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah,out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.” (NIV)
“Whose origin is from of old, from ancient times.” (NAB) A footnote applies this to the Davidic line being old, ancient.
The American Standard Version gives “from ancient days” as an alternative reading for “everlasting”.
But who knows maybe all these translators are closet Arians.
Isaiah 9:6 speaks of what the Son would be called and as the notes you have show he is father in sense of giving life,
“but Christ is a Father with respect to chosen men, who were given him as his children and offspring in covenant; who are adopted into that family that is named of him, and who are regenerated by his Spirit and grace: and to these he is an “everlasting Father...” (Gill)
But then in order to support “everlasting” he goes off into predestination, Jesus was a father before there children.
“The word used in Isaiah 9:6 for everlasting is.. or “’ad” and it means:....c) for ever (of God's existence)”
But since Isa. 9:6 is speaking of the Son and not the Fatherand as the next verse shows “ad” means from a point in time forward forever, everlasting that the Son would rule from David's throne.
In the same sense “ad” and “owlam” is used at Isa. 30:8 to say “forever and ever” of something that has a beginning, a starting point but extending into the future without end.
I'll continue later in the morning.
“God was manifest” is a spurious reading that even the Douay Version rightly rejects seeing that the oldest Biblical manuscripts such as Codex Alexandrinus and others as noted below have the correct reading . Codex A shows signs of being tampered with to read “God was manifest” over “He was manifest”.
“In 1 Timothy 3:16 it has textual variant (Greek fonts here) (he was manifested) supported by Sinaiticus, Ephraemi, Boernerianus, 33, 365, 442, 2127...” (wikipedia under Codex Alexandrinus)
When Jesus said to the Jewish religious leaders of His day that he is the I AM, that God is His Father, they knew very well what He was saying and they took up stones to stone Him because, “that thou, being a man, makest thyself God” (John 10:33
But Jesus showed their accusation was false as he said the term “god” could be said of humans, he has said the was “the Son of God”.
“Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world , Thou blasphemest because I said I am the Son of God ?” (John 10:35)
Translating “ego eimi” as “I Am” at John 8:58 makes a mess of the simple statement Jesus made. Good English must pay attention to the tenses and “I Am” doesn't do that.
Jesus said he existed before Abraham existed or came to be so “I am” is simply the wrong tense, it could better be translated as “I was” or “I have been” .
And a number of translations do just that.
Some may see a connection to Ex. 3:14 but the LXX translates the Hebrew as “I am the one” not just “I am”.
Thus even a blind man, formerly blind man, could say of himself, “I am” without claiming to be God or a part thereof. (John 9:9)
Cronos, as a faithful and son of the Catholic church I am heartened that you would say this. But I can assure you that it won't happen as I know God has me where He wants me to be. But it is a nice sentiment, and I understand the intent.
As for the quoted 'prophets' of Baal, Molech, Dagon, or any of the multitude of names for Satan, no, they are not persuasive. The only value they have is to serve as a warning to others. While this is an anonymous forum and one can pretend to be whatever one wants to be, to see one claiming orthodoxy continue to propogate this swill should reaffirm the Lord's admonition about Satan as a wolf.
That may well be true, but since I am not interested in going to Satan's site, I can only rely on the message received here. As you can see, it does end with that signoff, unless it was embellished? Since it is false anyway, why not embellish, its really seals the deal for me, seeing that sign off?
What an idiotic statement. MarkBsnr
Thanks for that, perhaps it will sink in.
1. On God Manifest in the Flesh – 1 Tim 3:16
I don’t have a lot of time today, so I’ll be brief. Codex Alexandrinus is a compromised witness to the proper translation of 1 Tim 3:16. There are numerous eyewitnesses of the orginal who testify to “theos,” i.e., God, being used, not “hos” or “ho.” The problem, explained in part below, is that in the all-caps originals, “theos” was often abbreviated as Theta-Sigma (TS), and if the manuscript was sufficiently deteriorated, the Theta could end up looking like an Omega (O). The scribes would preempt any possible confusion by ensuring that all such abbreviations had a faint horizontal bar drawn over the top of the TS. But what if both the middle Theta bar and the upper bar had grown even fainter for age of the document? Sometimes, a well-meaning scribe would attempt to retouch the lines. But for the future of manuscript debates, this was not good, because it left the document open to debate as having been tampered with.
Enter Codex Alexandrinus. This document had number in-person examiners who certified that the TS had faint but intact Theta and abbreviation bars, giving “theos.” But apparently, someone well-meaning caretaker of the text has tried to “fix” the Theta, but in the process has, from a critical point of view, voided the value of that manuscript as a witness to the text of 1 Tim 3:16. Inasmuch as the great body of uncompromised textual testimony affirms the TS (”theos”) reading, Codex Alexandrinus provides no credible basis for uprooting that reading, especially when it comes to us third-hand from that beacon of purity known as Wikipedia.
Here is a word from one who has seen the text in question with his own eyes:
“This is very frequent in the oldest MSS., and is continually recurring in the Codex Bexae, and Codex Alexandrinus. If, therefore, the middle stroke of the “Theta”, in “Theos”, happened to be faint, or obliterated, and the dash above not very apparent, both of which I have observed in ancient MSS., then QC, the contraction for “Theos”, God, might be mistaken for “os” which or who; and vice versa. This appears to have been the case in the Codex Alexandrinus, in this passage. To me there is ample reason to believe that the Codex Alexandrinus originally read “Theos”, God, in this place; but the stroke becoming faint by length of time and injudicious handling, of which the MS. in this place has had a large proportion, some person has supplied the place, most reprehensibly, with a thick black line. This has destroyed the evidence of this MS., as now it can neither be quoted pro or con, though it is very likely that the person who supplied the ink line, did it from a conscientious conviction that “Theos” was the original reading of this MS. I examined this MS. about thirty years ago, and this was the conviction that rested then on my mind. I have seen the MS. several times since, and have not changed my opinion. The enemies of the Deity of Christ have been at as much pains to destroy the evidence afforded by the common reading in support of this doctrine as if this text were the only one by which it can be supported; they must be aware that John 1:1, and 14, proclaim the same truth; and that in those verses there is no authority to doubt the genuineness of the reading. We read, therefore, God was manifested in the flesh, and I cannot see what good sense can be taken out of, the GOSPEL was manifested in the flesh; or, the mystery of godliness was manifested in the flesh. After seriously considering this subject in every point of light, I hold with the reading in the commonly received text” (Adam Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary, Vol. 8, ppg.151-152).
2. There is no 2 today. Maybe later. Your “I AM” analysis is messed up too. But later. Miles to go before I rest ….
Peace,
SR
Sure, like a small rock into the depths of the sea, leaving no trace of its passage, nor evidence of its position on the seabed.
I said this more in the hope that my separated brethren will realize that not all who claim to be of the Faith are historical revisionists. Some of us have a grasp of actual Church history - admittedly with a Catholic bias :).
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.