Skip to comments.'Fortnight for Freedom': One more reason to be an ex-Catholic
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 ...
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.
I understand what youre saying but dont 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 dont have a lot of time today, so Ill 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, Clarkes 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 .
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 :).
Indeed the Codex Alexandrinus shows signs of tampering but the tampering was in favor the idea of the deity of Christ over the original “he” reading.
It appears from your comment you may not have read the entirety of my post. That tampering occurred is not in dispute. What motivated it is. There have been eye witnesses to the physical document who believe the text did show the theos reading in faint but detectable form, but was suffering from years of poor handling, and thus was “retouched” by some anonymous person, not to show what wasn’t there, but to restore what was there. Nevertheless, the tampering suggests that Codex A cannot be used by either side as conclusive evidence, and the default must go to better text forms, not the least of which is the Byzantine, which clearly does have the theos reading.
As for Metzger and his ilk, they have demonstrated an unwholesome willingness to modify the Biblical text for such low reasons as appeasing the gender equity ruffians. These are not people who understand or appreciate that every word of that Bible is God-breathed. Furthermore, their “weight of the evidence” is an ideologically charged statement, and on close inspection I believe you will find their model for variant selection is seriously defective. Metzger has written that he specifically prefers readings that create conflict, because he thinks thats more real. Seriously.
These folks have been following the German higher critics into the bowels of Hades for decades. But hey, if the NWT appeals to you, I can understand why Metzger might. Just sayin ...
duck’n the mudfest to follow here...
Understood, just wanted you to see the original.
what in the world is it anyhow. some kind of private Catholic prophecying? not that I want to get into arguments about it. that is a mudfest.
One of the earlier posters had checked the source and found the site source to be odd as well. The usual suspects in false prohecy. But the Tribulation supposedly starts later this year, just an FYI if you want to do some tax planning. Maybe cleanup around the house before Judgement Day. Harold Camping on steroids, a little different than ‘Roynianity’ but leading to the same place.
The oldest manuscripts that have 1 Tim. 3:16 (Aleph) do not read “God” but “which”, “who” or “he”. That is why The Clementine Latin Vulgate reads as it does. That is why the ASV and many others read “he”. So translations like the NWT agree in this point with the oldest Biblical manuscripts available.
So I wonder how Metzger and his ilk went back into time to modify these sources?
“So I wonder how Metzger and his ilk went back into time to modify these sources?”
They didn’t have to. The First (and Second) Century Gnostic insurgency was there to do it for them, because they hated those passages as much as you do, for exactly the same reasons, and the Gnostics were strong in Alexandria (See Valentinus), so it is not at all surprising to have Codex A be problematic in some of those passages.
The thing you seem to be missing is that there was contemporary eyewitness testimony that Codex A actually has 1 Tim 3:16 right, i.e., theos. Clarke was one of those witnesses. There were others before him who testified to the same thing. It was Hort who apparently talked the UBS folks into buying the reverse theory that you are espousing, despite evidence to the contrary. Why the caretakers of a supernatural book trusted a man who was openly skeptical of supernaturalism, I’ll never know.
I'm telling you, it really sounds like you are not reading the Adam Clarke quote in its most critical moment, which is here:
"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."
I know your sources would like to suggest otherwise, but my posted quote does not say what you are saying. How can I reasonably accept that you actually read it? I'm not grandstanding here. I genuinely don't get how you got from Clarke the exact opposite of what he said. Can you throw me a bone here?