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 ...
No, what Thomas asked for was visible, tangible proof of the resurrection, that what the disciple saw was indeed the resurrected Christ.
When Thomas gets that proof he exclaims, “My Lord and My God”. Does this mean he believes he is seeing God? No, since as John has written at 1 John 4:12, “No man has ever seen God”.
What then did Thomas mean? Possibly that he was seeing the Father and His power through the Christ as Jesus was said to be the “image” of his Father.
Thomas’ exclamation is not evidence of a Father, Son, Holy Spirit in one God.
“First, note that there are two similar but separate events here. The John 10 episode was not in response to the I AM statement, but to this statement:
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.”
In so saying Jesus was not saying he was God, that was the false accusation of his opposers. In vs. 36 Jesus says he is “The son of God” not God.
“Consult any standard conjugation chart for eimi, and you will find the first person singular present indicative, I am, is eimi, exactly the word found in the ego eimi of John 8:58: “
But a translator must also transmit meaning depending upon how the word is used and “eimi” can be translated “been” if the context calls for it, example already given.
I trust my last reply to SR has been sufficient. If not remind me again.
JW’s rewrite Holy Writ to get it to say what supports their heresies.
Q.E.D.
DONT IGNORE CURRENT PRIVATE REVELATION”
“There is much in what has already been revealed that you should learn before you turn your ears and heart to a latter day prophet. Although Kevin may be incredibly sincere and believe every word he is saying, he is not special. All are called to preach the Gospel and to spread the Word. Many respond to that calling and develop their ministry. Every day millions of Christians, whether discerning a vocation, struggling with a major decision, asking for guidance or forgiveness, or asking for intercession on behalf of another pray for AND RECEIVE private guidance and direction from God. This is in accordance with Jesus’ instructions in Matthew 6:6.
Is it possible that Jesus speaks to Kevin regarding his own life, actions and ministry, SURE IT IS, but it is highly doubtful that Jesus is adding to the general revelation through Kevin. Kevin’s claim to be speaking on behalf of Jesus Himself has every outward appearance of violating the Third Commandment.
Lastly, I ask where are the sign and miracles to accompany his message?”
~ ~ ~
Hi NL,
You are a wonderful apologist. If everyone could express the faith as well as you, think of the conversions.
I’ve shared, I was converted by private revelation. Dead
in mortal sin, I was a Christmas and Easter Catholic, didn’t
care or know the faith previously. I am a bit biased.
There aren’t that many prophets, God’s current messengers. Take the good from what you read, anyone can be wrong in their rejection. Prophecy isn’t only about prediction and warning. The messages from Heaven strengthen a person’s faith.
And, no one talks like that down here (humor).
There could be 1000 more pages of argument between Catholics, non-Christians and Protestants in this thread alone, it never ends. Why we are so blessed to be in this place of time. It’s going to take God to act, to bring everyone to ONE belief.
You know how a few are arguing in this thread about the Holy Trinity? Look, four verses from the Gospel answer two big questions. Yes, Jesus is God, He always was, always will be AND God wants us all to believe the same.
It’s going to happen the “oneness”, an approved private revelation states it if some are hung up on Church approval (messages of Divine Mercy given St. Faustina in the 1930s), yes, the 2nd Pentecost but this time, worldwide.
For the umpteenth time, read the words given to Kevin Barrett that I posted. They are the Truth and why no one will touch them. Sola Fide is a lie, as Jesus says to Kevin.
Your question about signs and miracles, actually
the messages are that in themselves. It’s been almost fourteen years I have been reading them, they’ve been saying the same all this time only with more urgency lately because divine events are closer. Humanity is slow to change. So, how is it God can say the very same thing every single day to several prophets for all this time in so many beautiful (makes one cry, His love for us) in such an endearing way? There’s your sign, a wonder.
John 17:21-24
That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. [22] And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one: [23] I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me. [24] Father, I will that where I am, they also whom thou hast given me may be with me; that they may see my glory which thou hast given me, because thou hast loved me before the creation of the world.
Amen!
ph
1. On Objections to ego eimi
There are so many other indisputable proofs of Christs full deity in Scripture I would almost be willing to let you have this one if you could only come up with a credible grammatical justification for doing so, but so far you have not. Lets review the possible solutions:
A. Durative present in Greek rendered in English as a Progressive Perfect. This is what you are suggesting when you offer John 14:9 as your model solution:
John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
However, this solution fails, because a durative present needs a connecting term of duration, often an adverb, that draws a continuous timeline between the two points in time being discussed. For example, in John 15
John 15:27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
Note the syntax. This is literally you are with me from the beginning, which is good for the Greek reader but a bit awkward for the English reader, though not impossible. However, also note the duration connector from The disciples were there at the beginning, and they are still with him now, so from then till now, a classic durational expression.
The original Greek actually captures that idea more succinctly than the English, because the English does not have a durative present, so we have to improvise with our progressive perfect. But we can only justify doing that when the durative connector is present, as it is in the verse you suggested:
John 14:9 Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?
where a more literal rendering of the verb eimi could be
Am I so long with you, and yet have you not known me, Philip?
So you see, this is actually not too bad in terms of readability, and it preserves the present indicative of eimi. However, because there is a durational connector, so long, I can in good conscience use the so-called progressive perfect, have I been, reordered to account for the interrogative, to express duration.
But as you already know by now, there is no durational connector, no adverb of time, linking Abrahams emergent existence with Christs timeless existence. In John 8:58, its all about contrast, not continuity. Therefore, the durative present solution fails.
B. Derive I have been as a historical present. However, this will not work either, because this is a dialogue, not a narrative, and eimi as a historical present is never in the Biblical text used in anything but the third person, regardless of the presence or lack of a preceding aorist infinitive (such as Abraham came to be).
C. Perfect indicative I was. But that would be impossible because there is no such tense for this particular verb, which also suggests that the language did not develop a strong need to use eimi as a perfect indicative anyway. This may be due to the availability of worthy alternatives (imperfect of eimi, and perfect of ginomai).
D. Find a really old manuscript in an Egyptian monastery somewhere that uses ginomai (I came to be) instead of eimi, because that would give you your inference of a beginning for Christ. However, we both know that is not likely to happen.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the best, most honest way to render John 8:58 is to be open about the disconcerting contrast in verbs:
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
This is most compatible with what is actually happening in the Greek, and it appears to be how the author wanted to be understood. Our concern for unmessy English cannot override Gods authority to say exactly what He wants to say, even if it is a bit attention-getting at times:
John 8:59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
2. On an Excited Utterance, My Lord and My God.
In the law, a court may reject most kinds of hearsay evidence. But there are a few circumstances where some expressions are considered more reliable than others. One of these is the excited utterance, as it is called, where an individual just blurts something out under extraordinary conditions. The idea is this is really what the person is thinking, because they have had no time to prepare a calm and possibly less honest response.
Here we have an excited utterance of the highest order from Thomas, as he is confronted with what he thought was impossible, Christ alive again in the flesh:
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.
Notice Thomas is not saying this to himself. To separate this exclamation from the person to whom it was clearly addressed is to do violence to the plain sense of the Greek. John, whom you recall wants to break us of our Gnosticism, tells us specifically that Thomas is saying this directly to the living Jesus standing before him.
But even without Johns helpful description, in Thomas own words we have the form of an address to a person, a vocative rendered as an articular nominative, which is a widely recognized idiomatic pattern used in the New Testament, the Septuagint, and classical Greek, as a valid form of personal address.
As for seeing God, neither Thomas nor any other believer in the deity of Christ claims that seeing Christ in the cloak of his human form is the same as seeing the Eternal One in all his heavenly glory, which if any man did see as a mere mortal, he would certainly die. As Pail says, we see now through a glass darkly, but a day will come when we will be able to stand before him and see him as he is, and not die.
(And not just 144,000 of us, but countless multitudes, all washed in the blood of the Lamb, all equal brethren in Gods house, because all saved by grace through faith alike, and not of works, lest any be tempted to boast.)
And does Jesus chide Thomas for this obvious and extreme offer of divine worship? Not at all. In fact, Jesus commends the faith of all those who will come later, who will not have the advantage of seeing Christ in person as Thomas did, yet in whose hearts will rise the same bright light of faith, and the same exact declaration of belief, which can only be made through the power of the Holy Spirit, that Jesus Christ is Lord.
3. On Exodus 3:14
I have already addressed how the connection between Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 works. It is not direct, but runs through the Septuagint, and in particular a number of passages in Isaiah, where the Greek ego eimi, without ho on, is used repeatedly and formulaically of Jehovah. As that is more likely the context of Jesus Judean audience, that is also the probable source of their outrage at his clear declaration of eternal existence. They understood perfectly well what he was saying, and as I have demonstrated before, he never denied the charge of claiming to be God.
4. On Michael the Archangel.
I am still curious about whether you agree with the Watchtower Society that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, or perhaps some other named angel, and if so, what is your Scriptural case for that assessment. As I have provided you with extensive responses, and we are now into repeating patterns of questions and answers, I feel it would be only right and fair for you to answer my question.
Peace,
SR
Again, thank you for a wonderful and illuminating post.
"What we do is ultimately a manifestation of what we truly believe, as it moves the will to act in correspondence to what we believe"
Amen.Well and trully said!
"Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief" "this is the work of God,that ye believe on Him whom He has sent" "For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his"
Heb 4:6,John 6:29,Heb 4:10
Praise God. “And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord. “ (Luke 1:45)
“And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. “ (Romans 4:21)
“Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: “ (Philippians 1:6)
And in response,.
“Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father; Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. “ (1 Thessalonians 1:3-4)
“Now therefore perform the doing of it; that as there was a readiness to will, so there may be a performance also out of that which ye have. “ (2 Corinthians 8:11)
Thanks. It’s really been a blessing to me to go over these amazing truths about our God. Soli Deo Gloria!
Peace,
SR
Uh, No. I have no objections to “ego eimi” as that is what the Greeks says. It's about context. As you've shown “eimi” or “este” if plural, although we read it as present literally in Greek it may be translated as that durative present (an action started in the indefinite past and continuing into the present.
So John 8:58, John 14:9, John 15:27 are all examples of the Greek using what would literally read as the present tense in English as a durative present. “have been” captures the sense of that durative present reasonably well.
“ego eimi” is one such durative as Jesus says he existed “from before Abraham” into the present.
Anyone who wants to read more theologically into that answer may but not based upon the language used.
There is no essential difference between “Have I been so long time with you” and “I have been from before Abraham”.
(John 14:9, 8:58)
Jesus doesn’t quote the LXX Ex.3:14 since it says, “Ego eimi ho on”, “I am the being (or one)”, he was talking about the time of his existence.
John 20:28.
Who is Thomas addressing? His Lord or His God, the Father?
He would not mistake one for the other even as Paul said there was “one God”, “the Father” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ.” (1 Cor. 8:6)
Since Thomas was seeing the resurrected “one Lord, Jesus Christ not the “one God, the Father” whom no one can see, then Thomas exclamation would not imply he saw Jesus as deity.
Jesus “never denied the charge of claiming to be God.”
That's pretty thin. And as you're a lawyer I find it incredible that you would say such a thing.
4. On Michael the Archangel.
When I come back later today or tomorrow.
There is but one Archangel named.
There is no Scripture that names the pre/post human Jesus as Michael so any association between the two must be by inference.
The Book of Daniel calls Michael a “foremost prince” who would stand up for Israel. (Dan. 10)
In Jude, Michael is said to have had a dispute with the Devil over the disposition of Moses’ body.
Paul said Jesus would come with “an arch angel's voice”
(1 Thess. 4:16)
Rev. 12 describes Michael battling Satan and tossing him out of heaven while Rev. 19 describes Jesus as the Word battling God's enemies.
Not proof but not an unreasonable association either considering the amount of information available.
Now, May I inquire the reason for your curiosity.
By claiming that it is from God. I believe that you are in error for spreading his error and gifting it with the label of legitimacy. Simply claiming that because its message goes against Sole Fide makes it legitimate does not make it so.
Where is Barrett actually getting his messages from?
Belief in the Holy Eucharist predated the Roman Catholic Church. The Church in Jerusalem headed by James was the first Catholic Church. Stop wheebling about and look at the facts.
Just because I am a cradle Roman Catholic doesn’t mean that I cannot fathom history. I’d suggest that you give it a try.
Who is talking about Kevin Barrett, the person? I am asking you again what is the error in Kevins message from Our Lord?
“By claiming that it is from God. I believe that you are in ERROR for spreading his ERROR and gifting it with the label of legitimacy. Simply claiming that because its message goes against Sole Fide makes it legitimate does not make it so.”
Where is Barrett actually getting his messages from?
~ ~ ~
Where is the “error”, name it Mark. This is getting tedious.
Ah, you avoided my direct question AGAIN with another question. You make a good Protestant.
You don’t have to believe the message is from God, no one does, I do, so does Kevin Barrett, the man who received it so your protest is to avoid my question. What is wrong with the message excerpt, how is it false, how is it not Catholic teaching?
“Belief in the Holy Eucharist predated the Roman Catholic Church. The Church in Jerusalem headed by James was the first Catholic Church. Stop wheebling about and look at the facts.
Just because I am a cradle Roman Catholic doesnt mean that I cannot fathom history. Id suggest that you give it a try.”
~ ~ ~
No it didn’t.
Jesus established one Church, the Roman Catholic Church.
The pinnacle of the faith is the Eucharist. Figure it
out. I’ll say it kindly as you did, well almost,
I suggest you try.
I am for you Mark, really, forgive me if I’ve hurt your feelings.
1. On John 8:58
So John 8:58, John 14:9, John 15:27 are all examples of the Greek using what would literally read as the present tense in English as a durative present.
Um, no they are not. I have already been over this. John 8:58 lacks the durational connectors present in John 14:9 and 15:27. It is patently invalid to lump them all together, as there are profound structural differences, apart from any theological considerations.
The biggest difference, as I have already stated, is that unlike the other passages, which only use one verb to make their point, in John 8:58 there are two different kinds of verb in play and each is being contrasted with the other. Some translations go so far as to translate the literal Before Abraham came to be as Before Abraham was born, and that would be a good sense of the contextual meaning of genesthai, come into being.
Our mutually recognized Greek authority AT Robertson agrees:
{Before Abraham was} (prin abraam genesqai). Usual idiom with prin in positive sentence with infinitive (second aorist middle of ginomai) and the accusative of general reference, “before coming as to Abraham,” “before Abraham came into existence or was born.” {I am} (egw eimi). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The contrast between genesqai (entrance into existence of Abraham) and eimi (timeless being) is complete. See the same contrast between en in 1:1 and egeneto in 1:14. See the contrast also in Ps 90:2 between God (ei, art) and the mountains (genhqhnai). (Robertson’s Word Pictures on John 8:58)
Carl W. Conrad, of the Department of Classics at Washington University had this to say:
What I’m wondering is why we aren’t considering the existence referred to in Jesus’ EIMI as essentially _timeless_, wherefore there’s something a little bit odd—or at least paradoxical (perhaps intentionally so) in the suggestion that what is timeless has a temporal relation to an event in time.
Exactly. Whereas the other passages are contextually clear in how they use a single verb to take us from a definite point in past time to a definite moment in the present, John 5:8 does the opposite, by using two fundamentally different verbs to send us back into the limitless past, well before Abraham acquired his limited being by birth, while simultaneously sending us into a limitless future, simply by pointing us to the timeless present. It is the paradoxical juxtaposition of eimi with genesthai that creates that tension, and it is genuinely unlike the other two passages for that reason.
Notice from the quote above that Robertson mentions another passage that uses an identical arrangement to illustrate this tension between the merely temporal and the supertemporal:
Psalms 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
The NWT translation actually agrees with our translation at the salient point:
Psalms 90:2 “Before the mountains themselves were born, or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land, even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God.”
This passage in the Septuagint uses the second person form of eimi and the third person plural of genesthai, but it is the same structure, and clearly references the eternal God. In fact, the LXX translators dont even bother with EL, the Hebrew for God. They simply use su ei, you are. So:
Before the mountains came into being .. you are.
And the NWT agrees. Hmmm.
It is the identical juxtaposition of genesthai and eimi, a born thing versus a timeless thing, as what is found in John 8:58. Furthermore, it demonstrates, when taken in conjunction with the multiple I am passages in Isaiah, that the general form ego eimi did have currency in First Century Israel as a recognizable way to speak of the Eternal One, which in turn explains the hostile reaction of the crowd when Jesus used it of humself.
In any event, I think we have been over this enough. Going on in infinite circles will not benefit either of us. If you have something new to say about it in the next round, I will be happy to consider it, but in reality it is probably time to move on.
2. On Ex.3:14
I have now repeatedly informed you that I believe the connection to Exodus 3:14 is indirect, and is best made by observing how the Septuagint handles the I am passages of Isaiah. I really do not know why you keep pressing me on an argument which is not the one I actually made.
3. On Thomas saying to Jesus My Lord and My God, in John 20:27
You can hardly use 1 Cor. 8:6 to rescue yourself from the painfully obvious meaning of Thomas exclamation. You never did, as far as I know, respond to my earlier query about that passage: If Pauls One God the Father excludes Jesus as God, why doesnt One Lord Jesus Christ exclude God as Lord? They are obviously NOT intended to exclude each other, but to compliment each other while excluding all the false deities causing problems for the Corinthian Christians. Indeed, the parallel structure has caused some to see the passage as an early but clear formulation of a Christological monotheism.
In any event, 1 Cor. 8:6 does nothing at all to eliminate the obvious, that Thomas addressed those words directly to Jesus, and they were received by Jesus as a declaration of belief in Him, with no differentiation made between Lord and God. Which, as we have discussed before, is wrong for Jesus to let pass, if indeed he is mere creature, and not in fact God. By passing up that opportunity to redirect Thomas to worship only God the Father, he has confused countless generations into thinking it is OK to address Jesus as my Lord and my God.
And this moral obligation of Jesus to clear things up applies even if Thomas was, as you suggest, making some clever distinctions in his head while he was instinctively blurting out those worshipful words, differentiating the worshipful thing he was saying from the resurrected Savior he was saying it to. But that mind-reading argument of yours so passes the realm of credibility on its own power that I have already wasted too much space to refuting it; it is self refuting.
4. On Jesus not denying the charge of claiming to be God.
I stand by my analysis. Show me the verse where he said, unequivocally, Hey guys, you got it wrong, Im not actually God or even claiming to be God. Maybe you have that verse in the NWT, and it wouldnt surprise me if it was in there. But my Bible has no such thing.
What about the ye are gods business from Psalm 82:6? Read it again. Its not a denial, its a justification. Theres a world of difference legally. Defending on the law by justifying what was done is a defense I have actually used for a political client. It works especially well when the other side doesnt know the law well enough to see the defensive maneuver coming. I am sorry of you are having trouble recognizing it here, but this is exactly what Jesus has done. There is no denial. As the true Son, he has claimed to be of the same genus as the Father, and that is a claim to deity, and not blasphemy, because it is true. Just like defamation. Truth is an absolute defense. Jesus outlawyers the outlaw lawyers. I love it.
Peace,
SR
On Michael the Archangel
OK, the reason for my curiosity about what you believe about Jesus being Michael is two-fold. First, upon reviewing your argument, I agree it falls far short of proof, and I am a bit surprised that you hold a theological belief you admit you cannot prove from Scripture.
So my follow-up question would be this: Given that you have accepted the Watchtowers Michael theory on such admittedly weak grounds, is this because you believe they have unique authority to speak as the voice of God on earth today?
Because if you do see them that way, Id like to get your input on the following quote:
This is a campaign extraordinaire, one that will be memorialized for all time. Wave upon wave of insects, most prominently locusts, devastate the land. What does this mean? Revelation 9:1-12 also speaks of a plague of locusts, sent forth by Jehovah under “a king, the angel of the abyss,” who is none other than Christ Jesus. His names Abaddon (Hebrew) and Apollyon (Greek) mean “Destruction” and “Destroyer.” These locusts picture the anointed remnant of Christians who, now in the Lord’s day, go forth to devastate Christendom’s pastures by completely exposing false religion and proclaiming Jehovah’s vengeance upon it. — Watchtower 5/1/1992
So is Jesus Michael, or Abaddon/Appolyon, or both, in your view?
Peace,
SR
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.