Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
IOW, they are returning back to the Bible. Well, that is good news.
-ksen
-ksen
Has the rain a father,
or who has begotten the drops of dew? (Job 38:28)
Are these divine drops of dew? The use of 'begotten' does not imply godhood or divinity. And, as I said, it is not refering to Jesus anyway.
What are you talking about? Exodus 7:1? That was not 'Christ' talking, that was YHWH. There is absolutely no way you can derive from the text of the Tanakh 'the LORD' refers to anyone other than YHWH. If you look at the original Hebrew, that's what it says: 
. Anything else is your imposing a meaning on the text that is not there.
Whatever, Doug. I guess the notion of a 'literal' interpretation of scripture goes out the window the moment one can impose a Christological meaning on a passage.
angelo: Revisionist history at its finest, RobbyS. Yep, the Jews, who since Abraham had been worshipping the trinitarian God of YHWH, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and who believed that the Son would be born of a virgin and die to save them all from their sins, suddenly and inexplicably rejected Jesus, rejected trinitarianism, converted to an unitarian understanding of God, and kicked the 'real Jews' out of the synagogues. Yeah, that's the ticket.
RobbyS: By the Jews who do you mean? The Sadducees, who rejected the resurrection, or the Pharisees, who believed in it? Or do you mean the Essenes, who rejected the temple?
Yes. ALL of them. NONE was trinitarian. Even many of the early Jewish Christians were not trinitarian (go look up 'Ebionites' in the Catholic Encyclopedia).
Do you deny that the latter, who had been persecuted ever since they first claimed that Jesus was the Christ were formally excluded from the synagogues, barred from worshipping with "real" Jews so long as they did not reject their "false" Messiah?
Nope, not in the least. But this is totally aside from the comment you made above, wherein you implied that it was the Jews who had established a 'new religion', when any reasonable reading of history demonstrates that the opposite was the case. The point is too ridiculous to even argue.
Do you think the Catholic Church should have the authority to "bar" from their worship services those who believe and promote heretical doctrine? Should the Catholic Church be forbidden from excommunicating dissenters? Or should no religious entity be allowed to determine its membership requirements?
Sure, whatever you say. I don't agree with your interpretation of Jewish scripture, and therefore I must be dull-minded and have a veiled heart. Not a very persuasive argument. But one frequently used by various Christian sects about other Christian sects with whom they disagree.
I'll assume this was addressed to the room at large, since, according to my scriptures, there is no such thing.
Thank you Elsie. However, please be aware that I have read the Christian scriptures any number of times, and that I own several translations of same. You don't need to quote the whole thing to me online here. ;o)
Oh, boy. Here I tried to pass the gavel to Wordsmith without checking with him first, only to find out that he's down with the flu. I almost hate to see what transpired in here whilst I was gone. The thread is still here, though, so it must not have gotten too out of control. ;o)
I confess, I called TRD the same thing yesterday.
You are forgiven, my son. Now go say 5 of those speed talk "Hail Marys". ;o)
Thanks for filling in, Wordsmith. I knew I picked the right man for the job!
I humbly submit that that is because these "types", as you call them, exist in your mind, and not in the text. It is the result of seeking to find Jesus wherever you look. In literary criticism, this is known as "deconstructing" a text.
I think the specific source which quote's later writings of St. Cyprian was Philip Sherrard's Church, Papacy and Schism. I'll look on my way to my office tomorrow.
Sounds like the blind leading the blind to me. Whatever it is she's studying, is sure as shootin' ain't real Jewish mysticism. My guess is that its some sort of 'new age' thing with a veneer of terminology culled from authentic mysticism in order to try to get some respectability. From what I've heard about her, Ms. Lewinsky is not, to put it mildly, a scholar of Torah. Traditionally, to qualify to even study kabbalah, the person must have attained 40 years of age, and be well-grounded in scripture and the writings of the sages. Also married. I don't think she qualifies, on any count.
All religions have their 'mystical' aspect. Mysticism, rightly understood, is about attaining a greater intimacy with the divine. Islam has Sufism and various types of Shi'ism. Judaism has kabbalah, among other mystical traditions. Christianity has writers such as John of the Cross, Meister Eckhardt, Teresa of Avila and others. The language and teaching of mysticism is highly symbolic, and is intended to point to the Reality beyond language.
Nope, I disagree.
The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. (Psalm 51:17)
I acknowledged my sin to thee,
and I did not hide my iniquity;
I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the LORD";
then thou didst forgive the guilt of my sin. (Psalm 32:5)
I repeat, it was in the 11th century that Rome set up on its own: it broke communion with the rest of the Church by accepting the Frank-championed modified Creed, which it had resisted for centuries, remaining true to the Orthodox Faith. It is also then that it repudiated the settlement of the schism between Rome and Constantinople during the papacy of Nicholas I, a settlement accepted by Pope John VIII, which plainly stated, in complete harmony with the canons of the Holy Ecumenical Councils (e.g. the sixth of Nicea and the twenty-eighth of Chalcedon) that the jurisdiction of the Roman Pope, with the exception of narrowly drawn appeals provisions, was confined to his own patriarchate.
Its kinda like hire the handy-capped, their fun to watch. We still like you anyway.
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.