| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/28/2010 11:54:24 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Per poster’s request |
Posted on 04/18/2010 9:49:35 PM PDT by Judith Anne
I seriously wonder about some FReepers, sometimes. Any other person accused of a crime would be defended by every FReeper as being innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. I've seen whole threads written by men who have been accused of child abuse by ex-wives out to deny them their visitation rights or to wrest more money out of them. These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.
Yet where are those FReepers when a PRIEST is accused? Where is the presumption of innocence? Suddenly, every accusation becomes a verdict, and not only the accused but his entire organization and all its adherents are held responsible.
I can only wonder what some of these so-called conservatives (who so faithfully defend the Constitution) would do, if THEY were the ones accused! It is a nightmare for any man -- all of you know how even the accusation stains the man forever, even if it is proven false!
Not only that, many here assert that the problems of 30, 40 and even 50 years ago must be tried in the media TODAY!
Remember the Duke rape case? There are more similarities than differences here. The priests are accused, nifonged, and instead of being defended, they are vilified!
What other man of you could stand under the weight of such an accusation trumpeted by the press, and come out whole? None! And such accusations made, LONG after the statute of limitations has passed, sometimes even after the accused is dead and buried for YEARS -- are YOU one of those who automatically, reflexively, spitefully, and gleefully act as judge, jury, and executioner?
Women! What if it were YOUR HUSBAND, YOUR BROTHER, YOUR FATHER, YOUR UNCLE, YOUR SON who was accused? Wouldn't you want the best defense possible? Wouldn't YOU believe in their innocence? Wouldn't YOU help protect your loved ones as much as possible? And yet, YOU JUDGE THE CHURCH FOR DOING WHAT YOU WOULD DO?
Shame! Vast shame! On all who have sinned against the innocent!
They have been known to happen.
LOL.
Then,
I’ll have to give you a first in line ticket to kiss my ring.
????
Are you sure you’re responding to the right person?
A looong line. 8~)
My idea about posting comes from the saying,
“I may hate what you say but I will defend to your death my right to do so”.
*roll eyes*
Nobody else thinks along those lines. Why do you?
INDEED.
And praise God for that!
. . .
. . . though . . . uhhh . . . at my speed . . . or qualifications . . .
a long line of horned toads. LOL.
LUB SISTER.
We do not know precisely who Luke received his knowledge from. Matthew and John wrote from personal experience and John Mark from personal experience and Peter.
There were a lot of false (gnostic) gospels, and the Church certainly wanted to prevent them.
My point was that Paul COULD NOT have known for certain in his lifetime that the Gospels being preached in any given location were correct. Though you are correct that the Gospel began as an ORAL rather than written tradition as Luke points out and this fact places an emphasis and tradition and disputes the medieval invention of “sola scriptura.”
Which is what he addresses in Galatians, especially chapter 1.
Galatians 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
. . . TO THE PURE, ALL THINGS ARE PURE . . .
. . . to the chronically offended, all things are offensive.
RC and OPC are initials. Reading something into the initials is attributing motive to the one using the initials, usually another Freeper and therefore "making it personal." Being offended by such initials is also "taking it personally" - being thin-skinned.
If you take offense at the term RC, then IGNORE the "open" RF threads altogether.
Also, terms such as Romanist and Snake-handlers - while being pejorative - are often used by both sides in articles, even historical documents or holy writ, which are subject to "open" RF town square type debate. Further, any language - e.g. potty language - disallowed on this forum must be disallowed on both sides of the debate. Therefore, I choose to allow the pejoratives on "open" RF threads.
Again, if you are offended by such terms, then IGNORE the "open" RF threads altogether.
You have revealed your complete lack of knowledge of the history of Ireland. If you don't think public hangings and floggings for the sin of saying the rosary, attending mass, or teaching catechism in hedgerow schools and even for wearing the color green isn't terrorism you are emotionally bankrupt.
Paul refers to Jesus and the Holy Spirit in the same terminology and status as do the writers of the Gospels. The only time that Jesus is mentioned specifically as God in the Gospels is John’s reporting of Thomas’ confession. The Holy Spirit is not specifically mentioned as God in the Gospels. The concept of the Trinity is a deduction from comparing scripture with scripture as did the Councils in formulating the Creeds.
According to Paul, Christ is our Lord but not equal to God; he is God's perefect creation, the first creature made in the image of God (Col 1:15),
John 1:1-3, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Col. 1:15-19, “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 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: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 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. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell ;”
Paul saw Jesus the same way that the apostles did; God come in the flesh.
and for Paul the Spirit is the power of God (just as in Judaism), but never referred to as our Lord.
Paul refers to the Spirit as Lord in 2Cor. 3:17, "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Nowhere else in the scriptures is the Spirit referred to as “Lord”. He is the “Holy Spirit”, Holy Ghost”, “Spirit”, Spirit of God”, Spirit of Christ”, “Spirit of Life” etc. but not referred to specifically as God or Lord.
This is clearly in contradistinction with the Nicean-Costantinopolean credal Trinity of the Church which states that the Spirit is the Lord and that he is the giver of life.
Paul (Rom 8:2) also says the Spirit gives life but only through Christ, obviously indicaitng that the Spirit alone cannot give life, but only acting on behalf of someone else.
Rom 8:10, “And if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness.”
Gal 6:8, “For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.”
Paul also unfailingly states that God raised Christ, not that Christ, being God, raised hismelf, which is a significant distinction of the suboridnaitonalist theology.
The only NT source which suggests that Christ didn't need asisstance is in John 2:19-21, which was incorprated into the Creed in contradisticntion to Paul: the Creed states "he rose on the third day" rather than "was raised..."
All of the scriptures refer to the resurrection as an action of God and a fulfillment of Ps. 16:10, “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.”
See Peter in Acts 2:24-27, “Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. “
The entire New Testament teaches suboridinatonist Trinity. This is what the Church Fathers unfailingly taught until the 4th century.
That is not quite accurate. Many in the early church taught “subordinationism” up to the time of the Arian controversy and then the Councils took the matter up, but it was not the predominant Trinitarian concept. “Economic” subordination was the teaching of the church. God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are not in any way inferior to the Father by nature or being. Both the Son and the Spirit are held to be co-equal and co-eternal with the Father because they are of the same being or substance as the Father. However, in carrying out the purposes and plan of God, they have voluntarily “subordinated” themselves to do the will of the father.
Phil. 2:5-11, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
You will also notice that the Holy Ghost is sent and given, and that he does things through God or through Christ. There is also a distinction made between the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ.
There is no distinction; Paul uses parallelism to explain the Holy Spirit is God.
Rom 8:9, “ But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. “
Of course this is WAY off the topic of this thread, but I mention it only in passing and then must get to my work of the day.
I learned from a good Irishman that the Irish “jigs” were actually dances which conveyed messages, (many of them of catechetical or spiritual in nature) without them being detected as such. This is another genre of “hedgerow catechetics”.
It was told to me that it was a similar way of communicating as the native Americans did with smoke signals.
I was then given a demonstration of some of the
“jigs” and the messages that they were meant to convey.
Fascinating.
May the road rise up to greet you, may the wind be always at your back.
One of my daughters took 3rd nationally in Irish dancing competitions years before River Dance made it popular. You are right to a degree about the messages. The pattern of movement on the floor, the sequence of steps are symbolic, but the music danced to held the real messages.
My guess is that likely the reason he didn't rehash what happened in the Gospels was that it was because what was recorded in the Gospels for us, was pretty common knowledge to them, back in the days when Paul wrote his letters.
And my original response was that the WRITTEN Gospels appeared AFTER Paul was martyred and what was considered "common knowledge" was as likely to be wrong as it was right.
Kosta: LOL. What was the theology of the Church Fathers?
Spirited: Take note that I did not say Buddhism, Ecankar,the Ancient Mysteries, Baal worship, Mithraism, tantric, or magical evolutionism. Here’s a hint: “The Christian theology of the Church Fathers”
Thank you for all that work.
Jesus Himself said He was the Father.
John 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
John 14:8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
9Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.
John 20:28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
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.