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 |
How does the HS's "lack of personhood" manifest itself?
Not at all. I am interested in hearing anyones comments.
...but here is the crux of the issue, it seems to me. God entered into history and revealed Himself directly to us through the incarnation.
I acknowledged that.
At the end of those 33 years, Jesus did something. He didn't write a book telling us what we should believe and what we should do. He left a visible Church as an extension of His incarnation to do that. Even in the absence of any scripture, we would still have the testimony of the visible Church (though it is hard to imagine 2000 years passing with nothing ever written down), so we could still know of Christ. He appointed leaders of His Church and gave them the authority to run it. And He sent the Holy Spirit to govern the Church through the hearts of the men whom He chose. And they chose others, first Matthias, then more.
Well, the Holy Spirit wrote 27 new books to add to the 39 that we already had. I think we lose sight of the fact that the Bible isnt one book. It is 66 books, which are in perfect agreement with each other, contained in one volume.
You are not Roman Catholic, and you are not an Orthodox, so which Church did Jesus leave behind? I agree that He left a Church behind, wherever genuine believers are gathered together there is a visible manifestation of that Church. I think we just disagree on the visible form of that Church. (I still like you though.)
So to say the Holy Bible is the way God chose to reveal Himself to us is, in my opinion, incorrect for the Bible itself shows us these other "forms" of revelation.
The Bible is the yard stick by which we can measure all those other ways of Revelation that you mentioned. The written word does not change, oral traditions and traditions made by men have a tendency to change over the years. My point is that if any of those things (traditions, extra-biblical writings, etc.) dictated by men ever disagree with what is contained in the Scriptures, then we need to discard them (traditions, extra-biblical writings, etc.)
-ksen
No of course not. Jesus was physical while here on earth. He's spiritual now.
So Jesus doesn't have a physical presence anymore? He doesn't have a glorified Body? He is just a spirit now?
SD
It does if Jesus or anyone else actually referred to the holy spirit as "he". Most times in the bible the pronouns are implied by their context. The usage of "he", "him", "it" is determined by the context and/or the judgement of the translator. Sometimes a greek pronoun IS used. The most often used one is Strong 486, "autos", but this word is gender neutral so again it's usage is dependent upon context and the belief and/or bias of the translators.
Since the catholic church has defined the Holy Ghost as a "person" and since to hold another view is deemed by many to be not "Christian", then it's no wonder that the pronouns are nearly always personalized when they should more properly be translated "it".
Quoting now:
The Holy Spirit is spoken of in many ways that demonstrate that it is not a divine person. For example, it is referred to as a gift (Acts 10:45; 1 Timothy 4:14). We are told that the Holy Spirit can be quenched (1 Thessalonians 5:19), that it can be poured out (Acts 2:17, 33), and that we are baptized with it (Matthew 3:11).
People can drink of it (John 7:37-39), partake of it (Hebrews 6:4), and be filled with it (Acts 2:4; Ephesians 5:18). The Holy Spirit also renews us (Titus 3:5) and must be stirred up within us (2 Timothy 1:6). These impersonal characteristics are certainly not attributes of a person.
It is also called the Holy Spirit of promise, the guarantee of our inheritance and the spirit of wisdom and revelation . . . (Ephesians 1:13-14, 17).
This Spirit is not only the Spirit of God the Father, for the Bible also calls it the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9; Philippians 1:19). By either name, it is the same Spirit, as there is only one Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 4:4). The Father imparts the same Spirit to true Christians through Christ (John 14:26; 15:26; Titus 3:5-6), leading and enabling them to be His children and partakers of the divine nature (Romans 8:14; 2 Peter 1:4).
In contrast to God the Father and Jesus Christ, who are consistently compared to human beings in Their form and shape, the Holy Spirit is consistently represented, by various symbols and manifestations, in a completely different mannersuch as wind (Acts 2:2), fire (verse 3), water (John 4:14; 7:37-39), oil (Psalm 45:7; compare Acts 10:38; Matthew 25:1-10), a dove (Matthew 3:16) and an earnest, or down payment, on eternal life (2 Corinthians 1:22; 5:5; Ephesians 1:13-14, KJV). These depictions are difficult to understand, to say the least, if the Holy Spirit is a person.
In Matthew 1:20 we find further evidence that the Holy Spirit is not a distinct entity, but Gods divine power. Here we read that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. However, Jesus continually prayed to and addressed God the Father as His Father and not the Holy Spirit (Matthew 10:32-33; 11:25-27; 12:50). He never represented the Holy Spirit as His Father. Clearly, the Holy Spirit was the agency or power through which the Father begot Jesus as His Son.
There is no valid reason to insist Latin is the language of the RCC unless you also acknowledge the RCC began with Constantine. Now, this I accept.
Did Constantine invent the Latin language? I don't understand why you insist on pinning the use of Latin to him. Latin was in use before Constantine and after him. He had nothing to do with it. Nothing.
Accept that.
SD
How does the HS's "lack of personhood" manifest itself?
Not sure I understand your question, but refer to my previous answer to JohnnyM...
Your missing what I'm saying. When I interact with you, is it me interacting? Of course it is. The Holy spirit is God interacting. It's still God, it's still holy, it's just not a seperate person in heaven.
Are you under the impression that no one in the Christian West spoke Latin before Constantine? Maybe that's the source of your error. Reggie, Constantine did not invent the Latin language.
Are you under the impression that Latin was not the language of the Apostles? Maybe that's the source of your error. Dave, a part of the Christian Church became the RCC with the advent of Constantine.
That is your fantasy. This hasn't been proven and even if it were true, has no bearing on this conversation. Constantine didn't invent Latin. It was in use before him in the Church that he "legalized."
As to your question (see how I answer them), I am not aware that any of the Apostles spoke Latin. I am also not aware that any of them did not. There is no Biblical proof either way.
You seem to be under the impression that the Latin Mass, which most people including the Priest, don't understand, is the correct Mass. Once again you concentrate on form, not function.
Oh please tell me which Mass is the "correct" one, oh wise master. I recognize that the use of the vernacular is prone to experimentation and ad libbing. The use of Latin is a way of preventing this, thereby preserving the Rite in its entirety. It also has benefits in making the Church universal. A Latin Mass in Japan is as good as one in Brazil. Latin is the catholic language of the Catholic Church.
And your snide comment that neither the priest or laity understand the Mass is perhaps colored too much by your own experience. It is an insult to the vast majority of Catholics who care enough to learn how to participate in the liturgy.
SD
What's your definition of glorified body? I think it's apparent that since he returned to God in heaven that his interaction with us is on the spiritual plane.
This is the best I can do.
I think you did a very good job. I think my confusion comes from differences in the use of words. Or maybe my confusion comes from confusing differnt concepts on my part.
On the same subject if you have a second: If OSAS, how can your faith be tempted. Again I may be confusing concepts but I was under the impression and have heard many IFBBs talk about their faith being challenged. IF OSAS, then there is no real challenge to the faith only if you are not really OSAS.
And I would like to ask you the same question...when you are saying it's not Christianty, are you saying that my repentence, belief, baptism and gift of the holy spirit are invalid? That I'm not really on the road to salvation? That despite following every biblical injunction on how to believe and how to express my faith that it's all invalid I'm not a Christian, because I don't happen to agree with a doctrine that was developed more than 2 centuries after the death of Christ?
I know you didn't ask me, but here goes. From what I have heard it would seem that your repentence and baptism are valid. You are outside of the bounds of orthodox Christianity, but you already knew that. I would say that you are attempting by your best lights to discern Truth and follow Jesus.
You are also demonstrating the folly (IMHO) of relying only upon oneself to judge the mysteries to be found in Revelation.
SD
You said that Jesus was "physical" while He was on earth. From this I was wondering if you meant that He had no body now. I read "physical" to mean "having a body." If this is not what you meant, I apologize. It is generally understood that Jesus was Resurrected into a glorified, or perfect body. Much like we will some day also be resurrected into an incorruptible body.
(We also believe that Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist, that we can touch, taste, smell, etc. Him in the Bread and Wine, but that's a different subject.)
SD
I know you very well know the answer to this question, but the NEED to ask it; even sarcastically, demonstrates how the new moral relativist psychology has entered into the church. Its offending to say homosexuality is wrong, its offending to say sin is wrong. Its not PC, its not comfy feely, its hurts our "self esteem", how can it be wrong when it might seem right to someone else. To reason away homosexuality is to reason away sin. And thats not shocking, our fleshly nature forces us to reason away sin, and the society in which we live can reason away just about anything...including murder. Thank God there is a Savior. Sin is sin, in thought and in action.
Do all spirits eat broiled fish?
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, 141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." 142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. 2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Which is shorthand for "make what you will of it and if it sounds accusatory, we'll duck it." Let's look at what it does say. It says that homosexuality is a disorder which leads to sin. The Bible does not say it leads to sin, it says that it is sin. And rather than disuading people from being homosexual, your doctrine persuades them to be chaste rather than sinless? Will a homosexual burn more or less in hell for being chaste?
Havoc begins his collossal misunderstanding of the idea of the difference between proclivities and actions. Let's watch.
I find, of all the things Havoc misreads here, the most interesting is his insistence that chastity is some type of sin, for which those with homosexual tendencies will die for anyway.
SD
Just on Friday. :-)
SD
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.