Posted on 10/21/2006 4:52:03 AM PDT by NYer
for divine "revelation" per se has nothing to do with matter or the incarnation.
= = =
Hogwash.
HOLY SPIRIT BREATHED WAS PART AND PARCEL OF THE INCARNATION. God was not, is not schizophrenic nor gnostic.
Calling something Holy Spirit does gnostic is equal to calling Holy Spirit gnostic. I doubt He's impressed or delighted.
imho, Language is inadequate at times like this.
"subjective testing of spirits" is NOT telling myself anything. It is tuning in to Holy Spirit telling me WHAT HE WILL.
Sure, just as 100 people listening to a Roman serman would come away with more or less 100 different perspectives and comments, there is an ELEMENT of subjectivity.
I personally believe that's why God --traditionally-- put prophetic types through umpteen years on the back side of the desert. And, in our era, He still tends to put them through umpteen long dark nights of the soul and plentiful fiery furnaces . . . burning the tendendy to do and say their own thing out of them. Not a fun process in the least. And, it's likely not finished in this life. But, God is a great trainer and HE DOES MAKE GREAT PROGRESS over time.
I have not yet seen much of the purity of say a Jeremiah or Moses or St Paul in our era but I've known of some who were approaching the ball park. I think the more 'no-name' obscure folks in our era tend to be more like that than the well known sorts.
But I'm 100% convinced that God is going to wholesale purify HIS CHURCH across the board and particularly HIS PROPHETIC TYPES before He returns. There's too much at stake and too much of HIS GLORY HE HAS CHOSEN TO FLOOD THROUGH SUCH EARTHEN VESSELS. If He doesn't clean us all up more thoroughly, such will kill us.
But, most of the time, as long as folks are earnest, humble, SEEKING GOD AND HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS FIRST, i don't fault them much for learning and growing in their prophetic gifting. snotty nosed brats the world over have to learn at whatever pace they learn. I know from first hand experience.
GOD DID NOT MAKE US GLASS PIPES.
St Paul's personality shows vividly through HIS ENSCRIPTURATED TEXT. God could have done it differently. God could have dictated each letter of each word. God could have put him in a trance and controlled each move of his hand writing or dictating Scripture. He didn't.
I prefer to submit to HIS WISDOM rather than tell HIM what He can and can't do in such matters.
IF GOD ALMIGHTY IS MORE OR LESS COMFORTABLE ENOUGH WITH THE LEVEL OF SUBJECTIVITY INVOLVED TO CONTINUE HAVING HOLY SPIRIT DO THINGS THE WAY HE DOES--I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE WITH HIM NOR CALL HOLY SPIRIT GNOSTIC.
I've noticed a few things over the years. And, in spite of all our flawedness, GOD DOES ALL THINGS WELL. I submit to HIS WAYS. Tradition and organizations of man have NO standing in the least over GOD AND GOD'S WAYS, as far as I'm concerned.
As proud_2_B_texasgal said in #1011, "Any human person is ... going to interpret differently from the next."
Please see above.
Thanks for this post, it was quite thought provoking.
But concerning matter – at least from my perspective – you are spot-on. I have no confidence at all in matter.
The critical density of the universe (all the matter) consists of three types: ordinary matter which represents 5% of the critical density, dark matter (the high gravity center of galaxies, etc.) which represents some 25% of the critical density and dark energy which is the whopping 70%. The dark energy has a negative gravity effect – like a space/time outdent – accelerating the expansion of the universe.
The Standard Model of physics posits the Higgs field/boson as ordinary matter. But neither Fermilab nor CERN have yet either observed or made ordinary matter. And even if CERN succeeds, the remaining 95% remains unobserved and unmade in laboratory conditions.
So significant is this absence of evidence (which in physics unlike biology is the evidence of absence) that many physicists have turned to other explanations of matter per se. A popular one is that matter in four dimensions is actually a shadow of momentum components in a fifth dimension. Another is that matter in four dimensions is multiply imaged from matter in a fifth time-like dimension – as little as a single particle, multiply imaged 1080 times.
Or as Einstein said, “reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one.”
One can add to all of this concerning matter the phenomena of non-locality and quantum superposition. On the one hand the measurement of one of an entangled photon pair determines the other regardless of spatial separation, 11 kilometers or across the galaxy. On the other hand, the cat is neither dead nor alive but both dead and alive.
So, no – on Spiritual grounds first and foremost – and also on scientific grounds at a much lower level of my personal epistemology (how I know what I know and how sure I am that I know it) ---– I put no confidence whatsoever in matter.
For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 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. – Romans 8:6-9
If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. - Col 3:1-3
Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. – 1 John 4:4-6
Mat 16:23 is also in the Bible. It sure looks to me that Jesus gave the keys to the Holy Spirit, not the fallible Peter. Further, one verse does not invalidate the entirety of Scripture. If a man possesses the "keys", he will adhere to God's will.
Catholics, Protestants, Moonies, Mormans and Muzlims are going to Hell...
The apostle Paul was ultimately given the task to build and minister to the Gentile church, the future Bride of Christ...
And salvation as taught by Paul is easy as making a mud pie...
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Faith that Jesus died, was buried and raised again on the 3rd day...Faith that Jesus is God come in the flesh...
And how do you get this salvation???You call on the name of the Lord, and you will be saved...
Counting on ANYTHING ELSE will send you straight to Hell...There is NOTHING you can do to earn salvation...
Plain scripture needs no interpretation. The NT shows that thousands repented, believed, and were Baptized without the use of an RCIA. In some cases, Gentiles even got the Holy Spirit prior to being Baptized. I understand that you folks look outside of your church and see nothing but confusion, but that is no excuse for not reading Jesus' plain words for yourselves. If your church is teaching the truth, it would encourage this. Until you answer the questions on post 362, there is no way to further the debate. How does one identify an inspired and Godly man?
If you answer my questions in my previous posts then I will be happy to go down this road with you.
If Jack Chick is slandering the Catholic church with his comics. why hasn't the church sued him???
So in other words, Irenaeus has no evidence to include Peter in this statement, but he does have substantial Scriptural and patriarchal evidence to make this statement about Paul.? Right?
Dionysius, bishop of Corinth (c. 166-174 AD), also writes that both Peter and Paul planted both in Rome and in Corinth, and suffered martyrdom at the same time.
Isn't Dionysius untrustworthy as a source? After all he claims that Peter planted the Church in Corinth together with Paul. That's simply not true. Otherwise, Paul would have mentioned him in his letters to Corinth, and Luke in Acts regarding the Corinthians. Isn't it likely that he is confusing "Apollos" in Corinth with Peter.
And there is no competing traditional account of Peter's life. Peter himself gives evidence of his being in Rome in 1 Peter 5:13.
No that's not true either. He is clearly in Babylon there, where Josephus tells us there was a substantial community of Jews [the circumcision to whom Peter dedicated his life to reaching]. If you are going to tell me that "Babylon" was a code word for "Rome", then why didn't Paul use that code word or another one for Rome. What was "Crete" a code word for? Are you going to tell me that Peter at that point in his life was afraid of telling the truth about where he was?
And Papias (bishop of Hieropolis) and Clement of Alexandria both testify that Mark wrote his Gospel at Rome, which Gospel is understood to have been written under the direction and authority of Peter. (See, for example, 1 Pet 5:13) This Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 - 215 AD) also tells us that Peter preached at Rome.
If Clement of Alexandria is correct, Mark might have written his Gospel from Rome, but Peter could have told him to do it years before and/or from some other place. Furthermore, if he is correct that Peter preached in Rome, possibly during his sojourn in Asia Minor, that is a far cry from a 25 year bishopric, that he lived there, that he died there, that he was crucified by Nero.
Tertullian also refers to "those whom Peter baptized in the Tiber", and tells us that Clement (of Rome) was ordained by Peter at Rome.
Well Tertullian here is a problem as well. He was a later writer and where would he get this? By hearsay and rumor again? And here Tertullian is at odds with Irenaeus and Eusebius, who claims that Linus was the first bishop of Rome for 12 years, followed by Anacletus for 12 years, then came Clement as bishop in the 12th year of Emperor Domitian --- 93 AD?????. How was Peter ordaining anybody 25 years after his death? So who's right: Tertullian or Irenaeus or Eusebius? They can't all be right, right? Otherwise why would Peter be ordaining Clement when it should have been Linus that he ordained and 93 AD?????.
Remember too that unlike in the case of Paul, there is no evidence of Peter being brought to Rome to stand trial. Nor would Peter, not being a Roman citizen have needed to be brought to Rome to face Nero or to be executed. But there is much evidence that Peter was martyred in Rome. The best explanation of those three facts is that Peter was already in Rome, on his own accord. And there is long-standing and undisputed tradition that Peter went there early, in part to deal with the false teaching of Simon Magus (who apparently had gone to Rome and through his sorcery become so revered that had a statue of himself as a god set up in Rome). St. Cyril (bishop of Jerusalem) testifies to that, and there are other sources for that as well.
There is only one other source for that and that is Eusebius who was Cyril's [Jerome's] source. So the question is: Where did Eusebius get his information: by oral tradition 300 years from the source? And in that 300 years no one wrote it down?.
You can see the credibility problem that the RCC has here. Those patriarchs are not always trustworthy. That Tradition is often full of holes.
What does the Magisterium really believe regarding Eusebius' report of a 25 year bishopric for Peter in Rome? Does it question it?
How is it possible for Peter to have been in Rome for 25 years and there be no credible written evidence until Eusebius in the 4th century who appears to invent it out of whole cloth, and one filled with holes at that?
Good start to the morning....thanks much.
The main reason is because it is beneath their dignity. However, from a legal standpoint, I don't believe you can slander an institution or a deceased individual.
That itself is an interpretation (a second-order interpretation, but an interpretation nonethless).
Moreover, you are interpreting in your determination of which scriptures are plain and which are not.
You cannot escape interpretation. The question is, who has the authority in the Church to provide the authoritative interpretation? For those who endorse the historical novelty of 'sola scripura', every individual Christian's interpretation is equally authoritative. But the Church has always taught that the Apostles ordained bishops in every church, and gave them authority to govern the various churches. It is for this reason that the Scriptures belong pricipally to them, and only secondarily and derivatively to us, insofar as we are joined in communion with them. And just as they are the ones with the authority to determine the canon of Scripture, so likewise they are the ones with the authority to determine the interpretation of Scripture. No one else has the authority to determine for the Church either the canon or the interpretation of Scripture.
-A8
No, that would be a non sequitur.
-A8
Quick response before heading off to Tuesday's lunch with pastor and pottery.
I agree rather entirely.
Certainly agree about Holy Spirit not being resident earth-wise in some sense prior to Christ's assension.
I'm not sure we know what that all means and doesn't mean.
Seems to me Christ's miracles and resurrection likely had Holy Spirit's involvement.
Certainly Christ told Peter that Peter could know Christ was The Christ only by The Spirit.
The matter issues are always masterfully outlined by you and I love it.
I still ponder at times, what "The heavens rolled back like a scroll" will turn out to mean.
Does it mean the matrix will be reloaded, unloaded . . . What? LOL.
There are certainly plenty of mysteries still around.
That's called an argument from silence, and it is a fallacy.
-A8
This is another argument from silence, and hence another fallacy.
-A8
First of all, it appears to me that you are not a sympathetic investigator. You appear to have an axe to grind. A person can call into question every piece of evidence, if you want not to believe something. But instead of assuming that these fathers are pulling these things out of thin air, or basing them on mere rumours, try giving them the benefit of the doubt. If you want to be a skeptic, then go the whole way and doubt the veracity of the Scriptures.
Regarding Peter's ordination of Clement, there is absolutely no contradiction, and you would know this if you knew more about the Catholic Church. For example, my home parish is the local cathedral, i.e. the seat of the archbishop. But there is another bishop there in residence. There are two bishops here at the same time. Similarly, Clement was ordained by Peter to the order of bishop, but Clement remained under the authority of Linus and Cletus until Cletus died, at which time Clement acquired the responsibility of the Roman see.
-A8
I think an important thing to consider is WHAT POSSIBLE REASON WOULD THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS HAVE HAD TO LIE ABOUT WHAT PETER WAS DOING? These men were writing just a few decades after the Crucifixion, the Gospels had not even been compiled or even necessarily written. Would they "lie" in anticipation of a controversy that would not even appear for another fifteen centuries?
Alamo-Girl: To the contrary, it has everything to do with the incarnation of Christ (I prefer the word enflesh, btw.) The Comforter could not and did not come until Jesus Christ died, resurrected and returned to heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father. (John 14:26, John 15:26, John 16:7)
A8: Was there no "divine revelation" before Christ's incarnation? If there was "divine revelation" prior to Christ's incarnation, then, just as I said above, "divine revelation" per se has nothing to do with matter or the incarnation.
Regarding the scientific things to which you refer, you seem to assume that matter, if it exists, must belong to the investigative domain of experimental, instrumental science. But the concept of matter that is revelant to this discussion is *philosophical*, not scientific in the experimental sense. So the outcome of scientific studies on, for example, dark matter etc., is entirely irrelevant to whether we live in a material world.
If you think that "reality is an illusion", then how can you affirm that Jesus Christ came in the flesh? It seems that you could only affirm that Jesus Christ *appeared* to come in the flesh. But that is docetism, which is gnosticism. According to the Apostle John, every spirit that denies that Jesus came in the flesh is the spirit of the antichrist. (1 John 4:2-3)
That theology is in direct opposition to Scriptures quoting Christ, John and Paul
No, it is in direct opposition to your gnostic interpretation of the Scriptures. And you don't have authority to determine for the Church either the canon or the interpretation of Scripture.
-A8
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.