Posted on 11/24/2009 4:10:44 PM PST by NYer
Statistics released Nov. 24 by the FBI show hate crimes against religious groups increased by 9% from 2007 to 2008.
USA Today reported that in 2008, there 1,519 incidents against people based on their religion, the statistics show.
The figures reveal that while anti-Jewish attacks made up the highest percentage of the attacks (17%), there was an increase in hate crimes against Catholics — 75, up from 61 in 2007.
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said the increase may be due to the Church becoming more vocal on life issues such as abortion and homosexual unions.
As the Catholic bishops take a stronger stance, he said, it filters down to the laity, and as more traditional Catholics become more vocal, they become targets for those who disagree with them.
“Unfortunately, it spills over into violence,” he said, adding that it’s just going to get worse before it gets better.
“I’ve never seen our country so culturally divided and so polarized,” he said. “These issues are not going away.”
Next time you need medical help just pray. Don't bother with those who seek wisdom.
Ok if I do both?
“most Christians have never heard that Gospels are anonymous writings”
Do you actually KNOW most Christians? I thought not. Most people don’t particularly care, but if they do, any study Bible or commentary will give them ample background information. But I’m sorry to hear the Christians you’ve met don’t study much...
“For and against what?”
For and against theories about who wrote them. Overall, I’d say the majority of conservative Protestants would have Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as the writers, based on reasonable evidence. I do not know of any who would be upset if they found out otherwise, but I don’t tend to travel in KJV-only circles.
“What external evidence?”
Generally tradition, with tradition sometimes including multiple possibilities.
“The Hebrews would have not been accepted had they not been assumed to be Pauline.”
Some still say it is. Others say Barnabas, who was a close associate of Paul’s. Luke was accepted, and Mark, without requiring direct Apostolic authorship.
But if you don’t wish to accept Hebrews, I cannot stop you. I do. Martin Luther agreed with you, but not quite strongly enough to actually remove it from the New Testament.
“No, they just quietly removed them form subsequent editions while still maintaining that God made sure not an iota has been corrupted, because once you do the unraveling of the Bible myth becomes unstoppable.”
Maybe because removing them didn’t affect doctrine? The Trinity wasn’t based on those, was it? We’ve argued the trustworthiness of the text before...you believe the authorities you trust, and I believe the authorities I trust.
“And what would all the Bible thumpers do for a living if they couldn’t peddle the Bible as the word of God? Flip hamburgers?”
I’ve known Baptists who flipped hamburgers. Good guys, too! I’ve thumped a Bible or two, and I’m a retired Electronic Warfare Officer. We Bible-thumpers tend to trust God to get us through - but I wouldn’t put the Osteens in as Bible thumpers. From what I’ve seen, they pay no attention to the Bible at all.
My wife is a nurse...I don’t know if wisdom is what doctors seek. From what I’ve heard, most consider themselves deities delivering oracles, but that may be an RN’s perspective!
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.
Proverbs 9:10
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.
You are a delight and a real treasure.
What do you know/think about the absence of Trinitarian commentaries or thinking in the writings of the earliest Church Fathers?
Of course not, since John outright says he is (but not always though!). Does that mean the Gospels teach he is God? Does that mean that Paul teaches he is God co-equal, co-eternal, consubstantial with the Father? Of course they don't.
As for 2 Peter and Hebrews, I'd leave those out of this, given the late date of 2 Peter and Hebrews being anonymous writing that made it into the NT on false pretense.
The author John's Gospel wrote at the end of the century, when Christianity and Judaism have already become two distinct religions. Remember, the Jews have actually rejected Christian books and Christ at this point circa 90 AD (at Jamnia).
But it is a far stretch to say that Synoptic Gospel authors portray a fully divine Jesus. Paul's Jesus has some divine aspects but certainly not equal to God. None of the Apostles ever pray to Jesus, eve after his resurrection and ascention, even though the Gospels clealry say that he is the only mediator between men and the Father.
Thus we find that Jesus was adopted at his Baptism (in Mark), that he doesn't know everything (Acts 1), that he merely does what the Father wills (Mat 26:39), and that he is lesser than the Father (John 14:28). He even calls God the Father his God, "your God and my God" (cf. John 20:17)!
According to Paul, Christ is the firstborn creature (cf Col 1:15), God is his head (cf 1 Cor 11:3), and Jesus is an icon of invisible God (Col 1;15—aren't we all created in God's image?).
It is really interesting to try to reconcile John's Word, who was "with God" and "is God" (cf John 1:1) and someone who is "firstborn of all creation" or someone whose "head is God" as he is "the head of man," or someone "lesser than the Father," etc., and draw up the Nicene Triniatrian Church dogma of co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial hypostic Godhead and a Jesus who is fully God and fully man. Good luck!
After all, just who did the Apostles believe in?
Now, the Apostles do call Jesus the messiah, but this is not the same as God in Jewish mindset. The book of Acts quotes Peter "Peter proclaimed that Jesus was a manappointed by God [cf. Act 2:22]
he also adds "God has made him Lord [kyrios] and messiah [anointed one, christos in Greek] [cf. 2:36].
Furthermore, Peter says to the crowd to repent so that he may send the Messiah appointed for you" and who must remain in heaven until the time of universal restoration announced by God long ago [cf. 3:19–21].
Of course, there are many other examples where Jesus is portrayed as anything but divine. So, save for John, the Apostles appear to have believed that Jesus was the meshiyah as understood in apocalyptic Judaism the proverbial Daniel's 'Son of Man' but not divine.
As for your other quotes, excluding John's, Titus 2:13 seems to be altered, since Tituts is close associated with Timothy and in Timothy similar quotes are always made with the distinction of God the Father from Jesus Christ, where God is the Savior and Jesus is only the hope [1 Tim 1:1 "according to the commandment of God our Savior, and of Christ Jesus, who is our hope").
Always, God is presented as someone different form Jesus (2 Tim 1:2 "Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord"), even in Titus ! (1:4 "Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior"), except this time Jesus is our savior and not just our hope...
It seems that Titus 2:13 is yet another conflation that can be found in 2 Pet 1:1; we can only wonder which one copied whom.
Hebrews 1:8 But of the Son He says
This is straight out of PS 45 and has nothing to do with the Son. It has to do with king's marriage. There is no mention of the Son in it.
Rom 9:5 doesn't say Christ is God, only that he is blessed by God over everyone else.
Luke 2:11, of course doesn't read like that to the Greek eyes. It says today was born to you a savior, who is the anointed one (messiah), lord Jesus.
In Greek the word "save" as use din the NT means "to restore." It doesn't mean "you go to heaven." Christ came to restore, to heal, the people of Israel, as the messiah is supposed to, so that God can re-establish his Kingdom on earth – Israel. In act his miracles are intended to show the doubting Pharisees that he has the power to heal and restore to health (i..e that he is the anointed son of God, the apocalyptic warrior-king).
Isa 9:6 you quote, of course is a Christianized version of the verse. Thereare variants to Isaiah 9:6. here is the text that appears in Greek Septuagint (LXX). The Greek text contains nothing even remotely close to the English translation you are reading:
ὅτι (for) παιδίον (a child) ἐγεννήθη (was born) ἡμῖν (to us) υἱὸς (a son) ἐδόθη (was given) ἡμῖν (to us) οὗ (of whom) ἡ the ἀρχὴ (sovereignty) ἐγενή (became) θη ἐπὶ (upon) ὤμου (shoulder) αὐτοῦ (of you) καὶ (and) καλεῖται (is called) τὸ ὄνομα (name) αὐτοῦ (his) μεγάλης (great) βουλῆς (counsel) ἄγγελος (messenger) ἐγὼ (I) γὰρ (for) ἄξω (bring) εἰρήνην (peace) ἐπὶ (upon) τοὺς (your) ἄρχοντας (rulers)
I could go on, but I think you get the point. it's ain't' as simple as some make it to be.
Isn't God enough for you?
What do you suppose is a doctors' stereoptype of a nurse? My guess is that one can find good apples and bad apples in every bunch.
If I didn't know you better, I'd say you were mocking me.;o)
It may or may not, in some aspects or not. What day of the week, whether he wore red or blue, whether he shouted: Look out ! or Get back!...
Maybe they would agree on whether someone died, whether there was a miracle, whether, whether...
What they are all agreeing on - at the very least - is something unusual happened.
Some time ago, I looked for the agreed upon "facts", by all reputable, Christian and non, about Jesus. What I found was "A man called Jesus existed and was thought to be a miracle worker."
That's pretty much it if you want the baseline objective historical facts.
From the scriptural sources, the most reliable thing we have is the sermon on the mount, the beatitudes.
From here we have less reliable accounts of his teaching and his life.
But what is the point of our research?
If it is research is about God, as God is described in the basic, then I posit it is a search for truth. And if it is a search for truth then we have other sources to check. If we wish to know if what we say Jesus taught is true - of God - then we measure it against other sources.
Or as someone said: Don't look up -- the truth is all around you.
Perhaps it is in where and how we look. And maybe one way to judge for ourselves the validity of the gospel account of Jesus is to try looking as Jesus looked - according to them.
What do you know/think about the absence of Trinitarian commentaries or thinking in the writings of the earliest Church Fathers?
There is no absence of it at all! The early church mentions the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but their relationship is not doctrinally defined very well.
Harry R. Boer, in his A Short History of the Early Church states "None of the Apostolic Fathers presented a definite doctrine on this point. " (p 109)
Justin Martyr, for example presents a tiered Trinity, the Father being worshipped first, then the Son and then the Spirit (cf I Apol. 13). This is as far from the Nicene definition of Trinity as it gets.
The Apostolic Fathers end c 140 AD and are succeeded by Christian Apologists (180 AD and third century) such as Origen and Tertullian and Ireaneus. They all build on the primitive Trinitarian doctrine of the Apostolic fathers (Irenaeus, and Polycarp, with Justin Martyr being an intermediate almost stand-alone at about 150 AD). At this time the Holy Spirit has not yet attained fully a distinct personality...but is merely considered an "effluence of God."
They certainly bring the Trinitairan doctrine closer to the one recognizable at Nicene but still not quite polished out, and certainly not clear as regards Chrsitology and Mariology. For example, Origen (early 3rd century) and Eusebius (late 3rd century) both still held on to the tiered Trinitarian view, aka subordination model, but it was Origen who pretty much finalized the role of Mary by calling her Theotokos, and asserting her perpetual virginity.
However, it must be borne in mind that, consistent with the New Testament, all early Christian writers considered the Son subordinated to God the Father. This is something the Catholic and Orthodox Churches never mention in their assertion. Rather, what they teach today is what the Church believed the same thing "everywhere and always." Of course, that is a lie. Even the most prominent theologians of the apologetic era and prior to that, believed in a tiered Trinity.
The Apologists are not adoptionists (i.e. they did not believe Jesus was human who was made God, as the Gospel of mark leads one to think) and do not believe Christ is a creature.
Most of this subordained Chrisotlogy comes straight out of the New Testament where Jesus is described as someone under God's tutelage (Jesus says "my Father is greater then I" and Pauls says that "just as Christ is the head of man, God is the head of Jesus, and man is the head of woman").
As for the Holy Spirit, in the words of Edmund Fortman "The New Testament writers do not witness to the Holy Spirit as fully and clearly as they do to the Son. (The Triune God, p30), so the HS is even more sunbordinated than the Son.
Early Chruch Trintiy can be summed up as considering both the Son and the Spirit divine ("what is from God is God " — Irenaeus, late 2nd century), but the early Church Trinity is not one of divine co-equally of three persons. The Godhead is the Father. The Father is the only one who is without a cause, and therefore he is the only "true" God (the God of the Old testament) as the Son is eternally begotten and the Spirit is an effusion eternally emanating from the Father.
Of course the Nicene Council in AD 325 changed all this quite radically and almost unrecognizably.
I am not, dear laldy. But if those who seek wisdom are fools, why put any trust in them?
All 11 eleven of them...some had to believe their story. Then they told others and they believed their story, and so on. But real eyewitnesses there were none. The truth is, other than those eleven (even if there were eleven), millions believed someone else's story and none, save for the eleven were there when this allegedly happened, and even they didn't see it.
Of the NT writers, only Matthew and John are alleged eyewitnesses (assuming they actually wrote anything). The rest are 2nd and 3rd tier believers. Paul basically has his own story and he is his only witness, so take it or leave it! The the remaining nine alleged eyewitnesses never wrote anything.
The initial success had to do with the mass hysteria with mystery religions that pervaded the Middle East about an imminent 'end of times.' Paul actually believed and taught that the end of times already started by belief, which he never witnessed of course, that Jesus resurrected from the dead.
By the time this hysteria began to ebb, at the end of the century, the Church introduced (conveniently) the first Epistle of Peter which re-set the Rapture Clock and called on patience.
Some time ago, I looked for the agreed upon "facts", by all reputable, Christian and non, about Jesus. What I found was "A man called Jesus existed and was thought to be a miracle worker."
That's at best. Actually, someone would be hard pressed to even demonstrate by any reliable source that historical Jesus actually existed.
From the scriptural sources, the most reliable thing we have is the sermon on the mount, the beatitudes.
Why is that "reliable?" I personally find it most beautiful but I can't place reliability on it.
If it is research is about God, as God is described in the basic, then I posit it is a search for truth. And if it is a search for truth then we have other sources to check. If we wish to know if what we say Jesus taught is true - of God - then we measure it against other sources.
Which sources? In order to search for God we would have to know what God is, in order to recognize God when we find him. If you don't know what is human how will you recognize a human? You could be staring him in the face and not know it. Essence before substance. Nature before form.
And maybe one way to judge for ourselves the validity of the gospel account of Jesus is to try looking as Jesus looked - according to them
I am not sure I follow you here.
There were some eyewitnesses, Occam's razor, likely some. And others believed some of what they said, or trusted their believability or something, whatever, enough to give it legs.
had to do with the mass hysteria with mystery religions that pervaded the Middle East about an imminent 'end of times.
No doubt a factor, as we can see in our own world today. How much so, to what extent, in what direction, which part, all, some... likely impossible to know.
at the end of the century, the Church introduced (conveniently) the first Epistle of Peter which re-set the Rapture Clock
For sure, a major part of what had become "the story" was no longer "operative". Major adjustment time. A lot of religions don't survive long past this point.
Actually, someone would be hard pressed to even demonstrate by any reliable source that historical Jesus actually existed.
I certainly trust you to do your own research. I did mine, and I was an atheist at the time and no slouch in historical research. That's what I ended up with; not to infer anyone else should take it on my word.
Why is that [the beatitudes] "reliable?"
It's been too long ago for me to cite, but it has to do with consistency and multiple sources among, I believe, other reasons. If you had to pick the most likely true from all of Jesus' sayings in scripture it would be the most reliable, relatively, of the bunch. For me this is very important. I'm most interested in boiling it down to what he taught.
Which sources?
Mainly, reality. I'm not trying to be trite, but I'm saying what you said: truth is all around us. LIes are man-made, reality is, well, all that is real. Man's search is for what is real and true. We give meaning to this, whether it results in life has no meaning, knowing this still has meaning to us. Truth. Reality. What is real.
In order to search for God we would have to know what God is, in order to recognize God when we find him.
There is one act of faith, well, not really even faith, just a definition. They say: God is truth. Ok, forget the God part. Look for truth. If "they" are right and God is truth then when you find truth...By truth here I mean reality - how the universe really is.
There is what's real and what humans see as real or true. Not all humans see reality the same - not even close if you include the full range of humanity. Is the cosmos random or ordered, its it an adversary or ally, is life special or cursed, is compassion an objective force or an illusion... There is a human filter in between us and our connection to the rest of the universe.
The true purpose of religion is the same as the purpose of all human seeking for truth whether it is science or logic or sense experience or full human knowing using all capacities - what is true, what is real. Religion, praxis here, is another method, another experiment, another instrument for looking at the same reality.
You could be staring him in the face and not know it.
Honestly, we really are. And you can read Jesus, among many others, saying exactly that.
I am not sure I follow you here.
Imagine a hack writer interviewed the early followers of Jesus around and wrote the most sensational best seller. Then try to remove the hack from the story and hear the imploringa of Jesus. You can hear him saying: Do this, see this, don't do this, remove this, stop this, drop that... and then YOU will see - for yourself.
My point again is if you are not the type to accept on faith, and I think neither of us are, then there is another way to at least attempt to learn more about who Jesus was/is and how he relates to God as/if he said. And that is to follow his instructions - as best we can and see for ourself.
No belief required.
Thank you for your insights.
I’ve read Irenaeus as Catholics had told me he bears a strong and clear witness of the Trinity (modern, Post-Nicean). But, found that he did not.
Justin Martyr seems to have been most consistent with the NT version that Jesus Christ himself presents.
Maybe you should elaborate more. That is not my impression, save for the impression that Irenaeus, like all Apolgetics of the pre-Nicene era, believed and taught subordinated Trinity. They all did. FWIW, I think maybe I should try to explain my understanding why this eventually became problematic.
Basically, the Word was seen as an expression of the Father (whom they identify with Wisdom, or Sophia in Greek, a very important Gnostic term, which in itself eventually became a problem). The way Christians looked at it, this great Mind of God cannot be wordless (as St. John of Damascus says, 8th century). Words express thoughts with force. Words can make things move, words can hurt, soothe, cut and build.
Thus the world was created, according to the Bible, by God through his Word – when he says "let there be light!" It wasn't enough for God just to think it; he had to actually say it for something to happen i.e. he creates everything by speaking (i.e. through or by his Word).
NB: I guess one could argue that we are all made in God's image because our psyche (or spirit, soul) has words; no other creature does.
So, rather than speaking of thee co-eqaul, co-eternal "Persons" (actually Hypostases which is not a person in Greek) in one divine essence or nature, the pre-Nicene Christian Apologetics speak of the Son and the Spirit as coming "out" of the Father, the Word being begotten (i.e. put forth, like our words are put forth from our mouths), and the Spirit "effusing" from the Father eternally.
Likewise, the spirit, of course, originates in the mind, and reflects the mind, but it is also "carried" and manifested by the spoken words. What is said also shows our disposition and intention and nature.
Thus, this early triniatrian concept makes God the Father the only "true" God (one who just IS for no reason whatsoever), the only one without a cause.
The other "two" are his divine realities which are caused by the Father. In other words, the Father is the cause of Trinity itself! Obviosuly, this God and his Trinity cannot be one and the same, let alone equal; he is the supreme cause of everyting and all, including his own divine Word and Spirit; he is the only one who just is. In other words, the early Christian God was still the God of the Old Testament, and his Word and his Spirit are simly his divine hosts.
The Nicene Council sought to erase this Apologetic Trinity, because under the pre-Nicene triniatrian formula, the Father was the only "true" God. By default the Word was divine (all that is of God is divine) but 'secondary' or lesser, even dependent on God (as he is often depicted in the synoptic Gospels) who does not exist without a cause, and is therefore subordinated to the Father. This inevitably leads back either to pagan polytheism, or back to monotheistic Judaism, which had to be stopped.
The whole purpose of the Nicene Council was to reaffirm monotheism without reverting to Judaism or slipping further into paganism with God the Father being basically no different than Zeus. So, a new triniatrian formula had to be found.
The "new" Christian God devised by the Council was now defined as one who only appears to us as three divine "Persons" (Hypoostases) in the economy of our salvation, but in his true essence (true nature, as he truly is) God is a simple and indivisible monad (singularity).
In other words, God chose to appear to us as three separate Persons, each performing a different aspect of our salvation, but that triad does not reflect God' real nature, which is indivisible.
The post-Nicene Christian God is understood as a single supreme deity and complete Mystery, inaccessible in his essence to human comprehension (ineffable), who in his love for mankind revealed himself as the Holy Trinty described by the Apologetics, so that our limited minds can know him.
Thus, the Son's and the Spirit's subordination is only an apparent 'economic' perception and does not reflect the true nature of how God really is, i.e. simple and indivisible. In fact, this new Christian God is the ultimate simplicity (and paradox, because he is also everything and all and beyond everything); God cannot be divided into 'parts' or 'elements.'
Thus, Christianity as we know it in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and most traditional or main-line Protestant communities, really began in 325 AD, follwing the Nicene Council. To cliam that the Church believed the same faith once dleievered "everywhere and always' is simply not true. The temrinology was the same but the concepts where not.
This inevitably leads back either to pagan polytheism, or back to monotheistic Judaism, which had to be stopped.
The whole purpose of the Nicene Council was to reaffirm monotheism without reverting to Judaism or slipping further into paganism with God the Father being basically no different than Zeus. So, a new triniatrian formula had to be found.
I think that is a perfect summary of what happened and what was happening to the early Church. Belief in the Trinity is not a Biblically stated doctrine of salvation. Protestants who accept the Trinity are simply behaving as a Catholic sect/cult that accepts some, but not all of the teachings of the Catholic Church. To pretend otherwise is not an honest appraisal of the history or the Bible - Catholic or Protestant versions.
What I think is missing from the modern doctrine is the concept of theosis. We read that Christ grew from grace to grace. It is a clue, I believe to a doctrine since missing from the modern Church. Catholic doctrine includes some sense of possible progress, even after death. Cannot the formula be: follow the precepts/behavior of Christ (works) and Christ will fill the gaps needed (faith) to in the end become an heir, a full heir with Christ? Am I misunderstanding something? What do you know or think about theosis?
So, what did you discover?
If you had to pick the most likely true from all of Jesus' sayings in scripture it would be the most reliable, relatively, of the bunch.
What makes you think this is true Jesus' saying rather than the popular apocalyptic Jewish belief credited to Jesus?
Mainly, reality
Reality is only what we experience and are aware of. The rest might as well not exist. And it doesn't for all practical purposes. How can we speak of universal reality. To an aboriginal tribesman stock market is not reality, it's not even a dream.
Every five seconds a child dies of hangar in this world of ours. How "real" is that for you? How real is that for an average American?
If "they" are right and God is truth then when you find truth...By truth here I mean reality - how the universe really is
In order for us to "know" the truth, to even seek the truth is to presume that we can be aware of and experience everything and all at the same time! Do you? It's not for the lack of desire, but for the lack of capacity that we cannot find "how the universe really is."
Good points. Will get back to you later. Theosis is the term the Orthodox use for what the western Church calls ‘salvation.’ Have to go.
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.