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.”
“”I’ll leave it to others to decide for themselves if there is a contradiction.””
There is nothing humble about teaching a congregation with a personal modernists interpretation of Scripture either learned from a modernists protestant theology school or by thinking that God somehow gave a pastor some new revelation that does not line up with historical teachings through the ages from the Church and her many Martyrs who suffered to uphold truth.
Even the first protestant reformer recognized this after he realized what his own error led to.
From the words of Martin Luther...
“This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet” De Wette III, 61. quoted in O’Hare, THE FACTS ABOUT LUTHER, 208.
“We concede — as we must — that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?” Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1537), in vol. 24 of LUTHER’S WORKS, St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961, 304.
Big IF. The Gospel of John was accepted immediately. We know it was widely circulated within a few decades, since we have a fragment going back to perhaps 120 AD.
It was one of many accepted immediately. The point is that it made the cut at Carthage, while other Gospels (including the Gospel of Peter) didn't.
There is no reading of the Synoptics that leads to the recognition of the divinity of Christ. The OT Son of Man and Son of God were used repetitively for angels and humans (and giants) and not for any reference to God Himself. David was a Son of God, for instance. Much or most of John, even, gives Jesus as a subordinate, not as God.
John 3: 34 For the one whom God sent speaks the words of God. He does not ration his gift 16 of the Spirit. 35 The Father loves the Son and has given everything over to him.
Were it not for the verses that the Church decided to use as a basis for the Trinity, reading these alone gives Jesus as a subordinate God at best, and as a highly favoured (a la David) man at worst.
Matthew 3: 16 12 After Jesus was baptized, he came up from the water and behold, the heavens were opened (for him), and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove (and) coming upon him. 17 And a voice came from the heavens, saying, "This is my beloved Son, 13 with whom I am well pleased."
Again, with the subordinationalist or highly favoured man phrasing. If Jesus is God, how does the Spirit of God descend upon Him? What is with the ventriloquist act in which God throws His voice and calls Himself His Son?
My point is that the phraseology of the Synoptics and the OT point to a highly favoured man especially beloved of God - a super David, as it were.
Welcome to the thread.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Okay, what does this mean? Let us include the next verse for clarity:
9 For in him dwells the whole fullness of the deity 4 bodily, 10 and you share in this fullness in him,who is the head of every principality and power. Does this mean that we are all Gods? Or that we have somewhat less of what He has in Him? So does that mean that Jesus is simply a super man? Or that we are mini Gods?
Let us examine your second Paulian example. I will use the NAB version (why did you switch Bibles in your two examples?) 5 Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus, 2 6 Who, 3 though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. 4 7 Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; 5 and found human in appearance,
Paul does not explicitly say that Jesus was God, only that He was in the form of God. Genesis 1: 27 God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.
Without John, these verses very easily could mean that the belief should be that Jesus is simply a super man; a super David. Look at the rest of the Synoptics. Jesus was sent. Jesus was praised by God the Father in front of others. Jesus was raised from the dead. Jesus cried out to the Father as He was dying. "The Father is greater than I." "I am doing the will of the One Who sent Me." There are hints and there are possible references on a handful of verses that might be interpreted that way but the overwhelming evidence in the Synoptics and Paul is that Jesus is subordinate. It was only the Church, with the inclusion of John, that ensured the doctrine of the Trinity, and it took several hundred years to develop it to the point of doctrine. Origen, for instance, did not believe in the Trinity as we understand it.
Then, we find in Luke 2:11, the angel's announcement to the shepherds about the birth of the savior, which is Christ the Lord. Almighty God says he is the only savior. Was the angel mistaken? Also John the Baptist's father, Zacharias, filled with the Holy Spirit, says "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, and hath raised up a horn of salvation for us..." Luke 1:68-69.
If only Jehovah is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and end, then in Revelation 1:8, 11, 17, 18; 21:6 and, lastly, Rev. 22:13 the Alpha/Omega, beginning/end, first/last is referring to Jesus. Verse 16, "I Jesus." is who is speaking calling himself the Alpha and Omega, etc.
There are many more verses I can provide that clearly say Jesus is God incarnate. How many verses have been redacted from your Bible for you to say Jesus is not divine?
When I talk about the rest of the NT, I try to use the term explicit versus derived or deduced. John 1 is explicit and definitely calls Jesus divine. Most of the other examples require some sort of deduction or cross referencing and are not clear. 'Twas my point. I as a Catholic are a firm believer in the Triune God, in which the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are three Persons of One God, coequal and eternal.
There are many more verses I can provide that clearly say Jesus is God incarnate. How many verses have been redacted from your Bible for you to say Jesus is not divine?
Revelation was written by John, at least, we believe that Revelation was written by the author of John, so the message is the same. Other than John, the verses are few and they require unscrambling. Don't forget that the Jews were looking for a super David, a king on a white horse to lead them to victory on the field of temporal battle and make them a great people. At the time of Jesus, the Romans had been their overlords for a century or so, and had just finished killing tens of thousands of them by crucifixion. The Jewish history was one of bondage and slavery and wandering around the Middle East. They looked for their saviour to be a temporal one, throwing off the yoke of their current masters, not for God Himself to Incarnate.
There is nothing in Paul, for instance, that can possibly be used to develop the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Paul definitely says nothing about the divinity of the Holy Spirit and only mentions Him a few times. Paul never explicitly calls Jesus God either. Don't let the idea of worship fool you - as I noted earlier, the term worship in the OT was the same word used in the same way to worship God, or to bow to a man of superior state (ie a king).
We're here again, aren't we? Go to post #1132 from MrRogers for a discussion ON THIS THREAD about this. See also the post "50 Reasons why we are living in the end times":
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2300721/posts
We discussed this before, remember? Scripture is quite clear about the deity of Jesus Christ. He is the incarnation of Almighty God and the Holy Spirit is also God. Three, yet one.
We're here again, aren't we? Go to post #1132 from MrRogers for a discussion ON THIS THREAD about this.
Yes we are. I've answered a number of these quite thoroughly on this and on other threads. Calling Jesus Son of God or Son of Man is not an indication of His divinity. Subordinationalism is tantamount to denying His divinity as well. Certainly to the Trinitarian formula. Minus the writings of John, Scripture is overwhelmingly subordinationalist at best and reducing Jesus to human at worst. It is the Church that took several hundred years to come up Christian trinitarian doctrine and many could not accept it; certainly many of the early Church Fathers didn't hold current Trinitarian beliefs.
See also the post "50 Reasons why we are living in the end times": Interesting. Any reference to Hal Lindsey's understanding of doctrine immediately triggers my laugh reflex. If you think that the current situation was bad, I'd suggest that you research the situation beginning in the mid 900s and look at the situation and the doomsday cults that sprung up then. First millennium, remember.
We discussed this before, remember? Scripture is quite clear about the deity of Jesus Christ. He is the incarnation of Almighty God and the Holy Spirit is also God. Three, yet one.
Some of Scripture is. The Church is clearer.
I know that you want so much to believe the Catholic Church is the only true source of major doctrine such as the divinity of Jesus Christ and the trinity. I give them credit for stating it in a concrete fashion where there can be little ambiguity as to the doctrinal issue, but they did NOT invent the doctrine. My contention is the church of Jesus Christ - all true Christians - accepted this from revealed scriptures long before the Catholic Church existed formally in Rome.
Exactly. He is also never worshiped the way God is worshiped by any of the apostles (including Paul!), and that is obvious form the distinct usage of the words which are commonly and confusingly translated as worship (proskyneo) and serve (lautreo) in English but which in Greek mean to revere and to worship respectively.
In fact, the word "liturgy" (public service) comes from the word to serve, and means public worship. People go to a church service (worship), etc. In English, the word "service" has a different meaning except when it comes to church service, which is why it has to be predicated with the type of service in mind.
There is also a variant in Mark's Gospel which has the untruncated Psalmist words (at the baptism of Jesus, Mark 1;10) where the voice from the heave says "this day I have begotten you..." (Ps 2:7) Whoa! This is not even subrodinationalist, but outright adoptionist.
Acts 13:33 actually states that God said those words after he raised Jesus from the dead, suggesting Jesus was not made divine until his Resurrection!
Hebrews 5:5 mirror the same idea when it says "So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him, "YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU."
So, Christ needed God to glorify him?
The whole idea that it was God who gave him the powers, God who raised Jesus, God who glorified him, mentioned throughout the NT and early Fathers, suggests a subordinate (lesser) God or a Plat ionic man. Never mind the obvious implication that Jesus had the power to raise the dead but not himself!
Obviously, the vairous authors and various myths and beliefs, collected and included in the NT show a degree of heterodoxy that existed in the early Church, utterly debunking the notion that there was one faith, "everywhere and always" from the beginning.
This flies in the face of the Church dogma and the Nicene Creed, namely that Christ is every bit as much God as the Father or the Spirit and that "on the third day he rose (as opposed to "was raised")" (per the Creed) and "ascended into heaven" (as opposed to "was taken up..."), etc. shows that the divine image of Christ in the Church, fully co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and the Spirit, is not that found in the New Testament.
As for John and his "God was [sic] Word" [Jn 1:1] and Thomas' "My Lord and my God" stunt (I would like to see the oldest copy that has that!) does not agree with much of the rest of John's Gospel.
Such as, for instance, where Jesus says that the Father is greater then he is [Jn 14:28], or where Jesus calls the Father also his God! [Jn 20:17].
So, in all this, and not just the Synoptics, the NT phraseology (the two, in my opinion, questionable exceptions notwithstanding) points to a "highly favoured man especially beloved of God - a super David, as it were," as you wrote.
Plat ionic=Platonic
Sorry, bb, Son of God is not God. Son of Man is not God. Descent from heaven is not God (the angels do that). Saviour, even, is not God. What do I mean?
Obadiah 20 9 The captives of the host of the children of Israel shall occupy the Canaanite land as far as Zarephath, And the captives of Jerusalem who are in Sepharad shall occupy the cities of the Negeb. 21 10 And saviors shall ascend Mount Zion to rule the mount of Esau, and the kingship shall be the LORD'S.
Here, saviours are not limited to God.
Ephesians 5: 23 For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. 24 As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.
Husbands are the saviours of their wives.
What else do we have? This is my Son who I favour? Son? One who is sent? Jesus does His Father's will? Paul does not teach the Trinitarian formula of God - nowhere. Romans 1: 1 1 2 Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised previously through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3 3 the gospel about his Son, descended from David according to the flesh, 4 but established as Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness through resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.
God's Gospel about His Son of God (like David?), established (? - if Jesus was God eternal, why would Paul have to establish Him?). Doesn't sound like the Trinitarian God to me.
1 Corinthians 1: 9 God is faithful, and by him you were called to fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
God does the calling and puts you in fellowship with His Son Jesus Christ. Not Trinitarian. And so on. Paul is not aware of Nicea and the Trinitarian formula.
“”My contention is the church of Jesus Christ - all true Christians - accepted this from revealed scriptures long before the Catholic Church existed formally in Rome.””
If this is your contention why don’t you back it up with historical writings from non Catholic’s from the first few centuries? Where are these so called people’s writings?
Also,the Catholic Church was formally the Catholic Church before the diocese of Rome began.
I can back it up with historical writings..
From the words of the completely Catholic and Sacramental believing Saint Iganatius Of Antioch.
“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
A little history of Saint Ignatius from the realpresence assoc..
St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.
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.