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 These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.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!
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:6
Matthew 28:19 is extremely suspect as a later addition
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government
The child, Yah'shua shall be called the everlasting Father.
shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful,
Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6
based on the writings of Eusebius' Demonstratio
(1) Book III, Chapter 7, 136 (a-d), p. 157
(2) Book III, Chapter 6, 132 (a), p. 152
(3) Book III, Chapter 7, 138 (c), p. 159
(4) Book IX, Chapter 11, 445 (c), p. 175
(5) Book I, Chapter 3, 6 (a), p. 20
(6) Book I, Chapter 5, 9 (a), p. 24
(7) Book I, Chapter 6, 24 (c), p. 42
Matthew 28:19 before Nicea
This is more consistent with the ONE TRUE Elohim : YHvH.
"Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name,
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,"
Post it. Where have I been warned before by the RM about italics? You are incorrect about this as you are about your theology. You are posting as if you have authority to do so in this manner, while still getting your facts wrong. Of course, this is not original, since Calvin attempted to assume the authority of interpreting Scripture that did not belong to him. Now, 500 years later, with millions of would-be Christians who have gone to their deaths under his misguidance, I'm sure that he is answering for that and will be forever.
You crossed out two words showing you rewrote those two words, but then you inserted your own phrase to look as if the rest of the sentence were my quote.
I don't believe that anybody other than the very casual reader would mistake one of your posts, or any portion of it, for mine.
We do. The Vatican is both. Calvin's regime in Geneva was theocracy only. He used the excuse of religion to kill, to rule, to reduce the good burghers of Geneva to quivering jello, from the good hearty Swiss practices of the day. Reminds me of the East German police who reduced the hearty Germans to a quivering ineffective and controlled populace. The Vatican does not tear out tongues for criticizing the Pope. How many tongues did Calvin tear out?
It took 2 centuries for Geneva to start to recover, and they have not completely recovered to this day. They are now grey bankers, staid and severe. Nice legacy.
Let us examine what Trinitarian actually is, as opposed to those who perch in their LaZBoy chairs in front of the Sports Temple on Sunday happen to believe at the moment.
The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system.
1Co 6:14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
If God raised up Jesus, then God is more powerful and they are not coequal. Wrong.
Rom 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
If God raised up Jesus, then God is more powerful and they are not coequal. Wrong.
Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
If God raised up Jesus, then God is more powerful and they are not coequal. Wrong.
2Co 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 2Co 10:17 But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
This says that Jesus is the Spirit, which is definitely no Triune. Wrong.
2Co 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
No explanation of the different roles of God. A mention, sure, but by itself, not Triune. Wrong.
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
No mention of the Trinity. Wrong.
1Co 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
What does the Spirit mean here? Where is the indication that the Holy Spirit, is God and coequal to the Father and the Son? Nowhere.
The point is that you are wrong. Your rebellion against the Church is wrong in terms of Christianity. Wrong all the way down the line.
I trust that you are trying to make a point here.
Tell me more. And then tell me about the transition to Church practices.
Paul taught a subordinationalist Jesus with an even more subordinationalist messenger Holy Spirit. As my verses indicate.
Post the Triune formula according to Paul, if you would. You cannot, for he does not have one.
In another couple of generations, we will not have to worry about the Calvinists, since they, like the rest of the mainstream Protestants (with the possible exception of the Baptists) will have eliminated themselves from the gene pool.
Christianity is returning to the Church, or else is splintering into every more fantastic constructs of men. The Pentecostal movement is a case in point. Mormons are also increasing. The Calvinists are dying and thank God for that. The only problem is that some of their replacements are even more hideous and non Christian.
Reviewing posting history, it is quite conclusive that the good Dr. E. takes FR authority upon herself where she has none (typical of the ineffective and nerdy high school student council). The religion of Calvin is typical of that mindset - reward without merit, and boasting without achievement.
Umm, does this mean that you are agreeing with me in this instance?
Your initial premise that Calvin had written about Church and state is completely false. You would have more credibility if you had stated Calvin invented the internet. While no can argue that Calvin insisted that he was above the power of civil authorities he did not hesitate for one moment or instance to utilize, direct, and corrupt the civil authorities for his own nonsecular purposes.
It was Jesus, not Calvin who said: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's," (Mark 12:17).
As for early adopters of the concept of Church and state I am aware of several:
The first government declaration officially granting toleration to non-state religions was issued in the ancient Persian Empire by its founder, Cyrus the Great in the fifth century BC.
The right to worship freely was promoted by most ancient Indian dynasties until around 1200 AD. King Ashoka, (304-232 B.C.E.), an early practitioner of this principle, wrote that he "honors all sects" and stated: "One must not exalt ones creed discrediting all others, nor must one degrade these others without legitimate reasons. One must, on the contrary, render to other creeds the honor befitting them."
In the West, Alexander the Great and subsequent Greek and Roman rulers generally followed a policy of religious toleration toward local religions. How else could the Jews have practices their faith under the Romans?
The Coptic Church wrote extensively about this as early as the second century.
I am sure that if I researched it I could find many, many instances where the separation of church and state was not only preached but practiced.
Why don't you spend a little time to get to know the history of European languages before making such ignorant statements. The use of Latin by the early Church was intentional and beneficial for the greatest number because it maintained the fidelity of the message and brought the Gospel to the greatest number of peoples by virtue of the fact that Latin was the common language of the Roman Empire. It was spoken throughout the empire by all social levels.
Christendom was beset with literally thousands of languages and dialects, the vast majority weren't written or even studied to the extent that proper translations could be made. German is a perfect example. There was no written German language until late in the Church created Hoch Deutsch, or high German. There wasn't even a Germany. Even as late as the reformation Luther did not have a common, standard German into which to write his perverted scripture.
Spain is another typical example. I have been to the birth place of Cervantes near Madrid and have seen hand written manuscripts of Don Quixote in Galacian, Aragonese, Castillian, Leonese, Austurian, Occitan, Murcian, Catalan, Andalusian and a few more. Even with my limited knowledge of Spanish I could detect significant differences between the works and I don't even have a clue as to the subtleties of cognate and dialect.
Sarcasm.
You were wrong again....you just can't seem to catch a break lately.
LOL, nipped that one in the bud so I’m “wrong.”
You greatly overrate yourself.
“You greatly overrate yourself.
I perceive this post as not only making it personal but also trying to read the mind of another poster.
Reminds me of the behavior of papal armies and the good Catholic neighbors of Waldensians in the Piedmont and Cottian Alps of Italy. Children were pitched off cliffs in that one. The Waldensian Presbyterian Church was, finally, granted full legal and religious parity in Italy in ... 1984.
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.