Another vicious, inaccurate, and contradictory New York Times attack on Pope Benedict

catholicculture.org ^ | July 2, 2010 | Phil Lawler

[kosta50]

They felt stabbed to the heart and asked what to do in view of what Peter had just said, that they had impaled the one God had made Christ, Jesus

That's a little naïve. They would have known for certain that Jesus was crucified, but why would they know for certain that he was "the one God had made the Christ"? Because a simple fisherman told them? They would have believed Peter but not Christ? LOL.

You say so, what do the Scriptures say?

The scriptures say the Spirit is the giver of life, and dead people do not repent. So, receive the Spirit (come to life with a changed heart), realize your trespasses, repent, and be baptized.

John the Baptist called upon the Jews coming to him to repent of their sins

Jewish repentance is different.

[kosta50]

That in its self was a choice freely made.

Apparently the choice he wanted was for him not to go through the ordeal, but he relizied that what is ordained must happen and that man's will cannot change it. Just as death is a given and not a choice; men can accept it or reject it, but what we will is for naught.

[count-your-change]

When nothing else works claim it’s all a set up, use “LOL” freely and make with the silly remarks.

Outstanding!!

[Alamo-Girl]

Having said that, I just want to note the absolutely unbridgeable chasm between what God sees, and what His plans are for the Creation; and what man sees, from a planet of a middling star which is not even located in the center of its galaxy, not to mention what his plans may be....

Indeed! Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I guess when someone can’t understand the plain meaning of Scripture, they need all the help they can get.

[Alamo-Girl]

That Jesus took on human form signifies that our human race was the center of His divine attention. Therefore, we are the center of the universe that He created. Now, that does not make Jesus any less God or invites us to NOT focus our lives on Jesus, and if you will center them around Jesus. You are raising a false dichotomy. I don't know if it is scientism or Calvinism you are advancing but it is plain illogical.

It is neither scientism nor Calvinism - nor is it illogical.

And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. – Revelation 5:6

That Jesus enfleshed to rescue us is to His glory not ours. God did not "owe" man anything.

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. - Revelation 1:8

His Name is I AM and Alpha and Omega and The Almighty.

None of those names apply to us.

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. - Revelation 4:11

Evidently we will have to agree to disagree.

To God be the glory, not man, never man.

[kosta50]

I guess when someone can’t understand the plain meaning of Scripture, they need all the help they can get

The plain meaning is in the original language, Dr. E. Problems begin with translations. Something is always lost in them.

Besides, even in the original language the scriptures are not plain in meaning. So, translations, among other things, only add to the complexity—and misunderstanding.

[shibumi]

Help me understand what you wrote here, please.

"The plain meaning is in the original language, Dr. E. Problems begin with translations."

Then in your next paragraph you write:

"Besides, even in the original language the scriptures are not plain in meaning."

So, what is your position? Do you hold that the Scriptures in their original language have a plain meaning, or that they do not?

I have my own perspective on interpreting the Scriptures, but before I go off on a tangent, I want to clearly understand what you are trying to say.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Nuts. How'd I miss that obvious contradiction?

I've been PWD = posting while distracted.

8~)

[shibumi]

That's why I'm here for you.

(And someday, when you least expect it, The Cowma Sutra!)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

lol. Still one of the funniest lines ever. 8~)

[kosta50]

So, what is your position? Do you hold that the Scriptures in their original language have a plain meaning, or that they do not?

Yes and no. For example, Matthew 5:58 is in the future tense but in many—if not most#151;English-language Bibles it is in the present.

Nicodemus' misunderstanding of John 3:3 would not be possible in Aramaic, and it is doubtful—baseless in fact—that Jesus wold have spoken to Nicodemus in sophisticated Greek.

Then there is the ambiguity of the Greek text itself, which in some cases actually leading to divergent and even conflicting doctrine. For example the sentence ef ho pantes hemarton (Roman 5:12) can be understood legitimately in two different ways. The western Church interpreted it as an inherited sin, while the Eastern Church (in whose native language the New Testament was written) didn't.

This resulted in the Augustinian teaching that eventually forced the issue of Mary's own Immaculate Conception, which of course has no theological basic in the East.

For similar reasons, the East looks at Adam's life being passed on from one generation to another, while the West looks at each soul being created anew at the moment of conception.

So, to speak of "plain meaning" of scriptures is a fallacy. People have spent a lifetime studying the scriptures and to this day there is no consensual agreement on them. Of course, I think the reason for that is rather obvious, but I doubt it would be well received here.

In summary, then, the original language does clarify a lot of subtleties, but it doesn't mean that the original language itself is free of ambiguities. And translations only add another layer additional ambiguities and errors.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Because you’ve already said that even if Free Will was demonstrated to be true, you would not accept it.

You'll kindly show me where I said that or else please admit you're making things up again.

I asked you before if you missed my assent to your proposal. Apparently you're still missing it. Do you want to miss it? Did it surprise and upset you when I agreed to your terms? Did I stymie what you may have hoped to be a "gotcha!" moment, when in fact all it has turned out to be is more RC evasion?

lol. Oops on you.

Proof doesn’t matter you said - as you demonstrated your free will to accept or reject it.

Again, show me where I made that statement.

I sense you were trying to set up some kind of strategy here, but perhaps you forgot how it was supposed to go or I didn't answer as you had planned.

Let's get back to your question without all your evasion, shall we?

You asked me would I believe in free will if you could prove free will?

And I said yes.

I asked you to show your proof.

And yet you have not.

With all that free will floating around can't you use some of it to find some proof somewhere for your supposition?

No?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

So, to speak of "plain meaning" of scriptures is a fallacy

As Einstein said, our job is to make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.

When Christ said, "Be not afraid; only believe," He was telling men, women and children how to come to a saving knowledge of the truth.

Lexicons appreciated, but not required.

"For by the Scripture as our guide and teacher, God not only makes those things plain which would otherwise escape our notice, but almost compels us to behold them; as if he had assisted our dull sight with spectacles." -- JOHN CALVIN "Commentary on Genesis" Vol. I

[shibumi]

"Of course, I think the reason for that is rather obvious, but I doubt it would be well received here."

I've not seen you hold back before, nor has the reception of your ideas seemed to make you shy about expressing them.

Please, in your own words, share.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The question was: ""If Free Will was demonstrated to be true, would you accept it?" You said you wouldn't, no matter how much proof

Again, we'll all wait for you to produce the post where I "said I wouldn't."

But, I do appreciate your participation in the demonstration.

The only thing that's been demonstrated is that you don't know how to run a demonstration.

For clarity's sake, here is your request and my answer...

To: Dr. Eckleburg

I answered your question.

Help me out then. Was it "Yes" "No" or "Maybe"?

978 posted on 07/15/2010 7:38:15 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)

---

To: D-fendr

Are you stalling?

Yes. Sure. Alrighty. Definitely. Absolutely. But of course. Mais, qui. You betcha...

And here I "helped you out" and STILL you missed my answer.

I guess your free will has been trumped by mine. Imagine what God could do with that set-up. Do you think He knows about it?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I will admit that the Calvinist view makes more sense, but the opposite view is Biblically closer.

Half right.

Scripture is clear that regeneration precedes faith, repentance, obedience and any good work man might accomplish.

Can the natural man understand the things of God or must he be first born again?

[D-fendr]

Post 965, and reiterated following.

But, if you’d like, you can change your mind of course.

If Free Will was demonstrated to be true, would you accept it?

[D-fendr]

Here, it seems perhaps I'll need to repeat your demonstration, this time with the opposite variation:

You asked me would I believe in free will if you could prove free will?

Actually, the question was: "If Free Will was demonstrated to be true, would you accept it?"

And I said yes.

Q.E.D. Assuming you made that decision consciously and freely of course.

I guess your free will has been trumped by mine.

Q.E.D.

Would you care to demonstrate again?

[count-your-change]

No, I think it’s more a simple lack of paying attention to what is being said.