Posted on 07/02/2010 6:56:08 PM PDT by Desdemona
Today’s New York Times, with another front-page attack on Pope Benedict XVI, erases any possible doubt that America’s most influential newspaper has declared an editorial jihad against this pontificate. Abandoning any sense of editorial balance, journalistic integrity, or even elementary logic, the Times looses a 4,000-word barrage against the Pope: an indictment that is not supported even by the content of this appalling story. Apparently the editors are relying on sheer volume of words, and repetition of ugly details, to substitute for logical argumentation.
The thrust of the argument presented by the Times is that prior to his election as Pontiff, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger did not take decisive action to punish priests who abused children. Despite its exhaustive length, the story does not present a single new case to support that argument. The authors claim, at several points in their presentation, that as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Cardinal Ratzinger had the authority to take action. But then, again and again, they quote knowledgeable Church officials saying precisely the opposite.
The confusion over lines of authority at the Vatican was so acute, the Times reports, that in the year 2000 a group of bishops met in Rome to present their concerns. That meeting led eventually to the change in policy announced by Pope John Paul II the following year, giving the CDF sole authority over disciplinary action against priests involved in sexual abuse. By general consensus the 2001 policy represented an important step forward in the Vatican’s handling of the problem, and it was Cardinal Ratzinger who pressed for that policy change. How does that sequence of events justify criticism of the future Pope? It doesn’t. But the facts do not deter the Times.
The Times writers show their bias with their flippant observation that when he might have been fighting sexual abuse, during the 1980s and 1990s Cardinal Ratzinger was more prominent in his pursuit of doctrinal orthodoxy. But then, while until 2001 it was not clear which Vatican office was primarily responsible for sexual abuse, it was clear that the CDF was responsible for doctrinal orthodoxy. Cardinal Ratzinger’s primary focus was on his primary job.
After laying out the general argument against the Vatican’s inaction—and implying that Cardinal Ratzinger was responsible for that inaction, disregarding the ample evidence that other prelates stalled his efforts—the Times makes the simply astonishing argument that local diocesan bishops were more effective in their handling of sex-abuse problems. That argument is merely wrong; it is comically absurd.
During the 1980s and 1990s, as some bishops were complaining about the confusion at the Vatican, bishops in the US and Ireland, Germany and Austria, Canada and Italy were systematically covering up evidence of sexual abuse, and transferring predator-priests to new parish assignments to hide them from scrutiny. The revelations of the past decade have shown a gross dereliction of duty on the part of diocesan bishops. Indeed the ugly track record has shown that a number of diocesan bishops were themselves abusing children during those years.
So how does the Times have the temerity to suggest that the diocesan bishops needed to educate the Vatican on the proper handling of this issue? The lead witness for the Times story is Bishop Geoffrey Robinson: a former auxiliary of the Sydney, Australia archdiocese, who was hustled into premature retirement in 2004 at the age of 66 because his professed desire to change the teachings of the Catholic Church put him so clearly at odds with his fellow Australian bishops and with Catholic orthodoxy. This obscure Australian bishop, the main source of support for the absurd argument advanced by the Times, is the author of a book on Christianity that has been described as advancing “the most radical changes since Martin Luther started the 16th-century Reformation.” His work has drawn an extraordinary caution from the Australian episcopal conference, which warned that Robinson was at odds with Catholic teaching on “among other things, the nature of Tradition, the inspiration of the Holy Scripture, the infallibility of the Councils and the Pope, the authority of the Creeds, the nature of the ministerial priesthood and central elements of the Church’s moral teaching." Bishop Robinson is so extreme in his theological views that Cardinal Roger Mahony (who is not ordinarily known as a stickler for orthodoxy) barred him from speaking in the Los Angeles archdiocese in 2008. This, again, is the authority on which the Times hangs its argument against the Vatican.
And even the Times story itself, a mess of contradictions, acknowledges:
Bishops had a variety of disciplinary tools at their disposal — including the power to remove accused priests from contact with children and to suspend them from ministry altogether — that they could use without the Vatican’s direct approval.
It is not clear, then, why the Vatican bears the bulk of the responsibility for the sex-abuse scandal. Still less clear is why the main focus of that responsibility should be Pope Benedict. On that score, too, the Times blatantly contradicts its own argument. Buried in the Times story—on the 3rd page in the print edition, in the 46th paragraph of the article—is a report on one Vatican official who stood out at that 2000 meeting in Rome, calling for more effective action on sexual abuse.
An exception to the prevailing attitude, several participants recalled, was Cardinal Ratzinger. He attended the sessions only intermittently and seldom spoke up. But in his only extended remarks, he made clear that he saw things differently from others in the Curia.
That testimony is seconded by a more reliable prelate, Archbishop Philip Wilson of Adelaide:
“The speech he gave was an analysis of the situation, the horrible nature of the crime, and that it had to be responded to promptly,” recalled Archbishop Wilson of Australia, who was at the meeting in 2000. “I felt, this guy gets it, he’s understanding the situation we’re facing. At long last, we’ll be able to move forward.”
The Times story, despite its flagrant bias and distortion, actually contains the evidence to dismiss the complaint. Unfortunately, the damage has already done before the truth comes out: that even a decade ago the future Pope Benedict was the solution, not part of the problem.
“Young’s literal has it right with the exception of his parenthetical addition where he, too, tries to smooth it out.”
I don't know what you mean by “smooth it out” but there's a reason why Young's is called ‘Literal’. The addition of “he” brings the literal Greek closer to English while keeping the literalness. He is not translating ego eimi as a name or title or any such thing.
It is not a reply. They did not say anything to Jesus to which He replied.
It is a response to their fear, and the literal response makes perfect sense in the context of the Gospel of John. The response is “I AM!”
He’s walking on WATER for Pete’s sake (pun intended.)
:>)
Saying he was with the Father is one thing; saying he is the same God of Ex 3:14 is not the same.
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One God. And they are different Persons
Different and lesser is not the same. Jesus says that he one but also that he is lesser than the Father.
The Father is not begotten. Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Father...In the beginning was the Word
John 1:1 says nothing about begetting, but rather states that "in the beginning [sic]" the Word (not the Son) was towards God and was God. Rather verse 1:14 seems to suggest that the only-begotten Son referrs to Jesus and not the eternal Word prior to incarnation.
You claim that God never says anything like that, i.e. I AM. To the contrary...I am Alpha and Omega...
That's not the same as just I AM (both cpaitalized).
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. – Exodus 3:14
He says no such thing in Hebrew or in Greek. Only in your English language Bible.
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. – John 8:58
You don't get it, do you?
As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, and fell to the ground. – John 18:6
Another one of John's transparencies. If that is so, then why did they have to get false witnesses to testify against Jesus in front of Sanhedrin? They had witnesses right there and then!!!
Besides, you don't think they would have arrested him if they believed he was God, do you?
Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me...
I am God and just I am are not one and the same thing. You are pulling at straws. Angel Gabriel says ego eimi (I am) Gabriel! Does that mean he is God?
Yes, 14:9, sorry.
However, It IS “I am” wherever it shows up
Ego eimi is "I am" (subject and predicate" not God's holy name).
But "I AM" doesn't exist anywhere in the Bible as a title, except apaprenlty in English Bibles. The ego eimi/eimi ego is never a title in Greek.
That is irrelevant. You need to show that his data are not true.
Bultman’s heresy involved rejection of the deity of Christ and of the resurrection. Therefore, it does matter.
But the indicative would declare something Jesus viewed or stated as so without question, ‘Abraham came to be, existed, was produced, generated’.
So Aorist, indicative, middle voice.
“Incidentally, the same source argues (quite interestingly I must say) from Psalm 2:7 that Jesus is not the YHWH of Exodus 3:14:”
It's a good point but i didn't follow his argument any further. A Catholic might argue the same thing but for quite different reasons.
We have shown you verse after verse that is justification. If there were “no” justification, we wouldn’t be proposing it. We’re both honest people without an agenda. We have been taught a literate, word-by-word approach to translation, and we’ve gone word-by-word. “Egw Eimi” means “I am”. That is a 1st person singular verb of being with an emphatic 1st person singular pronoun.
“It is I” on the other hand would be something with “eivai”.
You need a third person singular verb of being to arrive at “it is” and I believe that’s “eivai”
“”It is I” on the other hand would be something with “eivai”.
You need a third person singular verb of being to arrive at “it is” and I believe that’s “eivai””
Actually it's “einai”, the letter that looks like a “v” is really like English “n”.
John uses the word three times and it is is translated as “was”, “there (be)”, and “to be”.
It's what's called an infinitive form. “to be or not to be” is a good example.
“Egw Eimi” means “I am”. That is a 1st person singular verb of being with an emphatic 1st person singular pronoun.”
Ummm..Close but no banana. “ego” is nomitive, it names something, i.e., “I”.
“eimi” is in the indicative mood, the speaker views it as fact. He is certain he “am” and John 9:9 “ego eimi”, is grammatically the exact form of John 8:58 “ego eimi”.
But what an “emphatic” pronoun is I don't know.
“We have been taught a literate, word-by-word approach to translation, and we’ve gone word-by-word.”
That word-for-word is fine in an interlinear but we want to know what the writer meant and that is the ultimate purpose of translation. Words transmit ideas and it the ideas of another language we want not just the words.
Here is a literal word-for-word translation of a verse from John:
“Not yet one for in hidden any is doing and is seeking he in boldness to be if appear yourself to the system.”
Is that clear enough? Or do you want to know what he meant, which will not be literal or word-for-word?
It's what John wrote, word-for-word.
“We have shown you verse after verse that is justification. If there were “no” justification, we wouldn’t be proposing it.”
That sounds like, “It's so ‘cause I say it's so and if it weren't I would not have said it”.
I trust and believe everyone but I still don't take checks or candy from strangers.
“We’re both honest people without an agenda.”
And I've not suggested otherwise. Having a viewpoint and vigorously defending it doesn't make a person dishonest or colour their motives in my opinion, even if I think them in error. It's not personal with me and I don't get hurt feeling. Irritation? o.k., that I do, but it's not personal and I don't expect others to take it that way either.
Maybe the problem is Catholisism?
That's why I used the v, and why I also use the w.
I looked it up.
3rd person singular is: esti(v)
3rd person singular would be: it is
1st person singular is: eimi (I am)
His arguments regarding John's Gospels have nothing to do with that. I invite you to show that he says on that subject is wrong. Origen was a Christological heretic, yet he still forms the bulwark of early Christian apologetics.
yet he still forms the bulwark = yet he doesn’t form a bulwork
Bultman considered everything about Christianity to be myth, kosta. In sum, he taught that none of it happened...except that some guy was killed by the Romans.
He sure as heck isn’t gonna think Jesus is the “I am”. In fact, he considered the “I am” to be myth, too.
His scholarship is simply irrelevant.
That seems to be unavoidable in just about any translation, at least to some extent. The nature of the language pretty much dictates that.
So Aorist, indicative, middle voice
The mood is infinitive, cyc.
A Catholic might argue the same thing but for quite different reasons.
I lost you there. Why? Acts 13:33; also Heb 1:5, 5:5 has it; also it is found in a Markan variant used at Jesus' baptism. This was the basis for the Adoptionists to argue that Jesus became divine and was an ordinary human prior to that. Catholic theology would reject that, arguing that the Word was eternally begotten of the Father.
Of course a cursory reading of the entire Psalm 2 makes it clear that it has nothing to do with Jesus.
His beliefs are irrelevant. His argument was not about his beliefs or about "I am" but that John's Gospel was interpolated and he gives concrete, verifiable data, to support his claim. If you think his data are flawed, please provide evidence showing all the concrete examples he lists are wrong.
His flaws are beyond my desire to expound on. Many have commented on the Gospel of John, and many of them find peculiar sequencing. Some even suggest he is telling a THEOLOGICAL story....gasp....rather than a CHRONOLOGICAL story.
That, however, only heightens the rationale behind Alamo’s insistence that “I am” is used by Jesus in John to call attention to His Divine nature.
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.