Posted on 07/02/2012 6:30:14 AM PDT by Cronos
I want to thank Archbishop William E. Lori for reminding me once again why I'm an ex-Catholic ("Fight for freedom," June 27). With the so-called "Fortnight for Freedom," the church leadership is deliberately and cynically using a mixture of patriotism and religion in a blatant and manipulative attempt to influence the outcome of the upcoming elections.
I can't seem to recall any recent news about Catholic churches being bombed in the United States or attempts to bar American Catholics from attending mass. I do know that the Catholic Church has been using its "religious freedom" for decades to aid and abet child abusers, to recently attack nuns in the United States who are at the forefront of what used to be one of the church's primary missions to aid and comfort the poor and needy, and that the American church has over the past few decades formed an alliance with some of the most strident and politically active right-wing religious groups in the U.S. Archbishop Lori even received an award in May from a coalition of some of those groups.
I am proud to be an American, and I am a strong supporter of the Bill of Rights. I support freedom of religion, and I support freedom from religion. And, at this moment in time, I am also very proud and happy to be an ex-Catholic.
Sandy Covahey, Baltimore
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
The context of these verses is Jesus is an example of humility in that though he had the “morphe” or form of God he didn't consider a “harpagmos” or plunder or seizure of equality with God.
“morphe” and “harpagmos” are the key words in understanding these verses and it in this sense that even translations like the Catholic NAB translates Phil. 2:6,
“Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped”
Benjamin Wilson's Diaglott uses the terms “form” and “usurption” at Phil. 2:6, reflecting the sense that equality with God was not something Christ had and that he gave no thought to seizing or grasping it as though by robbery or plunder.
This part that is underlined, “Who, being in very nature God,” is commentary, not translation since “morphe” carries the sense of outward appearance or that which strikes the eye.
“People can refuse to believe that Jesus is God, but they cannot claim Scripture doesn't teach it.”
Such certainly cannot be found in these verses from Philippians. And by the definition and commentary at the web site you refered to earlier Jesus is also the Father and he is also the holy spirit.
But as I pointed out, “Never are the holy spirit and Jesus called Yehovah or Jehovah in the Scriptures, never.”
I might add that Jesus was called a god as were Moses, Solomon, the judges of Israel, even Satan is called a god but never God the Son or God the Holy Spirit.
From Barnes' Notes on the Bible:
(1) as the translation of the word ציי - Ziv - "splendour," Daniel 4:33; Daniel 5:6, Daniel 5:9-10; Daniel 7:28;
(2) as the translation of the word תּבנית tabniyth, structure, model, pattern - as in building, Isaiah 44:13;
(3) as the translation of תּמונה temuwnah, appearance, form, shape, image, likeness, Job 4:16; see also Wisdom Job 18:1.
The word can have here only one or two meanings, either:
(1) splendor, majesty, glory - referring to the honor which the Redeemer had, his power to work miracles, etc. - or.
(2) nature, or essence - meaning the same as φύσις phusis, "nature," or ουσία ousia, "being."
The first is the opinion adopted by Crellius, Grotius, and others, and substantially by Calvin. Calvin says, "The form of God here denotes majesty. For as a man is known from the appearance of his form, so the majesty which shines in God, is his figure. Or to use a more appropriate similitude, the form of a king consists of the external marks which indicate a king - as his scepter, diadem, coat of mail, attendants, throne, and other insignia of royalty; the form of a counsul is the toga, ivory chair, attending lictors, etc. Therefore Christ before the foundation of the world was in the form of God, because he had glory with the Father before the world was; John 17:5. For in the wisdom of God, before he put on our nature, there was nothing humble or abject, but there was magnificence worthy of God." Commentary in loc. The second opinion is, that the word is equivalent to nature, or being; that is, that he was in the nature of God, or his mode of existence was that of God, or was divine. This is the opinion adopted by Schleusner (Lexicon); Prof. Stuart (Letters to Dr. Channing, p. 40); Doddridge, and by orthodox expositors in general, and seems to me to be the correct interpretation. In support of this interpretation, and in opposition to that which refers it to his power of working miracles, or his divine appearance when on earth, we may adduce the following considerations:
(1) The "form" here referred to must have been something before he became a man, or before he took upon him the form of a servant. It was something from which he humbled himself by making "himself of no reputation;" by taking upon himself "the form of a servant;" and by being made "in the likeness of men." Of course, it must have been something which existed when he had not the likeness of people; that is, before he became incarnate. He must therefore have had an existence before he appeared on earth as a man, and in that previous state of existence there must have been something which rendered it proper to say that he was "in the form of God."
(2) that it does not refer to any moral qualities, or to his power of working miracles on earth, is apparent from the fact that these were not laid aside. When did he divest himself of these in order that he might humble himself? There was something which he possessed which made it proper to say of him that he was "in the form of God," which he laid aside when he appeared in the form of a servant and in the likeness of human beings. But assuredly that could not have been his moral qualities, nor is there any conceivable sense in which it can be said that he divested himself of the power of working miracles in order that he might take upon himself the "form of a servant." All the miracles which he ever did were performed when he sustained the form of a servant, in his lowly and humble condition. These considerations make it certain that the apostle refers to a period before the incarnation. It may be added:
(3) that the phrase "form of God" is one that naturally conveys the idea that he was God. When it is said that he was "in the form of a servant," the idea is, that he was actually in a humble and depressed condition, and not merely that he appeared to be. Still it may be asked, what was the "form" which he had before his incarnation? What is meant by his having been then "in the form of God?" To these questions perhaps no satisfactory answer can be given. He himself speaks John 17:5 of "the glory which he had with the Father before the world was;" and the language naturally conveys the idea that there was then a manifestation of the divine nature through him, which in some measure ceased when he became incarnate; that there was some visible splendor and majesty which was then laid aside. What manifestation of his glory God may make in the heavenly world, of course, we cannot now fully understand. Nothing forbids us, however, to suppose that there is some such visible manifestation; some splendor and magnificence of God in the view of the angelic beings such as becomes the Great Sovereign of the universe - for he "dwells in light which no map can approach unto;" 1 Timothy 6:16. That glory, visible manifestation, or splendor, indicating the nature of God, it is here said that the Lord Jesus possessed before his incarnation.
Thought it not robbery to be equal with God - This passage, also, has given occasion to much discussion. Prof. Stuart renders it: "did not regard his equality with God as an object of solicitous desire;" that is, that though he was of a divine nature or condition, be did not eagerly seek to retain his equality with God, but took on him an humble condition - even that of a servant. Letters to Channing, pp. 88-92. That this is the correct rendering of the passage is apparent from the following considerations:
(1) It accords with the scope and design of the apostle's reasoning. His object is not to show, as our common translation would seem to imply, that he aspired to be equal with God, or that he did not regard it as an improper invasion of the prerogatives of God to be equal with him, but that he did not regard it, in the circumstances of the case, as an object to greatly desired or eagerly sought to retain his equality with God. Instead of retaining this by an earnest effort, or by a grasp which he was unwilling to relinquish, he chose to forego the dignity, and to assume the humble condition of a man.
(2) it accords better with the Greek than the common version. The word rendered "robbery" - ἁρπαγμος harpagmos - is found nowhere else in the New Testament, though the verb from which it is derived frequently occurs; Matthew 11:12; Matthew 13:19; John 6:15; John 10:12, John 10:28-29; Acts 8:29; Acts 23:10; 2 Corinthians 12:2, 2 Corinthians 12:4; 1 Thessalonians 4:17; Jde 1:23; Revelation 12:5. The notion of violence, or seizing, or carrying away, enters into the meaning of the word in all these places. The word used here does not properly mean an act of robbery, but the thing robbed - the plunder - das Rauben (Passow), and hence something to be eagerly seized and appropriated. Schleusner; compare Storr, Opuscul. Acade. i. 322, 323. According to this, the meaning of the word here is, something to be seized and eagerly sought, and the sense is, that his being equal with God was not a thing to be anxiously retained. The phrase "thought it not," means "did not consider;" it was not judged to be a matter of such importance that it could not be dispensed with. The sense is, "he did not eagerly seize and tenaciously hold" as one does who seizes prey or spoil. So Rosenmuller, Schleusner, Bloomfield, Stuart, and others understand it.
Though most of the Bible commentaries agree that this passage has been the subject of much criticism and some controversy, it must not, cannot be taken alone but must be interpreted in light of the many other Scripture passages that help to define what this means. We know that Jesus REMAINED God even in his human form and he never was divested from it. He never stopped being God.
Do you agree or disagree that the God we worship is the ONLY, TRUE God that exists? If so, then Jesus and the Holy Spirit - called God in numerous places in the Bible - are ALSO God and, since there IS only one God, they must be the same God. Do you agree with this? What about the verses that Jehovah identifies as the Alpha and Omega, first and last, and then Jesus ALSO calls himself the same? What do you do with that?
It gets a little fine as we wander into past posts.
I am happy to hear of your regard for me and I can reciprocate, though, like family, we may all "get" to each other from time to time. I rejoice that there is not residual animosity even though we wrestle over some doctrine.
Very good. I've been relatively absent on FR lately. No time...
As to Cronos' insistence that NO non-Catholics EVER dispute non-trinitarians when Catholics are involved in the discussion, and that we are "all out to get you 'caflics'" (or however he spelled it), I still disagree. That implies that non-Catholics care more about attacking Catholics than they do defending Christian tenets. It is demonstrably untrue despite a few threads dug up from years past. That was what my response was about.
There was a substantial cabal in which you participated over a period of some years in which the Catholic position was debated rather contentiously. In that cabal were some demonstrably non Christians who were not only supported but encouraged.
“You invite me to disobey Christ when you ask me to listen to a false prophet. ASK your RC FRIENDS. The CANON is CLOSED, both yours and mine. Ignatious is easy, and I would be happy discuss his wonderfully quote that you have taken out of context, but not if you continue to insist on pushing your false prophet, in which case there are specific instructions in Scripture that I must avoid you. I take Scripture seriously, not your countless red herrings, and certainly not your false prophets. You choose then. Conversation with me free of false prophets, or going our separate ways? It’s up to you.”
~ ~ ~
You’re first words, speaking a Catholic Truth, less the two Canons, you slipped up. Why do you ask me to ask my Catholic friends? You posted the Canon is closed, you must believe. Such hypocrisy. See, how you can never get away from the the faith.
SR,
Brother, non-Catholic Christians reject most of God’s revelation, your denial of the Church and her teachings, and the saddest your reject the Eucharist. Are you rejecting prophecy totally plus your own prophets?! Kevin is Protestant. God isn’t silent with Protestant Christians, He loves you all. It’s a lose/no win rejecting private revelation, that includes God’s current messengers. What does Scripture states...”despise not Prophecy.” You post Catholic teaching but stop when it comes to private revelation. Read the CCC, paragraph 66 and 67.
There’s “no new public revelation”, it is complete but “private” revelations makes public revelation (including Scripture) more “explicit”, helping Christians live the faith “more fully by it in a certain period of history.” We are in the end times, the end of the 6th Day, no way would God remain silent. Jesus is correcting, helping Protestants to prepare for the “soon” future.
“Faith alone” is a lie. The Church rejects it, all the heresies of Protestantism. Jesus explains again through his prophet and why? Our Lord in His loving way states “faith alone” and other heresies are not true. Our Lord keeps repeating here about the lie of “faith alone.” You won’t touch this message and you must reject Romans 2:13 that I shared in my last post, no reply from you on that verse. Jesus wants you to become Roman Catholic. Our Lord’s words to Kevin are Catholic. Take apart the paragraph to Kevin from Our Lord, let me see you do it. I’ll share that one paragraph from the message again.
Romans 2:13
For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Hi,
If you’re reading all the replies you just read Romans 2:13,
“faith alone” is not true.
Name it, what is the FALSEHOOD in this message from Our Lord to Kevin Barrett?
Kevin’s website: http://hearhisheart.wordpress.com/
an excerpt fro the April 1, 2012 message:
Oh hear Me, My people. Why do you listen to the hirelings and false teachers and prophets? Did I not say in My word that not all that say to me ‘Lord’ ‘Lord’ shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, save those that do the will of the Father who is in heaven? Then why do you still go about doing your own will and tell yourselves that you are My bride? My people, you have been lied to by the enemy of your soul. Seek Me in these things. Surely I will reveal My truth to you. I love you, My dear children, and it is My desire that each of you share My throne with Me. But unfortunately only a remnant shall overcome. For too many have listened to the lies told by the FALSE shepherds and prophets. They speak of how you each are already cleansed and adorned in righteousness simply by your BELIEF on My name. These are all lies, My people. For does not My word say that he who DOES righteousness is righteous? Yes, My people, you are made righteous by your faith in Me, but it is FULLFILLED BY YOUR OBEDIENCE to My voice. IT IS NOT IMPUTED TO YOU BY A ONE-TIME CONFESSION OF MY NAME. Oh, My people, you have been lied to. Read My word for yourselves. Why listen to those that fatten themselves by fleecing My sheep? I have not sent many of the shepherds that are out there. They have sent themselves for their own glory and their own profit. Oh, My people, did I not say in My word to judge them by their fruit? Then where is the fruit, My people? Oh, but those that have itching ears care not about the fruit. They want to be told all is well and that they shall PROSPER if they simply believe on My name and My promises. Lies, lies, lies, I tell you.
“And yet you have the List of sexually active popes”
~ ~ ~
Some popes in history have not been duly elected popes. And
everyone is a sinner, so what? A true Pope is inerrant on
faith and morals. It’s a gift from God proven throughout
Christian history.
You have no authority, except to say a Catholic book is your
authority. Everyone coming up with their interpretation
of Scripture, inconsistent. In a way, you are your own pope.
No thanks.
P.S. Don’t point out other peoples sins, look at Luther, your guy, you follow his heresies. Didn’t he say Our Lord
slept with various famous woman from the Gospel? Sick.
I meant to type “women.” It should read...
P.S. Don’t point out other peoples sins, look at Luther, your guy, you follow his heresies. Didn’t he say Our Lord
slept with various famous WOMEN from the Gospel? Sick.
Then howbeit the Father has specific knowledge the Son does not (Matt. 24:36) , that the Father can confer authority upon the Son that the Son does not have (Matt. 28:18, John 5:22,27), that the Son could be seen but no man has seen God at any time.(John 1:18) and regards their nature?
John 5:26 says the Father has life in Himself but the Son did not until granted or given to him by the Father?
“And rather than the Son being a created subcontractor in creating all things, (Jn. 1:2; Col. 1:16) “all things” would include Himself, and in no place is creative activity ascribed to any created thing. Rather, “Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself.” (Isaiah 44:24)”
Then those “all things” would have to include God the Father! and the holy spirit, too! Is that what you are saying?
No need for me to “disown” him... He’s not c by the manner of his posts and also for a 3 month newbie the actions are strange... until proven otherwise, I would consider him/her as doubtful.
“I have asked stpio by PM to perhaps enlighten me as to the perspective proffered. The results may prove rather interesting.”
~ ~ ~
Oh my gosh, you all were talking about me? I misread
the OP and thought Cronos was anti-Catholic. I apologized
to him. I think Cronos mistakenly thought I was an
ex-Catholic.
We’re even.
What’s the reason for criticizing people new to FR? Are
you “sainted” if you’ve been at FR for a certain period
of time?
“Annulment is NOT of God but catholicism, an organization of man made teachings to keep the deceived in bondage. Talk about sheer lunacy coming out of the Vatican - evil knows no bounds.”
~ ~ ~
Really, don’t throw stones. Women ministers are not of
God. Contraception, an intrinsic evil accepted by Protestants...is NOT of God. You all preach it’s fine.
There’s a list. What did the Episcopalians just okay, vote
as being God’s Truth~! Homosexual unions.
You have chosen ... poorly. We are done. You know where to find me when you are done with your false prophets.
“Annulment is NOT of God but catholicism, an organization of man made teachings to keep the deceived in bondage. Talk about sheer lunacy coming out of the Vatican - evil knows no bounds.”
~ ~ ~
Really, don’t throw stones. Women ministers are not of
God. Contraception, an intrinsic evil accepted by Protestants is NOT of God. You all preach Contraception is fine.
There’s a list. What did the Episcopalians just okay, vote
as being God’s Truth~! Homosexual unions.
“You have chosen ... poorly. We are done. You know where to find me when you are done with your false prophets.”
~ ~ ~
Don’t be angry with me SR. The most Holy Eucharist is true, Mary’s help is true, confession to a priest is true.
You’re down to three sentences cause you can’t show the
error is in Kevin’s message from Our Lord. I’ll pray for
your conversion, MO, it’s going happen.
Accept all of Christ’s teachings, accept them all to the benefit of your soul. Quit taking it personal, the “reformers” said no.
love,
stpio
p.s. Thank you again for sharing I am Roman Catholic.
“Then those “all things” would have to include God the Father! and the holy spirit, too! Is that what you are saying?”
Um, not exactly. John 1:3 contains an explicit escape clause for uncreated things, doubtless to cover the very contingency you are citing:
John 1:3 “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
He is clearly saying that any created thing was created by Jesus, logically excluding Jesus as a created thing. Else he would have had to create himself.
Greetings,
SR
I have NO qualms at all debating Roman Catholic Church doctrines that I believe are wrong and it should not matter who is presenting the position if I agree with it. I can hunt up posts where I disagreed with some of these certain Freepers as well on different doctrines. I was just looking over my posts since April and found seven where I did exactly that. I'd like to know what you mean by "demonstrably non Christians". If, for example, a Jewish person disagreed with a Catholic's contention that the world was created over millions of years and that Darwinian evolution is true rather than believe God created the world in six days, as Scripture says, then, yes, I would side with that Jewish believer against the Catholic because I agree that God DID create the world in six days. But, have I sided with a non-trinitarian's doctrine against the Trinity when arguing with the Catholic Church's teaching? NO. I would not do that because I agree with the Catholic Church doctrine of the Trinity.
Calling such opposition a "cabal", as if we were all some members of a secret society bent on intrigue and conspiracy, I would say is just silly. Just like labeling people "harpies" or "losers", it only shows the user of those names is riled up and unable to present a well-thought out response and seeks to wound in any way he can. It is quite transparent when that is going on and I hope it can be overcome.
I've said this before and I will do so again, I see these threads as opportunities to spread the Gospel and reach people for the truth. It is also like having a Bible study every day I can join in and it edifies me as well. I thank God we have this forum in which to share our thoughts, hopes, needs and blessings and I pray Free Republic will continue to be there for us all.
I have noticed your absence and missed you, believe it or not! I hope all is going well with your job and the family is healthy and happy. Have a good night.
In John 1:3 Jesus is called an agent or channel of creation as John said all things wer made “dia” or through him. Although often translated “by” the meaning of “dia” is through and is so used elsewhere in the Bible.
Did he? Please post your source for that accusation.
I find it more than ironic and hypocritical that you would blow off the immoral lives of your popes with a flip *so what? everybody is a sinner* comment and then condemn Luther for not being perfect, even to the point of slandering him to do so.
And I find it typically Catholic besides.
And who says that we follow Luther or that any Protestant does? We are not men followers, as Catholics are. You've been told that already but still persist in repeating that.
When people agree on something, it doesn't automactically go to follow that one person is a follower of the other. Despite the constant inaccurate accusation of Protestants each having their own personal interpretation of Scripture, the reason that true Christians believe that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ is because Scripture clearly and plainly teaches it.
When people reach the same conclusion by reading the same passage, it shows the validity of any individual's ability to correctly interpret Scripture, not that one is a follower of someone else. It just shows they reached the same conclusion.
Of course, we do realise that if Catholics didn't or weren't able to accuse non-Catholics of being men followers, then they would be forced into a position of conceding that people WERE capable of correctly interpreting Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and they couldn't have THAT situation on their hands.
If Luther had really said that, Catholics would have been using that against him for centuries.
Since this is the first time this accusation has been made, it’s clear it’s nothing more than a really, really desparqte bid to slander him, and us, or ANY non-Catholic, for that matter.
His assurance of the infallibility of the pope and Rome is based upon their own declaration to be so, while it is him who engages in private interpretation of Rome by trying to explain away sexual active popes as not duly elected. (Names please.)
As well as his unsubstantiated spurious charge as to what Luther taught, which is another example of the simple-minded willingness to believe anything that sounds good to Catholics.
Every RC engaged in this should see http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2005/12/martin-luther-topical-master-index-for.html
And even when shown he is wrong, or he fails to provide even his erroneous source, he can just post another false prophecy.
“The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. “ (Proverbs 14:15)
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.