| 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 These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.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!
If that must include blue, so be it.
Agreed on all points.
Funny how people can play the victim or martyr all the while attacking others and manipulating their behavior.
All of this "RC really means arse" talk reminded me of a thread I'd posted back in 2008. Check this out!
Party song seen as having anti-Catholic overtones [The "Hokey-Pokey" - that's what it's all about!]
Critics claim that Puritans composed the song in the 18th century in an attempt to mock the actions and language of priests leading the Latin mass. Now politicians have urged police to arrest anyone using the song to "taunt" Catholics under legislation designed to prevent incitement to religious hatred........It was reportedly a Puritan backlash against Catholicism - hard though it is to imagine Puritans putting their right foot out and shaking all about.
A & W is the only root beer.
But since A could stand for Anthrax and W might imply Wickedness, I probably shouldn’t imbibe.
Haha! Yeah I think I messed up. I’ll have to go back and do more research in that Dan Brown scholarly guide.
Yeah, I figure it is a popularity contest/political chess game. Probably not much different than boardroom maneuvering or Capital Hill wheeling and dealing.
I think the common thought is that it is to decide who is the most “Christ like” among the world’s most “Christ like” people. But the Edifice isn’t Christian; and just look at the current Pope’s fruits, what with the furthering Satan’s global government and all. Plus, it is impossible to be a leftist and to be a Christian at the same time.
Sure. That doesn't mean he was God. The Jewish meshiyah (anointed) was a man of God, a king sent by God. Not divine.
It is no mere truism that John voices when he insists that “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh
No, of course not. The whole purpose of John's Gospel was to portray Christ as divine. But he could do that given the break that occurred between Judaism and Christianity by that time (cf Jamnia), and that Christianity needed to establish a firm divine authority outside of Judaism.
At the end of the 1st century, John's aim was to show that Jesues was no longer considered a Jewish messiah, but God incarnate, a temple who raised himself rather than an anoninted Jewish wariror king whom God raised.
Paul speaks of God as “sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh”
The term "son of God" did not imply a divine creature in Judaism. It is encounters on numerous occasions in the Old Testament as a title bestowed on mortal or angelic beings (Adam, angels, kings, David, etc.).
Also the verse doesn't say "his own" but of himself. The reflexive nature of the verb doe snot imply "own." In has been lost in English to a large extent where it used to be used more often as in other European languages. Thus Newton writes "I procured myself a prism."
Paul's' suggestion that Christ only appeared in the "likeness" of sinful flesh must have really scored him points with the Gnostics big time.
1Timothy 3:16, “, believed on in the world, received up into glory
This verse is well known because it is one of those verses where fraudulent alteration of the Bible is evident. The fraud was actually discovered by an English Protestant Bible scholar in the 17th or 18th century. He noticed that in the 5th century Greek manuscript the ligature for God (in Greek Θς) has a line through "O" of a different ink. Closer examination show this to be true.
Apparently someone changed the Greek word for "he" (in Greek Oς) by penning a line through "O" and making it into a ligature for God. Naturally, the meaning of the whole verse changes drastically when one reads:
Paul writes of Jesus in Colossians 2:9, “In him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily
"Who is the image (Greek: icon) of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature" (Col 1:15). An image is not the thing.
”In addition, when Jesus’ contemporaries called him “Lord;’ they were employing a term that was used over six thousand times in the Greek translation of the Old Testament to refer to God or “the Lord.”
The word "Lord" (Gr: kyrios) is also used for non divine beings. Anyone who is superior in rank is called kyrios.
When asked if he had seen Abraham, Jesus responded by saying, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:57—58)
Of course John would do that. The context in which his Gospel was written at the end of the first century is consistent with his attempts to equate Christ with God. I just find it curious that the other Apostles didn't notice that "minor" statement (for which Jesus wouldhave been stoned).
But that was not one of the charges brought up against Jesus. In fact, John omits the whole going before the Sanhedrin part.
The prophet Isaiah affirms Jesus as the king who reigns forever—a role only God could fill: “Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end” (Isa. 9:7).
Jews will disagree, based on the context, that it has anything to do with Jesus. Also, the Septuagint has nothing even close in Isa 9:6. It reads as follows:
"For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him"
No God, no mighty Father, nothing.
John 10:30, “I and my Father are one.”
John 14:28 "for the Father is greater than I.
Heb. 1:1-4, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son
Again, here God spoke by the prophets and by his Son...again the title "son" of God (common in the OT) does not imply divinity in Judaism, but a favorite of God, and the Book of Hebrews is addressed to the Jews, as they understood the terms.
Using your own quote "(Luke 2:52), “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." God owuld nto have to increase in favor of God.
I will add also that Jesus calls the Father his God (cf John 20:17) God calling God God?
2. Closely connected with this explicit claim of unity with God is the expression of limitations upon this relationship. John 5:19..."
There goes your whole "economic subordination" theory out the window.
The doctrine of kenosis emphasizes the divine initiative
As regards kenosis, the orthodox Church sees it in a different light (interpretation) form the Portestant world.
In fact, the Protestant version of the doctrine is heretical in the eyes of the Church because it states that Christ gave up some of his divine attributes in order to beocme man.
The Protestant version was specifically condemned by the Catholic Church in 1951, as denying Christ's divinity while on earth, and compared it to Docetism.
But then, in my opinion,the Pope should have condemned St. Paul for Docetism as well (see Rom 8:3). :)
So that's what it's all about.
Molim lepo. :)
There's that doe snot term again. I somehow think BD and MM have a great deal more knowledge and overall understanding about Christian doctrine - doe snot not withstanding. You're a broken, offkey record Kosta pal. Might be time for lights-outs. Nite nite.
lol, I’m going to prison, we played it at camp in the Michigan woods. And “Capture the flag” my favorite. I suppose that was from the 15 th century when hooligans in Derbyshire stole the bishops hat.
Please close the thread, the original issue and the major sidebar have been fully discussed.
Thank you.
The fish hat?
yes, steal the fish flag hat and you must do pennants
Since when does someone, even the originator of the thread, have the right to just close a thread that's not breaking the rules?
Every thread ever posted on FR eventually gets side-tracked at times.
Ever hear of "the neeners?" But that's no reason to end the thread.
Sign off, maybe. Put the house on the market. Change your phone number. Leave the country.
But not end the thread.
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.