[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

PETE BUTTIGIEG CONFIDENT HE CAN UNITE CHRISTIANS REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL VIEWS: ‘GOD DOESN’T HAVE A POLITICAL PARTY’

Canada: Taxpayer-Funded CBC Puts Jihad Murderer Omar Khadr On Easter Sunday Show

Seth Moulton Joins 2020 Race for President (another Masshole)

Revolutionary Precedent: EVERYTHING Cop Owns is Seized to Pay Back Man He Paralyzed

When Did “Christian” ... Become a Cussword --- for Democrats?

Chuck Berry vs Bruce Springsteen, Two Visions of America (*Epic Take-Down Of The Boss Who Made A Living As a Virtue-Signaling Hypocrite*)

The Mueller Report Exposes the Absurdity of the Governing Class

Chris Wallace’s Latest Sunday Disgrace Shows Growing Leftward Shift of Fox News

An Empire of BS

German Parents Fined for Not Sending Son on Mosque Trip

I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. (Laughter.)

Trump’s Happy Easter Message (At The End)!

Vermont’s Republican Governor to Sign Bill Abolishing Columbus Day

Group of Armed Mexican Soldiers Disarm, Detain US Soldiers on Texas Side of Border

FBI arrests leader of armed group stopping migrants in New Mexico

EASTER MASSACRE Sri Lanka Easter bombings – Brits among 156 killed and 400 injured in Easter Sunday terror attacks on eight churches and hotels

There's now a version of the Bible that uses only Bitmoji

Mayor Pete Says Americans “Don’t Want the Conservative Agenda”

Why Bernie Sanders Can Defeat Donald Trump in 2020

Trump seethes over Mueller report, Democrat demands impeachment

‘I Am Sickened (Sickening) ’: Romney Blasts Trump in Scathing Reaction to Mueller Report

Kentucky BBQ restaurant slammed for 'LGBTQ' shirts deemed offensive

Two Fox Hosts End Interviews When Guests Bring Up Pattern of Church Fires in France

OFFICIAL HIGH SCHOOL RECORDS SUPPORT CLAIM THAT DEMOCRAT ILHAN OMAR MARRIED HER BROTHER

The End of Cathedral Culture

U.S. Intelligence Institutionally Politicized Toward Democrats(Tell us something we don't know!)

Man with gas cans arrested at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York

FOIA Request Confirms Zero Standard Capacity Magazines Turned In to NJ State Police

Republicans’ Love of Healthcare Socialism

NASA Creates Movie Parody Posters Featuring Its ISS Expedition Astronauts (No, really.)

16th Amendment As Written: No Tax On Wages Or Salaries

Investigative Reporter Laura Loomer Announces Plans For 2020 Congressional Run

Assange Dumps All Wikileaks Files As Stated During Arrest – Here They Are!

20 Years an Atheist: Why I Turned ("Easier To Be God-Less"; War in the Comments Section Rages)

Bill Weld officially announces he is challenging Trump for GOP nomination in 2020

Robert De Niro Thinks Mocking Trump on SNL is his “Civic Duty”

Buttigieg: ‘Most Americans Don’t Want the Conservative Agenda’

Catholic CT freak Bill Donohue booted off Neil Cavuto show - Notre Dame fire

Cops Promise to Rob or Arrest Citizens Unless They Buy an Arbitrary Sticker

How Many Muslims Won Political Office The Numbers May Surprise You!...................WAKE-UP AMERICA!!

If Trump is So Worried About ‘Fake News’ Why is He Prosecuting WikiLeaks—Who’s Been 100% Right

Alabama Cops Raided Their House, Seized Their Cash, and Ruined Their Lives Over $50 of Marijuana

Sheriff’s Department Definitely Needs a Mine-Resistant Vehicle for All Those Mines in Tennessee

Groupthink and Why They NEED to Censor Us

Pregnant victim randomly attacked ... by group of teen - thug - apers --- speaks out

Pentagon Warns "Next Major Conflict Maybe Won Or Lost In Space"

Can You Believe YouTube Caused the Rise in Flat-Earthers? (*MSM and PTB Institutions Panicking That Truth Is Leaking Like A Sieve On YT*)

There are more Godless Americans than Christians

Mayor Pete Buttigieg is the hottest thing in politics. Can it last?

The Washington Establishment Seems Pretty Happy About Julian Assange's Arrest


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: Vatican appointee says gay sex can express Christ’s ‘self-gift’
Source: Life Site News
URL Source: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/v ... 143221886185206838242298360572
Published: May 21, 2015
Author: Lisa Bourne
Post Date: 2015-05-21 11:37:06 by redleghunter
Ping List: *Religious History and Issues*     Subscribe to *Religious History and Issues*
Keywords: None
Views: 14297
Comments: 86

ROME, May 19, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Pope Francis has appointed radically liberal, pro-homosexual Dominican Father Timothy Radcliffe as a consultor for the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

The Holy Father made the appointment on Saturday, according to Vatican Radio.

Father Radcliffe, an Englishman, author and speaker, was Master of the Dominican order from 1992 to 2001, and is an outspoken proponent of homosexuality.

"We must accompany [gay people] as they discern what this means, letting our images be stretched open,” he said in a 2006 religious education lecture in Los Angeles. “This means watching 'Brokeback Mountain,' reading gay novels, living with our gay friends and listening with them as they listen to the Lord."

In 2005, as the Vatican deliberated the admission of men with homosexual tendencies to study for the priesthood in the wake of the Church sex abuse scandal, Father Radcliffe said that homosexuality should not bar men from the priesthood, and rather, those who oppose it should be banned.

As a contributor to the 2013 Anglican Pilling Report on human sexual ethics Father Radcliffe said of homosexuality:

How does all of this bear on the question of gay sexuality? We cannot begin with the question of whether it is permitted or forbidden! We must ask what it means, and how far it is Eucharistic. Certainly it can be generous, vulnerable, tender, mutual and non-violent. So in many ways, I would think that it can be expressive of Christ’s self-gift. We can also see how it can be expressive of mutual fidelity, a covenantal relationship in which two people bind themselves to each other for ever.

Father Radcliffe often celebrated Mass for the U.K. dissident group Soho Masses Pastoral Council (now renamed the LGBT Catholics Westminster Pastoral Council).

The priest is also a supporter of the proposal of to allow communion for divorced and remarried Catholics.

He currently works as director of the Las Casas Institute of Blackfriars at Oxford University, a social justice center.

Social justice is the focus of the Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace, established in 1967 by Pope Paul VI in response to the Vatican II proposal for establishment of a body of the universal Church that would “stimulate the Catholic Community to foster progress in needy regions and social justice on the international scene.”

The pope appoints roughly 40 members and consultors to the pontifical body, according to their background and experience, who serve for five years, giving input to the planning for the Council.

When the Council gathers for assemblies, it’s for discernment of the "signs of the times," Vatican.va states.

London, Ontario's Father Paul Nicholson suggested in his blog that observers can wonder how much Pope Francis knows about Father Radcliffe.

“The Holy Father is only a man, and is limited in how much he can know about any and every appointment,” Father Nicholson wrote. “His primary language is Spanish and perhaps he has not been sufficiently briefed. And that may be done intentionally by those around him.”

The Boston Globe’s Catholic website CRUX called the appointment “a move sure to raise eyebrows among the Church’s traditional guard,” and termed Father Radcliffe “a strong ally of Pope Francis,” before listing various controversies surrounding the Dominican over the years.

The selection of Father Radcliffe by the Holy Father drew criticism from many Catholics.

The Scottish blog Catholic Truth blog called it an “absolutely shocking papal appointment.”

“It’s very clear indeed now, that to be 'a priest in good standing' means to be opposed to all that is truly Catholic – and that includes true morals,” the post read, and called for prayers for the Holy Father.

“Interesting that these appointments are going out over the weekend so people can't comment as readily,” The Eponymous Flower blogged in a post titled, “Evil Dominican Tapped For Important Post.

“Good times for dissident Dominicans” was the headline of the Rorate Caeli post on the papal appointment, which called Father Radcliffe “Uber-liberal.”

“It is true that Radcliffe has ‘opposed’ ‘gay marriage,’” the post said, “but his farcical ‘opposition’ rests on grounds entirely contrary to those of the Church: Radcliffe opposes it because, in his words: ‘gay marriage’ ultimately, we believe, demeans gay people by forcing them to conform to the straight world."

“Radcliffe's acceptability has just received a major upgrade with this latest appointment,” Rorate Caeli stated. “A tremendous slap to the face of so many good Catholics who had opposed him out of fidelity to the faith.”


Poster Comment:

Also a related article on Vatican appointments/dismissals: Pro-Life Cardinal Burke dismissed Subscribe to *Religious History and Issues*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-18) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#19. To: redleghunter (#9)

I think the point is the Vatican, more accurately the Pope should be defrocking this priest instead of recognizing him with a Vatican advisory position.

That sure would have been MY first guess. They want to condemn to hell for eternity teenage boys and girls for doing what teenage boys and girls are driven to do by their natures,yet they appoint a homosexual to a high office in their cult? How the hell does that make any sense?

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-05-21   16:38:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: hondo68 (#13)

Maybe he's trying to convert the ghey Romney Republicans to Catholicism?

It's been some time since you mentioned Romney:) Thought you could add this to your collection:

“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-21   17:17:26 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative (#18)

You do what you're supposed to do and I'll do my part. But if you don't do what I think you're supposed to do, then I'm not really going to go out of my way to do anything for you either. That's the way it is.

Don't take this the wrong way....But the above sounds very Protestant:)

“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-21   17:20:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative (#18)

The Ekklesia will always be there. Whether the Catholic Church houses it or not depends on whether the people who are the Ekklesia choose to make church within the buildings of the Catholic "Church", and whether or not they choose to tolerate Catholic "priests" as their spiritual shepherds. If the priests become odious by molesting children, running away with money, and then preaching absurdities, the Ekklesia will leave and reassemble somewhere else, and the "Churches" will turn into museums.

Excellent commentary. I agree.

This is exactly what is happening with PCUSA.

“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-21   17:35:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: redleghunter (#20)

Ummm I think this is more his style...

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-05-21   18:30:42 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: redleghunter (#0)

http://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2015/05/timothy-radcliffes-heresy-and- vulgarity.html

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-05-21   18:46:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: redleghunter (#0)

pro-homosexual Dominican Father Timothy Radcliffe

A 6 pack says he's one himself...

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-05-21   18:47:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: redleghunter (#0)

The Catholic's prohibition of married Priests has filled the Priesthood with gays. Right, wrong or indifferent, it's just a fact.

The early church did not prohibit married Priests. The Orthodox still allows (and encourages) married Priests today.

No one can deny their human sexuality. But in the past gays had to hide their human sexuality. Some gays (like Rock Hudson) tried to live in fake marriages. Many others chose to do so in the Priesthood, where past generations never thought to look.

When I went to Catholic University in the 1980's, I remember a Priest in one of my classes arguing that "God calls people to be gay".

I am not Catholic, but I have a deep respect for Catholics. But they need to revert to the original Church and allow married Priests.

cranko  posted on  2015-05-21   19:41:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: cranko (#26)

There are, what is it? from memory, 21 Rites of the Catholic Church. 20 of them have married priests. One, the largest, the Western or Latin Rite "Roman" Catholic Church hasn't permitted it since the 1000s. All of the Eastern Rites do permit it.

The reforms required in organized Christianity are deep and profound.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-21   20:24:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Vicomte13 (#18)

According to tradition, yes.

In reality, maybe yes, maybe no.

The Borgias were Popes too. Were they Vicars of Christ?

Pope = Vicar of Christ

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-21   21:04:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Vicomte13 (#27)

Catholic Church hasn't permitted it since the 1000s

Right, the Catholic church prevented Priests from marrying during or just after the Great Schism when the eastern and western churches split. (500 years before the Protestant Reformation)

The Orthodox derogatorily call the changes in the western / Catholic Church "innovations".

The original Church allowed and encouraged married Priests and the Orthodox Church still allows and encourages it today. But the Catholics had an "innovation" that prevented it. This opened the door for both gays and more importantly Pedophiles to creep into the Priesthood.

cranko  posted on  2015-05-21   21:40:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: redleghunter (#0)

Are you going to follow the Word of God as interpreted?

buckeroo  posted on  2015-05-21   21:42:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Vicomte13 (#27) (Edited)

All of the Eastern Rites do permit it.

"Eastern Rights" churches are Oriental Orthodox churches who were kicked out of Christianity during the 4th century.

At some point, they decided to recognize the Pope so they were let back in on condition of being allowed to continue their 1,500+ year old traditions.

The overwhelming majority of Catholics are NOT "eastern rights" and their Priests cannot marry.

cranko  posted on  2015-05-21   21:50:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: redleghunter (#0)

The Catholic faithful will support any blasphemy the RCC promulgates.

Don  posted on  2015-05-21   22:32:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: cranko, redleghunter (#26)

The Catholic's prohibition of married Priests has filled the Priesthood with gays.

There is much hypocrisy here as the RCC is well aware and tolerant of married priests in S. America and Africa. Just some more BS from the RCC. Each day it's harder and harder for me to call myself a RCC. I am not leaving the church, it is leaving me.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-21   22:38:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Don (#32)

The Catholic faithful will support any blasphemy the RCC promulgates.

donnie,donnie donnie .... don't you see how many Word(s) of God there really are?

buckeroo  posted on  2015-05-21   22:44:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: buckeroo (#34)

Bucky, Bucky, Bucky, how many words are in the Holy Scriptures?

Don  posted on  2015-05-21   23:00:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Don (#35)

buckeroo  posted on  2015-05-21   23:13:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13, TooConservative (#22)

Off topic but I didn't want to start another thread on this.

Matthew 19:28

"28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Twelve? That would include Judas, no?

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-22   0:10:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: ALL (#36)

Why am I not surprised?

And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined* in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. Psalm 12:6

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-05-22   0:12:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: SOSO (#37)

No. Judas was replaced by another.

Don  posted on  2015-05-22   0:40:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: GarySpFC (#38)

I don't think we are to take Bucky seriously. I don't, anyway.

Don  posted on  2015-05-22   0:48:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: SOSO, ALL (#37)

Acts 1:12 (NIV)

Matthias Chosen to Replace Judas [12] Then they returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day's walk from the city. [13] When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. [14] They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers. [15] In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) [16] and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus— [17] he was one of our number and shared in this ministry.” [18] (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. [19] Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) [20] “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms, “‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,' and, “‘May another take his place of leadership.' [21] Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, [22] beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” [23] So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. [24] Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen [25] to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.”

The Lord chose Matthias to take Juda's place. Acts 1 Shared from PocketBible for Windows Store (http://www.laridian.com)

And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined* in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. Psalm 12:6

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-05-22   1:59:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: cranko (#31)

Eastern Rites are not perforce Oriental Orthodox. They also include Uniates. About 90% of Catholics are Latin Rite, 10% tops, Eastern Rite.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-22   7:16:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: CZ82 (#25)

pro-homosexual Dominican Father Timothy Radcliffe A 6 pack says he's one himself...

Not taking that bet:)

“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-22   8:49:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: Don (#32)

The Catholic faithful will support any blasphemy the RCC promulgates.

Not all of them. Sure there are always apologists in every organization, even churches. But the source of this article is a pro-traditionalist Catholic site.

They poke the Vatican in the nose a lot.

“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-22   8:55:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: Don (#39)

No. Judas was replaced by another.

Are you claiming that Judas was not one of the twelve when Christ made that statement?

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-22   15:01:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: GarySpFC, Don, All (#41)

This was AFTER the event recorded in Matthew 19. Judas was in the twelve at the time Jesus said that to the twelve that were there.

"Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

He said you not they or those but you. Was or was not Judas part of the twelve at the time Jesus spoke those words?

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-22   15:09:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: SOSO (#46) (Edited)

Did Judas not betray Chris?. Was Judas replaced as one of the Apostles? What is the meaning of replaced?

Don  posted on  2015-05-22   15:20:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: SOSO (#46)

Are you claiming that Judas who betrayed Christ was a true follower of Christ?

Don  posted on  2015-05-22   15:24:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: Don (#47)

Why don't you answer my questions? I have asked you twice if Judas was one of the twelve referred to in Matthew 19 and all you do is duck the question.

I also asked you if God allows divorce when a spouse commits murder and you have ducked this question as well.

You can give it but sure can't take it. But this is typical of those that hide behind quoting scripture rather than have an open discussion of it.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-22   15:43:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: SOSO (#49) (Edited)

I have answered your questions, but you can't recognize the answers or refuse to acknowledge them. Let me try it again. Do you acknowledge Judas as a true follower of Christ? I don't.

Oh, about the spouse murdering a person and divorce? That is a "what if" question. The Bible doesn't give us the answer. Am I going to voice an opinion when the Scriptures are silent? No. The Matthew verse does talk about adultery as allowed grounds for divorce but addresses no other situation.

Don  posted on  2015-05-22   17:16:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: SOSO (#46)

I'll tell you what I think Jesus meant by "Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

I think that there are two possible understandings.

One is that, as of that moment, Jesus intended for all twelve of them to sit on thrones. Judas was an apostle at that point, and Jesus intended a throne for him. Judas' later apostasy cost him that throne.

This change of future course doesn't perturb me, for two reasons. First, Jesus - especially in Mark - admits that there are things that he does not know about the future, things that only the Father knows. This is why that word "God" in English, when applied to Jesus, is so treacherous. In ENGLISH, "God" means omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal. But in GREEK and HEBREW, "theos" and "elohiym" mean "Mighty Ones" and "Divine Powers".

Thus, to be "theos" in Greek is to be divine - which Jesus certainly was because he was the Son of God, and just as the prince is every bit as royal as the king but isn't king, so too Jesus is every bit as divine as the Father, and yet is not the Father. Jesus is divine - and a Power - theos - but JESUS has a God, and HIS God is the Father. Both are divine, the Father is greater, at least at the time of Jesus' earthly ministry. So, the divine Jesus is truly divine - truly god - but he is NOT omniscient, for he himself says that there are things that only the Father knows. Nor is he omnipotent, for all of his power comes from the Father. He says that too. In Greek and Hebrew this works splendidly, for "Theos" is divine. But in English, it only works if we stop defining "God" as perforce meaning omniscient. Jesus is certainly divine, he is indeed God, but he is NOT omniscient, at least not when he walks the earth. He says so.

The problem here is not with Scripture, it's that our English word "God" runs PAST the God of Scripture and insists upon ascribing all of the attributes of God Most High, of the Father and Son and Spirit all together, to the Son in his human state, because he's divine and we use the word "God" for that. Yes, Jesus is divine. Yes, Jesus is God. No, Jesus was neither omnipotent nor omniscient when he was walking the earth teaching his apostles. He was fully divine - fully God - but God doesn't MEAN omnipotent and omniscient. During that time, the FATHER was all that, but Jesus - fully divine - fully God - was NOT omnipotent, or omniscient, or omnipresent. Perhaps he emptied himself to enter the human state, but that's speculative. The key is that when Jesus said those words to Judas too, he meant them, but he could not necessarily fully foresee the future, for only the Father, Jesus' God, could do that,

So, that's one possible answer.

A nuance of it is that Jesus was speaking the way YHWH did in the Old Testament. YHWH consistently promised great things to the Hebrews, BUT it was always predicated on the Hebrews following his commandments and code. God did not repeat that fact every time he said he'd do something great, but it was always understood, and God's behavior always made it clear that, whatever he promised, you could lose out on that promise if you were rebellious.

So, perhaps Jesus did not know at that point that Judas would betray him and it was Judas' betrayal that acted like every other rebellion in Scripture: to lose the promised blessing. We may not like the way God presents his promises, without the legalistic asterisk, but He's God and he doesn't have to respect our legalistic norms.

That's one branch of possibility.

The other is that Jesus knew all along that Jesus would betray him, and that Judas was a liar from the beginning. If that's the case, then even as Judas stood there Jesus had already eliminated him from "you who have followed me", because Judas hadn't really followed Jesus, only pretended to. That there will be twelve thrones in the end is established, and that those who follow him will sit on them is clear enough. The disciple who replaced Judas may well have been there too, after all.

As I see it, those are two (and a half) explanations of the text that all satisfy me insofar as they don't change the text (though the first does insist on the proper definition of "God" which is not the traditional English definition when applied to Jesus during his human mission), and all make sense and fit in with everything else.

I know that they won't satisfy some others for various reasons. Some will dig in on the erroneous English understanding of the word "God". That error is why the Trinity, as understood by so many, is an incomprehensible muddle. As revealed, in the Greek, it is comprehensible. With the later traditional "embellishments", it isn't.

I know that some will try to play lawyer with the present tense in English and the pronoun "you",

I see the arguments, but I don't think they're particular good in this case.

Any of the two branches of explanation works. Which one is actually true? I have no way of knowing that.

There, there was a reasonable discussion of Scripture and of a problem with it.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-22   17:28:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: SOSO (#49) (Edited)

Divorce shouldn't be such a fraught subject. After all, the Bible permits polygamy.

You can't DIVORCE your wives, but you CAN marry more than one.

The problem comes when you take a no-divorce Hebrew Christian commandment and overlay it on a Western cultural imperative of strict monogamy, which was a Roman imperative, but not a Scriptural imperative.

God did not prohibit polygamy. The Europeans did. God prohibited divorce. The European insistence on monogamy - a Latin cultural norm - coupled with the Hebrew Christian no divorce rule - made marriage a corset that is tighter than what God actually made.

Is polygamy GOOD? It's never presented as GOOD in Scripture. But God never forbids it either, and some of the greatest figures whom God favored were polygamists without God speaking a word against it.

The divorce restriction is so severe to our eyes because we have ADDED a purely cultural restriction of monogamy to the divine word.

To understand God's direct rule, you must remove the cultural tradition of monogamy. It is not Biblical.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-22   17:30:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: Vicomte13 (#51)

At the Last Supper, Christ knew Judas would betray Him.

Don  posted on  2015-05-22   17:32:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: Vicomte13 (#52)

The Holy Bible permitted polygamy in the Old Testament, not the New.

Don  posted on  2015-05-22   17:34:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: Don (#53)

Of course. But did Christ know that when he spoke of the twelve thrones?

And were only the Twelve at the Last Supper or were there other disciples present as well? (I don't believe that this question is answered by the text)

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-22   17:35:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: Don (#54)

In neither testament does God authorize polygamy. It is a cultural fact upon which he never comments.

In the New Testament, God forbids DIVORCE. Jesus never says anything about polygamy.

Paul, in his letter to Timothy, insists that bishops should not be polygamous - that they should be men of only one wife.

He does not say, however, that Christians have to be. And even if he did, he's Paul. He didn't like women speaking. That's his view. He's not God. Women spoke and taught under God's inspiration in both Testaments.

Polygamy is not outlawed by God in the New Testament. God remains silent on it. It is tolerated by God.

DIVORCE is what is not tolerated.

Oh, and spouses have a duty to provide sex to the other spouse. That is required by God. It's a marital right.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-22   17:38:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: Vicomte13 (#55)

The Scriptures don't give the answers, you are correct. I don't dare give answers to Biblical questions under this circumstance. The Holy Bible does tell us the consequence of adding to or taking away from the Scriptures.

Don  posted on  2015-05-22   17:45:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: Vicomte13 (#56)

I simply take it that people can do as they wish unless God comments on the matter. As you said, the Bible does comment on one wife regarding the Bishops. In the New Testament era, the standard seems to have been one wife. The Mormons seem to take their polygamy custom from the Old Testament.

Don  posted on  2015-05-22   17:54:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: Don (#57)

Well, the Scroll "Revalation" warns of dire consequences of tampering with that particular Scroll.

And Moses sternly warns against adding to or subtracting from the Law given by God.

But beyond that, Scripture doesn't otherwise define what exactly is and isn't "Scripture". Peter says that something Paul wrote is Scripture, though difficult to understand, but that doesn't bring into play a general clause in God's law about tampering with Scripture, because there isn't any specific clause like that (which is why the differences between the Oriental Orthodox, various Eastern Orthodox, the Catholic, and the Protestant canons does not, by itself, provide a barrier to cooperation).

If you add or subtract from Revelation, you're buying the curses. If a Hebrew added or subtracted to God's statutes in Torah, he was inviting the various curses of Deuteronomy down on his head. Those are specific things: the Law and the final revelation, around which God put an electric ring-fence. But there isn't a generic definition of "scripture" in Scripture, nor a specific punishment for, say, choosing one manuscript over another for the rest of the books.

This is not to say that therefore one should be willy-nilly marking up Scripture. But it does mean that Catholics, Protesatnts, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox and Ethiopian Orthodox can all sit at the table and speak to one another as faithful followers of Christ, without having to condemn each other of the worst sort of blasphemy simply because they don't agree on the exact boundaries of Scripture.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-22   18:15:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (60 - 86) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com