Realista -
Realista pisze:Ok muszę niestety czekać na nowy pakiet. Bo teraz ledwo się ładują strony. A tak swoją drogą to jak mawia ks. Hryniewicz skoro w kilku zdaniach trudno przedstawić jakieś zagadnienie to i 10 stron nie wystarczy
Niestety White to średnia rekomendacja, miał problem nawet w polemice z ex Świadkiem Jehowy Staffordem. Ale rzucę okiem na to na dniach.
Myślałem, że będzie to u Ciebie znacznie prostsza sprawa. I było późno, dlatego trudno mi było streszczać tekst po angielsku.
James R. White pisze:TWO FINAL TESTIMONIES TO THE DEITY OF CHRIST
As I indicated at the outset, it is not my purpose to provide an exhaustive apologetic for the doctrine of the Trinity. Instead, I have attempted to provide helpful information along the way that is designed to assist those who so love this truth about God's nature that they have to tell others about it! One such hopefully helpful bit of information is found in looking at two passages that are often cited against the deity of Christ, but which, in fact, when properly understood, testify to the deity of Christ. These passages have the added advantage of removing from the hands of the detractors of the Trinity some of their "favorite" texts, and causing them to reconsider what they have been taught.
As the Lord Jesus walked with His disciples on the night of His betrayal, He taught them many deep truths about himself, the Father, and the soon coming Spirit. He told them that He was going to be leaving them and returning to the presence of the Father. In the midst of this discourse, Jesus says,
"You heard that I said to you, `I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28).
Probably no passage comes to the lips of the person who denies the deity of Christ faster than John 14:28. Yet if we will but consider the passage, and avoid embracing surface-level uses of it, we will find that it does not lead us to deny the deity of Christ, but rather to embrace it.
Most of the time we see this passage only partially quoted. The last few words are recited as if they by themselves settled all question of the deity of Christ. "The Father is greater than I." Doesn't that say it all? No one is greater than God; therefore, Jesus can't possibly be God if, in fact, there is anyone greater than Him. How could it get any simpler than that? But such an argument ignores what Jesus himself is saying. Why does He refer to the Father as being greater than He is? He does so because He is reproaching the disciples for their selfishness. He had told them that He was going back to the presence of the Father. If they truly loved Him (and were not simply thinking about themselves), this announcement would have caused them to rejoice. Why? Because the Father is greater than the Son.
Now immediately we can see what the term "greater" means. If it meant "better" as in "a higher type of being," these words would have no meaning. Why would the disciples rejoice because Jesus was going to see a being who is greater than He? Why would that cause rejoicing? But the term does not refer to "better" but "greater" as in positionally greater. The Son was returning back to the place He had with the Father before the world was (John 17:5, see below). He would no longer be walking the dusty roads of Galilee, surrounded by sin and sickness and misery. He would no longer be the subject of attack and ridicule by legions of scribes and Pharisees. Instead, He would be at the right hand of the Father in heaven itself. So we see that the term "greater" speaks to the position of the Father in heaven over against the position of the Son on earth. The Son had voluntarily (Philippians 2:6) laid aside His divine prerogatives and humbled himself by entering into human flesh. He would soon be leaving this humbled position and returning to His position of glory. If the disciples had been thinking of the ramifications of Jesus' words, they would have rejoiced that He was going to such a place. Instead, they were focused upon themselves and their own needs, not upon the glorification of their Lord.
So we can see that rather than denying the deity of Christ, John 14:28 implies it, for the position into which the Son was returning is a position fit only for deity, not for mere creatures. [...]
Rafi -
Rafi pisze:Zdecydowana większość żołnierzy Wermachtu byli chrześcijanami, za takich się uważali. Bardzo wygodne jest ... negowanie tego.
Dziwne słowa, zwłaszcza gdy wypływają spod klawiatury chrześcijanina. Czy ktoś jest chrześcijaninem dlatego, że:
(A) deklaruje się jako chrześcijanin?
(B) wierzy w to, co powiedział Bóg w Piśmie Świętym Starego i Nowego Testamentu, starając się podążać za naukami Jezusa?
Mormoni i Świadkowie Jehowy również są chrześcijanami z tego powodu, że zdarzy im się zadeklarować jako chrześcijanie?
Rafi pisze:Faszyści włoscy byli bez wątpienia katolikami. 99% nazistów chrześcijanami. Ante Pavelić był katolickim nacjonalistą, Franco także (i także budował obozy koncentracyjne, potrafił się za to obrócić jak chorągiewka). W Polsce także ruchy nacjonalistyczne miały charakter katolicki i takie są do dziś.
Nie mam powodu, aby bronić katolicyzmu, ale katolicyzm był u źródeł uniwersalistyczny w sensie całego świata, a przynajmniej uniwersalistyczny w kontekście cywilizacji łacińskiej. W Biblii czy dokumentach Kościoła Katolickiego nie znajdziemy poglądów nacjonalistycznych. Z tego powodu katolickie ruchy nacjonalistyczne w zasadzie nie są katolickie. Podobnie jak ewentualne muzułmańskie ruchy przeciw dżihadowi nie są naprawdę islamskie.
Wyznawcy danej religii objawionej nie definiują, czym jest ta religia. Jeżeli chciałbyś poznać moją opinię w tej sprawie, zachęcam do przeczytania trzech króciutkich nagłówków z tego artykułu:
LINK.
-
O religii objawionej nie stanowi człowiek,
-
Złudna zasłona różnorodności,
-
Fałszywa analogia.