19 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerI only have a moment, but:
He referred to him as "scholarly" (in German).
1) The word 'erudite' was used in the official english translation offered by the Vatican; and
2) Even if the word 'scholarly' were used, it is a laudatory term which affects the way the
listener/reader will understand any further reference to the emperor. That is, if I said that
Hitler was a scholarly man, and then quoted some hateful comment from Mein Kampf
without expressing my disgust for it, I would be (at best) careless and misleading and certainly
be hurtful.
Don't you think that the Pope has a duty to apologize when he has been inadvertently hurtful?
Don't you think that the Pope has a duty to show contrition? Do you agree with Conrau K that
it's hard for him to apologize?
Do you have an explanation why, historically, Popes have rarely or never apologized for their
own actions (according to the citation on the first page)?
Nemesio
19 Sep 06
Originally posted by Nemesio(1) The Vatican generally has a poor record of translating stuff.
I only have a moment, but:
1) The word 'erudite' was used in the official english translation offered by the Vatican; and
2) Even if the word 'scholarly' were used, it is a laudatory term which affects the way the
listener/reader will understand any further reference to the emperor. That is, if I said that
Hitler was a scholarly man, and then quoted s ...[text shortened]... ologized for their
own actions (according to the citation on the first page)?
Nemesio
(2) If the Emperor were a scholar (particularly in theology and philosophy, as he was), then where's the problem in pointing that out? It's not a "laudatory" term -- all it asks of the listener is to consider his statements carefully as it is an expert view.
Don't you think that the Pope has a duty to apologize when he has been inadvertently hurtful?
Yes, I do.
Don't you think that the Pope has a duty to show contrition?
Yes.
Do you agree with Conrau K that it's hard for him to apologize?
Not particularly. It's hard for political leaders to apologise; when the Pope does things one does not expect from political leaders then at least some commentators can begin to see him in a different light.
Do you have an explanation why, historically, Popes have rarely or never apologized for their own actions (according to the citation on the first page)?
Sure. People who do things that require apology are rarely inclined to do so; people who are ready to apologise rarely do things that require it.
19 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerIf the dialogue occurred in 1391 in the Ankara "barracks", this would have been prior to the siege of the Emperor's capital city and, indeed, prior to his being Emperor. Perhaps his attitude toward Muslims had something to do with why they besieged his capital after he became Emperor.
(1) What's "ironic" about it? The Emperor was practically held hostage in his own capital city by the Ottoman Empire. He appeals to his Western Christian brothers for help. How on earth do you manage to equate that to jihad or violent conversion?
(2) See (1)
(3) Ditto
19 Sep 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBH1. Sorry, Freaky. Read the passage (Lk 23:39--43) again. Both thieves recognise Jesus as Christ (In his Epistle, James makes a similar point about even demons recognising God). In fact, only one of them explicitly asks Christ to save him -- and that's the one who isn't saved! The other guy (the contrite one) only asks that Jesus remember him in His Kingdom -- and is saved.
[b]1. Why was the thief saved?
He changed his mind about the Christ.
2. Which part of the Lord's Prayer is time or place-specific?
All of it.[/b]
2. Are you saying that we needn't pray to God? That the way Christ Himself taught us to pray is obsolete? What else did Christ say that is, in your view, obsolete?
19 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderOkay, I was wrong about the seige. Nevertheless, Manuel II became a hostage of the Ottomans in 1390 and was forced to participate in an attack on his own empire. So, the situation was not all that different.
If the dialogue occurred in 1391 in the Ankara "barracks", this would have been prior to the siege of the Emperor's capital city and, indeed, prior to his being Emperor. Perhaps his attitude toward Muslims had something to do with why they besieged his capital after he became Emperor.
19 Sep 06
Actually according to this site, a Western Crusade CAUSED the blockade of Constantinople:
It seems that the situation in the Balkans eventually roused the west to send a crusade against the Turks. This may have been a chance for Byzantium and Christendom as a whole to turn the tide against the rampant Ottomans. The leader of the movement was Sigismund of Luxemburg, the current King of Hungary and future Holy Roman Emperor. His fear of Ottoman incursions along the Turko-Hungarian border was the real reason for the crusade instead of helping the Christians in the Balkans. However, the sensational defeat of the crusader army of French, German and Hungarian knights outside Nicopolis by Bayezit I was traumatic for all Christians involved. For the west it killed off any thoughts of crusading against the infidel for nearly fifty years as the first encounter between Islamic Turks and Catholic Christians did not augur well for the future. For the Balkans it ended any hope for foreign aid against their conquerors and brought an even sterner Sultan who began to annex territory instead of ruling over vassals. In the aftermath of Nicopolis, Constantinople was placed under an almost constant blockade and the occupants could only watch as a huge castle rose on the Asian coast of the Bosphorous, now known as Anadolu Hisar, from where the Sultan could partially control what came through the Sea of Marmara.
http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Article/398217
19 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_II_Palaeologus
Actually according to this site, a Western Crusade CAUSED the blockade of Constantinople:
It seems that the situation in the Balkans eventually roused the west to send a crusade against the Turks. This may have been a chance for Byzantium and Christendom as a whole to turn the tide against the rampant Ottomans. The leader of the movement was Sigismund ...[text shortened]... control what came through the Sea of Marmara.
http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Article/398217
The seige on Constantinople started in 1394 -- two years before Nicopolis.
EDIT: In any case, they were attacking the Byzantine empire well before either event.
19 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerManzikert is the key name...and the Byzantines were their own worst enemies...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_II_Palaeologus
The seige on Constantinople started in 1394 -- two years before Nicopolis.
EDIT: In any case, they were attacking the Byzantine empire well before either event.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Manzikert
After the battle...
"When the Emperor Romanus IV was conducted into the presence of Alp Arslan, he was treated with considerable kindess, and again offered the terms of peace which he had offered previous to the battle. He was also loaded with presents and Alp Arslan had him respectfully escorted by a military guard to his own forces. But prior to that, when he first was brought to the Sultan, this famous conversation is reported to have taken place:
Alp Arslan: "What would you do if I was brought before you as a prisoner?"
Romanus: "Perhaps I'd kill you, or exhibit you in the streets of Constantinople."
Alp Arslan: "My punishment is far heavier. I forgive you, and set you free."
Shortly after his return to his subjects, Romanus was deposed, and then blinded and exiled in the island of Proti; soon after he died as a result of an infection caused by an injury during his brutal blinding."
19 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerBoth thieves recognise Jesus as Christ (In his Epistle, James makes a similar point about even demons recognising God). In fact, only one of them explicitly asks Christ to save him -- and that's the one who isn't saved!
1. Sorry, Freaky. Read the passage (Lk 23:39--43) again. Both thieves recognise Jesus as Christ (In his Epistle, James makes a similar point about even demons recognising God). In fact, only one of them explicitly asks Christ to save him -- and that's the one who isn't saved! The other guy (the contrite one) only asks that Jesus remember self taught us to pray is obsolete? What else did Christ say that is, in your view, obsolete?
Not exactly. The first malefactor challenges the Lord Jesus Christ with this:
"If thou be Christ, save thyself and us."
Very similar to one of the temptations Satan threw at Him in the desert:
"If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:
For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee:
And in [their] hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone."
The first malefactor was by no means recognizing the Christ; he was challenging Him! Even the next verse speaks of the second malefactor castigating the gall of the first:
"But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?"
That (as do demons) we recognize God as God isn't the issue in salvation, either. It is our mindset toward the Christ. Not 'are we sorry for our sins,' but 'do we acquiesce our need for the Christ; do we accept His work instead of ours.'
2. Are you saying that we needn't pray to God?
Absolutely not. Prayer is a very intregal part of the spiritually mature believer's life.
That the way Christ Himself taught us to pray is obsolete?
Prayer, being a weapon of the spiritually mature (not a crutch for the weak), has proscribed methods of application. In other words, God has established an outline by which we are to pray, dependent upon the time in which we live. The Lord's Prayer (so-called) was proscribed for a specific group of people during a specific time. We are to pray to God the Father in the name of the Son.
As man passes from one dispensation to another, many things change, the method of prayer being one of them. Some items become obsolete forever, some temporarily. The Lord's Prayer had an application in the past, and will have an application in the future, but not now. We do not pray for things outside of reality. Part of the prayer calls for us to acknowledge God's will being done on earth as it is in Heaven. This is not part of reality at this point in time. It will be in the future, but not now.
19 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSorry, but the second thief clearly does not accept anybody's work (including Christ's). He accepts his fate and fully expects to pay the price after his death as well.
Not 'are we sorry for our sins,' but 'do we acquiesce our need for the Christ; do we accept His work instead of ours.'
EDIT: I'm not going to argue dispensationalism here.
19 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerI beg to differ. The second man clearly acknowledges his need (and we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds); the inexplicable sacrifice of the innocent Lord Jesus Christ (but this man hath done nothing amiss); and finally--- recognizing Him as God--- asks to be part of His kingdom (Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom).
Sorry, but the second thief clearly does not accept anybody's work (including Christ's). He accepts his fate and fully expects to pay the price after his death as well.
EDIT: I'm not going to argue dispensationalism here.
Every part of his conversation while on the cross points to the man's changed thinking regarding the Christ. That is what granted the man access into the Kingdom of Christ. Not baptism, not work, not creed. Saving faith in the efficacious work of Christ on the cross.
19 Sep 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe second thief does not clearly acknowledge a need for salvation; indeed, his acceptance of his punishment and the fact that the only thing he asks of Christ is that He "remembers" him shows that the thief thinks he cannot and ought not be saved, and rightly so. Further, he does not actually recognise Jesus as God.
I beg to differ. The second man clearly acknowledges his need (and we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds); the inexplicable sacrifice of the innocent Lord Jesus Christ (but this man hath done nothing amiss); and finally--- recognizing Him as God--- asks to be part of His kingdom (Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy ki ...[text shortened]... Not baptism, not work, not creed. Saving faith in the efficacious work of Christ on the cross.