SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: 2MAR$ who wrote (44821)1/14/2014 12:25:23 AM
From: average joe  Respond to of 69300
 
"I AM the living bread which came down from heaven... except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood; you shall not have life in you... He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day... my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed... he that eateth this bread shall live forever..." Read John 6:36-67



1st Century Christian and student of St. John the Evangelist said:

"They that abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2--7:1 [A.D. 110]). - St. Ignatius Bishop of Antioch

Justin Martyr said:

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

St. Irenaeus (d.c. 202) said: "Wine and bread are by the word of God changed into the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ."

John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this "new" bread which must be consumed.

John 6:51-52- Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word "trogo" is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While "phago" might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word "trogo" when they said "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" (John 6:52).

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus' disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, "Who can 'listen' to it (much less understand it)?" To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.

John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.



To: 2MAR$ who wrote (44821)1/15/2014 2:14:35 AM
From: average joe  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 69300
 
I don't judge someone by the label of Christian or atheist. I judge them if they don't feel outrage at what happened to this person at the hands of government thugs. Brumar does not realize early Christians were rebels and had to fight on a daily basis against government thugs. They thanked God for their struggles and offered their suffering up as a bounty to be enjoyed in heaven. Lolling about on the couch watching Jack Van Impe Presents while tearing into a super-size bucket of KFC never crossed their minds.

Emotions flow as Calif. officers acquitted in death of homeless man who struggled with police

By: Gillian Flaccus, The Associated Press
Posted: 01/13/2014 11:31 PM

The Orange County panel on Monday found Manuel Ramos and Jay Cicinelli not guilty of all charges — including manslaughter — in the 2011 death of Kelly Thomas.

A surveillance video showed police pummeling and stun-gunning him.

SANTA ANA, Calif. - By the time all four verdicts were read clearing two California officers of killing a homeless man, people on both sides of the gallery were sobbing.

In the audience, the mother of Kelly Thomas wept into a tissue as someone shouted, "No!" A collective gasp went up from the gallery. Former Officer Jay Cicinelli's attorney pounded twice on the defence table, grabbing his client in a bear hug, as former Officer Manuel Ramos' family clutched hands and cried.

Thomas, 37, died five days after a violent confrontation with six officers in July 2011. A surveillance camera at the busy transit centre where the incident unfolded captured him screaming for his father again and again and begging for air as the police kneed him, jolted him with an electric stun gun and used the blunt end to strike him around the face and head.

It was a rare case in which police officers were charged in a death involving actions on duty. Jurors took less than two days to reach their verdicts.

Ramos, 39, was acquitted of second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter on Monday. Cicinelli, 41, was acquitted of involuntary manslaughter and excessive use of force.

Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckus, who tried the case himself, said after the verdicts that charges will be dropped against Joseph Wolfe, a third officer awaiting trial.

The FBI said that it will review the evidence to determine whether federal action is justified.

"With the conclusion of the state court trial, investigators will examine the evidence and testimony to determine whether further investigation is warranted at the federal level," said Laura Eimiller, the FBI's spokeswoman in Los Angeles.

Outside court, Thomas' parents condemned the verdicts.

"Just horrified," Cathy Thomas said. "He got away with murdering my son."

Ron Thomas said the verdict gave police "carte blanche" to brutalize people.

"All of us need to be very afraid now," he said. "Police officers everywhere can beat us, kill us, whatever they want, but it has been proven right here today they'll get away with it."

Ramos' attorney, John Barnett, said jurors did their duty.

"These peace officers were doing their jobs," he said. "They were operating as they were trained, and they had no malice in their hearts."

The defence said Thomas started the confrontation by refusing to heed police orders and was fighting officers so much that they called for backup multiple times. At one point, the lawyers said, Thomas tried to reach for Cicinelli's stun gun.

Ron Thomas has countered that his son suffered from schizophrenia and didn't understand the officers.

The video began with Ramos stopping Thomas on July 5, 2011, after the officer answered a call about a disheveled man jiggling the handles of car doors in a busy transit centre parking lot.

Ramos grew frustrated with Thomas, who wasn't following orders to sit on a curb with his hands on his knees.

Just before the altercation began, Ramos snapped on plastic gloves, made two fists and then held them in front of Thomas' face as he said, "Now see these fists? They're going to (expletive) you up."

Cicinelli, who arrived a few moments later, jolted Thomas several times with an electric stun gun and used the butt end to hit Thomas in the head and face, breaking bones.

Thomas was taken off life support five days later.

A county pathologist concluded that Thomas died, in part, from asphyxiation caused by injuries he received during the confrontation.

Defence attorneys said Thomas suffered from an enlarged heart from drug abuse, and his exertions during the struggle were too much for him.

Thomas' death led to days of protests in Fullerton, a Southern California college town, forced the recall of three City Council members and led the police chief to step down.

After the verdicts, Fullerton Police Chief Dan Hughes issued a statement urging people to express their feelings "respectfully."

Several dozen protesters gathered outside the courthouse after the verdict waving signs, and a similar size crowd gathered at the transit centre where the struggle occurred later Monday night, but both demonstrations were peaceful and there were no reported arrests. A memorial with flowers and candles was set up at the transit centre, and people wrote messages to Thomas in a guest book.

During the trial, the defence told jurors that Thomas was not a peaceful, helpless man. They said he had a history of drug use and was homeless because he had attacked members of his own family.

Cathy Thomas testified that he choked her for several minutes during an argument, and Thomas' grandfather said Thomas attacked him with a fireplace poker in 1995.

He did not have any drugs or alcohol in his system the night of the incident.

Only a handful of police officers nationwide have been charged with murder for actions taken while on duty, and convictions in those cases are rare, said Lawrence Rosenthal, a law professor at Chapman University School of Law and a former federal prosecutor.

Unless the prosecution can prove the officers falsified reports or covered up evidence, jurors are usually willing to acquit, he said.

"Police officers are very unusual kinds of defendants because ... they are seen as acting not in their own interests but acting to protect the public at large, the very people sitting on their jury," Rosenthal said.

Jurors are willing to forgive lapses in judgment rather than put an officer "in the cage with the same people that officer has spent his life arresting," he said.

_____

Associated Press writers Amy Taxin, Raquel Maria Dillon and Robert Jablon contributed to this report.

winnipegfreepress.com