Posted on 10/03/2014 2:33:43 PM PDT by NYer
the first one or the second one?
You just engaged in both!
That kind of "sweetness and light" is, in reality, nothing but bitterness and darkness. Bitterness, because it expects non-Catholics to swallow whatever the current magesterium thinks is the truth - regardless if there is Apostolic or Scriptural evidence or basis. And darkness, because, at the core, is an accursed gospel that denies grace and the role of faith in Christ's substitutionary sacrifice for our sins. Accepting this false gospel - that our works are necessary to our salvation - will lead to eternal darkness separated from God. Though Roman Catholicism is certainly not wrong about everything in the Christian faith, this one perversion of the gospel is serious enough that it can deceive a person into trusting in themselves instead of Jesus Christ for salvation.
Therefore, since through God’s mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ. (2 Corinthians 4:1-6)
I know that. The point was that the promise involves Mary in the context. Learn to read and comprehend the matter read.
The promise is, however, about the future, which is the point. Consider verse 16.
It is often the case that we read something in the scripture and not fully know the context; yet we obey the scripture as written, including admitting that if some detail is not provided then it is not necessary. The exact composition of “the scripture” is not given by St. Paul, but the qualification “known to thee since infancy” is given. Therefore, however imprecise the composition of the Septuagint was copy to copy (remember, they were not physically one object as modern books are), what was important to st. Paul is that the Septuagint is inspired in any of its configurations.
The issue of canon of the Old Testament did not concern the Church till about 3rd century. we see some fathers approve of the Deuterocanon and others disapprove. Prior to that, the Church was mostly concerned with the provenance and authenticity of the New Testament books. When the Church concerned herself with this issue, she worked out the canon by the early 5 c. The Council of Carthage is evidence that the matter was settled.
No it does not. First of all the "woman" is not Mary. It is Eve who Satan tempted and it is she who is being talked about. It also then switches to her "seed". Mary is no where in the narrative. The "new Eve" concept is totally a Catholic construct.
I have not impeached him by pointing out his confessional bias, -- I was in agreement with you that it is not enough to point out a confession or a political party to impeach an authority. But I also pointed out two facts:
1. The Catholic Encyclopedia says the same thing Beckwith says in the PDF link that you posted: the extant copies of the Septuagint are of Christian provenance. That is not a proof that the books themselves are written by Christians and not even a discovery by Beckwith. In fact, as I pointed out, it is hard to find a motive for such deception: while the books in question contain many occasional statements that prefigure Christ, their volume and historical thrust does not help a Christian apologist.
2. The references to the Deuterocanon are plentiful among pre-Nicaean fathers such as Sts. Justine Martyr, Hippolytus and Irenaeus, and to Origen. This makes Beckwith's hypothesis absurd on its face. Therefore it is incumbent of Beckwith to somehow deal with this fact. Yet the short article you posted bypasses this issue. Now, giving him a benefit of the doubt, it is possible that he addresses it in his book. But the fact that in the article he makes no such attempt makes me not interested to find out. The article looks like agitprop for the uneducated.
Genesis 3:15 speaks of the seed of the woman crushing the head of the serpent. That is Mary’s presence in the context. It is a good idea to read the Holy Bible every once in a while.
Not as far as the remembrance is concerned.
John 14:25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
He was addressing the apostles and was talking about what He had said to them while He had been with them.
Not so, St. Paul writes that "all scripture" known to St. Timothy "from his infancy" is inspired. Council of Carthage lists the Deuterocanonical books as canonical, too.
Regarding "temple Judaism" I meant it to refer to the period in Judaism before the killing of Christ and the destruction of the Second Temple foreseen by Him. Temple Judaism is not the same as rabbinical Judaism since then on. I did not make a claim that the temple worship was ever conducted in Greek; I am pretty sure it was not.
Regarding "set of questions", please make a precise reference and I'll try again.
If Jesus is “the seed” then Mary is “the woman”.
John 14:25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Jesus is also the seed of Eve as we all are.
See 1009
But Jesus speaks of the future when He will ascend to heaven He even makes the point that it is necessarily a future presence of the Paraclete in John 16:7. Note also that the Holy Spirit will not only remind of words spoken in the past, but also “shall teach all things”. The divine guidance of the Holy Church for all ages to come is promised in this sermon.
LOL. Women ordinarily don’t have “seed”, — their fathers do, and what would the point be to make a universal reference to how men are born into a reference to specifically Jesus Who was NOT born of a man’s seed, Who has a specific mother, to whom several chapters of the Gospels are dedicated?
Devine guidence is given individuals who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Never an institution. It’s the ekklesia (assembly) of those believers who are the “pillar and upholder” of truth. Never an organization.
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.