Posted on 05/29/2019 12:37:41 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
But if you believe it, it would sure get you off of the Internet.
True. If it were, there would be no Acts 16.
One of was wait for it...…
EXCESSIVE BLOGGING
Yeah, sometimes you realize the other guy has nothing so why continue to waste time.
Commentaries are also nice:
John 1:14
14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.
AUGUSTINE. (Tr. ii. 15) Having said, Born of God; to prevent surprise and trepidation at so great, so apparently incredible a grace, as that men should be born of God; to assure us, he says, And the Word was made flesh. Why marvellest thou then that men are born of God? Know that God Himself was born of man.
CHRYSOSTOM. (Hom. xi. [x.] 1) Or thus, After saying that they were born of God, who received Him, he sets forth the cause of this honour, viz. the Word being made flesh, God’s own Son was made the son of man, that he might make the sons of men the sons of God. Now when thou hearest that the Word was made flesh, be not disturbed, for He did not change His substance into flesh, which it were indeed impious to suppose; but remaining what He was, took upon Him the form of a servant. But as there are some who say, that the whole of the incarnation was only in appearance, to refute such a blasphemy, he used the expression, was made, meaning to represent not a conversion of substance, but an assumption of real flesh. But if they say, God is omnipotent; why then could He not be changed into flesh? we reply, that a change from an unchangeable nature is a contradiction.
AUGUSTINE. (de Trin. xv. c. 20. [xi.]) As our wordq becomes the bodily voice, by its assumption of that voice, as a means of developing itself externally; so the Word of God was made flesh, by assuming flesh, as a means of manifesting Itself to the world. And as our word is made voice, yet is not turned into voice; so the Word of God was made flesh, but never turned into flesh. It is by assuming another nature, not by consuming themselves in it, that our word is made voice, and the Word, flesh.
THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS. (P. iii. Hom. Theod. Ancyr. de Nat. Dom.) The discourse which we utter, which we use in conversation with each other, is incorporeal, imperceptible, impalpable; but clothed in letters and characters, it becomes material, perceptible, tangible. So too the Word of God, which was naturally invisible, becomes visible, and that comes before us in tangible form, which was by nature incorporeal.
ALCUIN. (in Joan. 1:1.) When we think how the incorporeal soul is joined to the body, so as that of two is made one man, we too shall the more easily receive the notion of the incorporeal Divine substance being joined to the soul in the body, in unity of person; so as that the Word is not turned into flesh, nor the flesh into the Word; just as the soul is not turned into body, nor the body into soul.
THEOPHYLACT. (in loc.) Apollinarius of Laodicea raised a heresy upon this text; saying, that Christ had flesh only, not a rational soul; in the place of which His divinity directed and controlled His body.
AUGUSTINE. (con. Serm. Arian. c. 7. [9.]) If men are disturbed however by its being said that the Word was made flesh, without mention of a soul; let them know that the flesh is put for the whole man, the part for the whole, by a figure of speech; as in the Psalms, Unto thee shall all flesh come; (Ps. 65:2) and again in Romans, By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified. (Rom. 3:20) In the same sense it is said here that the Word was made flesh; meaning that the Word was made man.
THEOPHYLACT. (in loc.) The Evangelist intends by making mention of the flesh, to shew the unspeakable condescension of God, and lead us to admire His compassion, in assuming for our salvation, what was so opposite and incongenial to His nature, as the flesh: for the soul has some propinquity to God. If the Word, however, was made flesh, and assumed not at the same time a human soul, our souls, it would follow, would not be yet restored: for what He did not assume, He could not sanctify. What a mockery then, when the soul first sinned, to assume and sanctify the flesh only, leaving the weakest part untouched! This text overthrows Nestorius, who asserted that it was not the very Word, even God, Who the Self-same was made man, being conceived of the sacred blood of the Virgin: but that the Virgin brought forth a man endowed with every kind of virtue, and that the Word of God was united to him: thus making out two sons, one born of the Virgin, i. e. man, the other born of God, that is, the Son of God, united to that man by grace, and relation, and lover. In opposition to him the Evangelist declares, that the very Word was made Man, not that the Word fixing upon a righteous man united Himself to him.
CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA. (ad Nes. Ep. 8) The Word uniting to Himself a body of flesh animated with a rational soul, substantially, was ineffably and incomprehensibly made Man, and called the Son of man, and that not according to the will only, or good-pleasure, nor again by the assumption of the Person alone. The natures are different indeed which are brought into true union, but He Who is of both, Christ the Son, is One; the difference of the natures, on the other hand, not being destroyed in consequence of this coalition.
THEOPHYLACT. (in v. 14) From the text, The Word was made flesh, we learn this farther, that the Word Itself is man, and being the Son of God was made the Son of a woman, who is rightly called the Mother of God, as having given birth to God in the flesh.
HILARY. (x. de Trin. c. 21, 22) Some, however, who think God the Only-Begotten, God the Word, Who was in the beginning with God, not to be God substantially, but a Word sent forth, the Son being to God the Father, what a word is to one who utters it, these men, in order to disprove that the Word, being substantially God, and abiding in the form of God, was born the Man Christ, argue subtilly, that, whereas that Man (they say) derived His life rather from human origin than from the mystery of a spiritual conception, God the Word did not make Himself Man of the womb of the Virgin; but that the Word of God was in Jesus, as the spirit of prophecy in the Prophets. And they are accustomed to charge us with holding, that Christ was born a Man, notr of our body and soul; whereas we preach the Word made flesh, and after our likeness born Man, so that He Who is truly Son of God, was truly born Son of man; and that, as by His own act He took upon Him a body of the Virgin, so of Himself He took a soul also, which in no case is derived from man by mere parental origin. And seeing He, The Self-same, is the Son of man, how absurd were it, besides the Son of God, Who is the Word, to make Him another person besides, a sort of prophet, inspired by the Word of God; whereas our Lord Jesus Christ is both the Son of God, and the Son of man.
CHRYSOSTOM. (Hom. in Joan. xi. [x.] 2) Lest from it being said, however, that the Word was made flesh, you should infer improperly a change of His incorruptible nature, he subjoins, And dwelt among us. For that which inhabits is not the same, but different from the habitation: different, I say, in nature; though as to union and conjunction, God the Word and the flesh are one, without confusion or extinction of substance.
ALCUIN. Or, dwelt among us, means, lived amongst men.
However, those are not the dogmatic statements of chapter/verse as requested.
As requested? Did you fill out the form? Did you provide an example? Did you pay the fee?
Sounds like a religion designed to empower the priesthood and their bosses ...
Talk about stupid! It is right in character though, to completely miss the point. And you’re a teacher in catholiciism? MERCY!
As for the proper interpretation of the verse:
The "pillar" and "ground" of the truth --- the structure that upholds God's truth on earth --- is the Church of God.
Tagline.
I hope in God for your well-being and redemption. In His hands, we are in good hands.
I was glad to see him use some Greek words; but there is more to bring out of this passage than just defining a couple of terms.
But hey, it's more Greek than I see from the vast majority of Roman Catholics.
Boy oh boy, as the Quakers say, that “speaks to my condition.”
‘Good hands’ but not sufficiently strong —according to catholiciism teaching— to keep you unto the day of redemption, the great departure, so your religion has a long list of ‘things’ necessary to do what your religion appears to believe God cannot accomplish. Such a phony religionist to cite the Hands of God which Hold The Born from Above yet deny the power thereof. IMS Paul wrote about that denying the power thereof ... but Catholic pride will not allow the Catholic mind to go there.
"Things necessary for us to do" which we apparently "believe God cannot accomplish.
Two out of two wrong. That's a 200% error.
Please do not tell me what *I* believe as a Catholic. Your track record on that manifests a high likelihood of misstatement and error.
Please focus on telling us what *you* believe. It would be interesting; and your writing would then be much better informed.
May God grant you the greatest blessings.
EVERY assembly is responsible to do this.
Unfortunately, Rome doesn't teach the full scriptures, but a select portion that they hit over and over and over.
Candidly, FRomans sugar coat everything.
There is immense value in the truth being reflected back to FRomans from outside eyes that know the Scriptures.
For instance, Rome fails to teach the Gospel of Grace, condemning millions to a Christ-less eternity.
My brother, the Catholic Church agrees with you here.
"Unfortunately, Rome doesn't teach the full scriptures,"
False. And the Catholic Church teaches: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
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.