Posted on 01/11/2005 6:18:33 PM PST by malakhi
| Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. |
After a nine month hiatus, The Neverending Story, the granddaddy of daily threads, has returned to Free Republic. Originally begun on March 24, 2001, as a religious discussion thread, the NES evolved over time into a daily thread spanning a wide variety of topics. The new and improved Neverending Story will feature conversation on religion, politics, culture, current events, business, sports, family, hobbies, general fellowship and more. We welcome you to hang your hat in our little corner of FR. We ask you to abide by the FR posting rules and, even in the midst of serious debate, to keep the discussion friendly and respectful. Those who wish to "duke it out" are asked to take it over to the Smoky Backroom. I placed this thread in "General/Chat" for a reason, so play nice and have fun! :o)
I'm taking the question that the virgin birth was not prophesied.
I can not, even hypotheticlly imagine what my faith would be if it was prosphesied but not fulfilled.
The NT bible was written so that people could believe and become Christian. All events put together is WHY we believe. The OT has to be true because of the NT, the NT has to be true because of the OT:) Does that make sense?
Becky
Oh ok. I didn't realize you were just focusing on the "OT" part of it. From your perspective it wouldn't matter cuz whether or not its in the OT it would still be in the NT. Gotcha. :-)
In a prior post I quoted, but did not attribute, the Christian spin on the word "Almah". Strongs on "Almah"
Oh, boy. They started without us. And look; it's in "General/Chat" now.
Not to worry. If Dave wears the Brown Scapular Mary has promised him he'll be ok.
"Whosoever dies wearing this Scapular shall not suffer eternal fire."
And....the RCC has accepted the Miracle at Fatima.
It's just like the football gods have declared that anyone who puts on a Steeler uniform is going to be victorious. The uniform is a symbol of the level of excellence acheived by the individual players. They could put Myron Cope in a Steeler uniform, but it won't make him a good football player.
SD
We're slipping. Should of had your back on those Mary pings. :-)
There is no mention of "Joseph's children" Mary later became his "wife". It would be natural to assume she was but if not it makes no difference .
Not only did they discard the Gospel Of Mary (The Apostle to the Apostles), for many years they taught that she was a prostitute. (One of the few changes in Catholic teaching over the years. :-)
That would be an interesting argument if there were a copy of the Septuagint that used "like a lion" - there isn't. There ARE, however, MT manuscripts that are NOT consistent with the "like a lion" argument (though it now opens up whether the correct translation is "dug" or "pierced" - it is not "like a lion").
It's really a pretty simple argument... One of three things happened:
1) A weird coincidence that ends up causing unnecessary strife.
2) The Jews changed Scripture to support a theological position.
3) The Christians changed Scripture to support a theological position.
#3 is by far the least likely - since it requires Christianity to not only be false... but to have been planned a hundred or more years prior to the "time of Christ" in anticipation of the argument... and change it under the noses of the rest of the Jews.
All that would be necessary to disprove this is to show a manuscript that predates the need for the change that shows "like a lion". There is none. (Oh, and it would be nice to come up with SOME explanation for the grammar as well - but that's secondary).
Protestants as well. I'd always been under the impression back in the day that Mary Magdalene was a hooker.
Can you supply a usage of the word (in or out of the OT) where it clearly did NOT mean "virgin"?
Becky
In some small way we are in agreement.
I'm a very inclusive guy. :)
What do you know today Reggie? :)
BigMack
Just to be clear, so I"M not put n the camp of a biblical unitairin:) it's a VERY small way that we are in agreement:)
Becky
I'll answer that for him. He knows that IMRight is a very inclusive guy. :-)
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.