Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
It's impossible to reconciled the sugary-sweet Christ surrounded by children and lambs we see today with the same God who rained fire or flooded the world on a disobedient people as described in the Old Testament.
God encompasses all of these things (even that which is mischaracterized as sugary-sweetness).
He is fierce ... and He is tender.
He is the Lion of Judah ... and the Lamb which takes away the sins of the world.
He does call children unto Him ... and speaks of Himself as being meek and lowly.Mark 10:13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.
14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
16 And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.
-------------------------------------------------------
Matthew 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
"Son of God" was, to the 1st Century Jews, simply a title for the Messiah derived from 2 Sa. 7:14 and Psalm 2
Messiah in Hebrew is mashiyach, not literally Son of God. The Jews would tell you such a literal interpretation is heresy. Mashiyach, in Judaism, is no god. He is human, literal, earthly savior of (earthly) Israel, and the (earthly) king of Israel, anointend by God (in fact all Israel's kings were anointend by God).
For example, when Kefa (Peter) made his confession of faith in Mat. 16 and called Yeshua "the Messiah, the Son of God," he was not suddenly endowed with full knowledge of the Trinity
That's what was so different from the usual Hebraic interpretation, Buggman, and why Christ comments "for flesh and blood hath not revealed it [this truth] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." (Mat 16:17)
The Jews did not connect the word mashiyach with divinity but only with humanity. The Gospels, however, to the contrary, point to the full divinity of mashiyach.
That is made obvious in Angel Gabriel's words, who is a messenger of God in Luke 1:35, and in the words of St. Peter in Mat 16:16, who was moved by the Holy Spirit to recognize that which was not obvious.
FK, there is no God the man. There is God the Word, whose divine nature united with Mary's human nature.
True, but the announcement in Luke 1 does not explain that. Mary had no reason to presume any other manner of conception but the natural conception of Joseph in the course of her marriage, based on Luke 1:26-34.
So, you are saying that as Elisabeth recognized in Mary the authority of the Queen Mother, she erred?
Mary says "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" In other words... Angel, how can this happen? I'm a virgin!
This is illogical. If Mary becomes aware of the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 applying to her, she would not consider her virginity an obstacle to its fulfillment, as she does in Luke 1:34. The natural reaction of one making the presumption that the prophecy applies to her would be "how can this be because I am engaged to be married?". Besides, the Gospel only says that Mary was "troubled" by the salutation; it does not go on to say that she presumed the connection to the Isaiah's prophecy.
I understand the terms and reductionism.
Thank You. Happy Advent to you also and a Merry Christmas!
The analogy may fit the picture in your mind, but it doesn't fit what I wrote.
Yes, but you can't ignore all the other known facts to come to a conclusion that contradicts what would otherwise be concluded.
Amen, their story is our story and the two pillars are the Word and the Lord
*sigh* Seeing as you are responding to exactly one-half of my posts and completely ignoring the other half, I'm moving on. Have a nice day.
Your Catholicism keeps you from seeing the logic of what would have been a quite natural reaction from a young Jewish woman in Israel in the last century BC.
The Bible NOWHERE says that Mary had pledged herself to be a perpetual virgin. That is Catholic Tradition - which is sometimes out and out WRONG.
Is that correct or not? Did you say the Trinity has not always existed?
*I post this in response to your unwarranted assertion. I understand you will reject this expert - even though he is a published protestant professor, Gerhard Kittel, who published a ten volume theological dictionary...in his analysis of Matt 16:18, he says...
The obvious pun which has made its was into the GK, text as well suggests a material identity between petra and Petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of two words. On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and Petros: petra=kepha=Petros..If, then, Mt 16:18 forces us to assume a formal and material identity between petra and Petros, this shows how fully the apostolate, and in it to a special degree the position of Peter, belongs to and is essentially enclosed within, the revelation of Christ, Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession....In a way which transcends the Rabb. view of Abraham, Peter is brought into this picture of Abraham as the cosmic rock. He takes the place of Abraham, but he does so as the foundation of Israel kata pneuma, the community of the new covenant which Christ builds on the rock Peter.
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol 6. (Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 1968)
*You are WAY behind the learning curve most protestants experts are on.
Please google Jesus, Peter, & The Keys where all the evidence - PLENTY from prots - is assembled, and buy and read the book
God always existed. In as much as the incarnation goes, that is what the Trinity is all about. In fact no one would have even thought of the concept "trinity" except for the fact of the incarnation.
Note the Jews never distinguished between the Father and Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was just the spirit of God. They were one and were never distinguished as 2 persons.
The incarnation occurred in time. Although time elsewhere doesn't correspond to time in this world, time is a measure of the persistence of existence. It makes no sense to me, that God decided infinitely long ago, to create man and incarnate. So even though God never changed, He still does things in time. He didn't decide infinitely long ago, to do an infinite number of things. That makes no sense at all.
So yes the Trinity did have a beginning as per above. That does not change God however. It simply means He had done something new. It does not mean He changed, anymore than I would if I started selling fasteners. It's simply a new experience; I wouldn't be a new spunkets.
Unlike yourself, I can actually disagree with the preiminent theologians of my faith. I have the necessary theological credentials to do so, but even if I did not I have been a Christian for 30 years now and have studied Scripture since I was a child. I understand context. I have a full understanding of the text. I am a teacher myself. Kittel has an opinion (and I was well aware of who he was before you felt the need to tell me). His opinion is countered by other well-credentialed theologians. Note, Other than going to a Lexicon, I do not scour the internet for support for my position. My position comes from Scripture itself. Your position comes from tradition, with Scripture as a side note IF you can twist it to fit your view. Otherwise, You quote some MAN to me and call it definitive proof. Sorry, I don't accept your "expert" opinions. I have the Holy Spirit dwelling within me and have made it a life-long effort to understand the Word of God. I may not have it right on 100% of what is in Scripture, but I am confident that I am right on the essentials. Why? Because the Holy Spirit testifies to my Spirit that I belong to Him.
I highlight God's wrath and judgment to our Orthodox and Catholics friends because they do not believe in the blood atonement of Christ. I also highlight it to many Protestants who are stuck in this mental concept of a God who loves everyone and is ready to shower us with gifts like some cosmic Santa. A careful reading of the Old Testament does not portray God like this at all. And the God of the Old Testament is the same as the one of the New.
Unless a person understand God's election and His drawing out of His people, the Old Testament will remain a bunch of moralistic stories.
2. And those who say
1. "there once was when he was not", and "before he was begotten he was not", and that
2. he came to be from things that were not, or from another hypostasis [Gr. hypostaseos] or substance [Gr. ousias, Lat. substantia], affirming that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration these the catholic and apostolic church anathematises.
*As I understand you, you do not agree with the Faith held/taught at Nicaea. Is that correct?
Your Protestantism keeps you from seeing ....
Ad hominems are a dime a dozen. The fundamental problem is that 'sola scriptura' is not taught in Scripture, and yet you see everything through the lens of 'sola scriptura'.
-A8
Every heretic claims that. How you do you know that you're not one of them?
-A8
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.