Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
The Reformers "threw out the past?" That's ludicrous.
It was Luther who returned the church to justification by faith in Christ alone and Calvin who returned the church to wedding the Holy Spirit intrinsically to Scripture.
In Christ the Holy Spirit is always conjoined to the Word, for "there is a permanent relation between faith and the Word." -- John Calvin 3.2.6.
These were steps back to the faith of Christ and the Apostles. Nothing new. And they were a lot more than simple disgust at indulgences and ornate cathedrals.
"...The Reformation was the greatest religious movement for Christ since the early church. It was a revival of Biblical and New Testament theology...."
"Gen. 3:15.
LOL.
I do n't see anything about Jesus there."
Nor do I. At least not in the Septuagint.
That is such a brilliant analysis of Saint Joseph's status!!!
Now to figure out some system of notes to myself so I'll know where to look next time....
That's what the Hebrew says as well. "He [masculine] will bruise you on the head . . . "
-A8
"And as for using the masculine áäåëöïò for brothers and sisters, well, we all say Ôïí äé'çìáò ôïõò áíèñùðïõò (Who for us men) in the Creed but we mean all humans."
That's the point. In the passage the word is used twice, once for brothers and once for sisters. If it meant cousin it would only have been used once for both sexes.
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed, you shall watch* [thrhsei, from threw, to watch, guard]] against your head, and you shalt watch against his heel."
The KJV reads:
"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel."
*This "discrepancy" "watch-bruise" in words is very common when LXX is directly compared to other OT versions, as the Hebrew bible contains the word "shoof," to bruise, crush, etc.
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed, you shall watch* [thrhsei, from threw, to watch, guard]] against your head, and you shalt watch against his heel."
The KJV reads:
"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel."
*This "discrepancy" "watch-bruise" in words is very common when LXX is directly compared to other OT versions, as the Hebrew bible contains the word "shoof," to bruise, crush, etc.
"That's what the Hebrew says as well. "He [masculine] will bruise you on the head . . . "
Then who does "he" as in "he will bruise..." refer to?
The LXX says "you" not "he."
If the Child Jesus were born in the "normal" way, why would Isaiah think that qualified as a miracle possible only to God? (See Isaiah 7:14)
LOL!!!
Thank you for participating in the thread. :-)
Did the movie also misrepresent the Catholic Church's teachings on how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?
Snicker
Well, the Incarnation was certainly not the "usual" way of conception. Why would the Birth be?
I was referring to St. John of Damascus who says (Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith) that Christ "passed through" the Virgin Mary, "keeping her womb closed," coming through this "Gate" without injuring "her seal."
In other words, He passed though the unopened canal the way He entered the room without opening the door. The movie subject of this thread shows Mary in labor pains.
Maybe you missed the preceding discussions. Some of them hinted as a carnal (natural) conception with the divine "seed," as much as the movie suggests natural birth. Christ was neither "conceived" nor born the "natural way." Both are miracles and paradoxes.
-A8
I stand by Kolokotronis' 681. You go by vernacular meaning and studiously avoid the original usage.
The listing of the name is the broad context that you miss. Mark gives a part of that list as children of Mary Cleopas.
The fact that "adelphos" was used to indicate spiritual kinship in absence of blood relation is alone a good reason not not replace it with the specific designation like xanadelphos or syggenos when applied to disciples who are also blood relatives.
And, where is your literalism when it comes to James 2?
I think your point is best made with Matt 1:25, and did not know her till she brought forth her son -- the first-born, and he called his name Jesus. It makes no sense that Mary became infertile.
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.