Posted on 04/09/2008 12:36:13 PM PDT by annalex
Regarding the Trinity:
The three elements are certainly declared, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and thematically they are known to work together and be of one mind, so a Triune Godhead defined as three individuals, with Jehovah as God, but Jesus and the Ghost as 'lessers', is easy to determine.
But the actual Trinity is a bit harder to find:
It is the Holy Spirit that overshadows Mary, Yet Jehovah calls Jesus His Son, so the linkage between Jehovah and the Hoy Ghost is made right there. In Genesis, it is the Holy Spirit who is employed by Jehovah in the making of the Earth, while in the New Testament it is Jesus who was used to do the same- So linkage from the Holy Ghost to Jesus is made there.
Jehovah obviously declares Himself God, and Jesus declares Himself God, as do the Apostles (declare Him God). So the Father and the Son are One, and with the afore mentioned linkages, the Holy Ghost must be One with them, ergo Trinity.
It is a bit convoluted, I admit, but that is mostly because the Spirit does not have a voice to declare Himself within the Scripture.
Regarding the Hypostatic Union:
The Hypostatic Union is a no-brainer, as Jesus is declared as divine (Son of God), and declared as human (Son of Man). While the concept may be hard to comprehend, the declarations stand as explicit, so both must be true. That He is called by both before and after resurrection suggests the same condition existed throughout.
But that makes no sense [even if we assume that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew] because if the translators believed that they were "cousins", then they would have used the word for "cousins" there which is the word "suggenes", not the word for "brothers".
And when Bishop Challoner wrote his translation he would have used the word "cousins" there, but he didn't. Instead he used the word "brothers". Was he wrong???
He also says this..
St. Athanasius says this about the Deuterocanonicals:
But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read... Athanasius the Great: Part of Festal Letter 39 (c. 367 A.D.)[2]
This is from Michael Marlowe- the the guy who runs the website that you cherrypicked from Michael Marlowe
“”Theologically I am conservative and Reformed. I consider the Westminster Confession of Faith to be an accurate summary of Biblical theology.””
The Westminster Confession is hardly an accurate summery of Christian theology of the early Church
The writers of the Old Testament used “brother” for all manner of male relationships, as I listed, and the translators used the Greek word directly.
The writers of the New Testament emulated the Septuagint, using the Greek for “brother” for all the various relationships.
Bishop Calloner used the Latin for “brother” where it appeared as such in Greek.
Concerning Psalm 68; were you the person who told me you thought Douay-Rheims was the most accurate translation?
In any event the Douay Rheims into Psalm 68 is "Salvum me fac, Deus. Christ in his passion declareth the greatness of his sufferings, and the malice of his persecutors the Jews; and foretelleth their reprobation.
Clearly DR says Psalm 68 concerns Jesus.
Read Psalm 68:9 and tell me how you can come to any other conclusion that His mother had other children.
Either that or reject Douay-Rheims as a reliable Bible.
AMEN!
I’ll ask again. If Psalm 68 is literal, when was Christ’s Poseidon Adventure? (Psalms 68:3)
The KJV translates it "cousins" in Luke. Bishop Challoner translates it "kinsfolk". Maybe he figured that they were all from southern Israel and got together regularly for fried chicken and grits.
I know. Those arguments have been made before. I find them to be insufficient.
There is one Redeemer.
There is one Priest/Intercessor.
Jesus Christ is His Name.
Unlike some of your friends I provide a link to the sites I "cherrypick" and make no pretense the words are mine.
These are my words:
Athanasius listed 22 books in the Old Testament as canonical.
No they didn't. Every place "brother [and sister]" is used in the New Testament it refers to those related by blood, or as the word "adelphos" literally means "from the womb".
The term was used by Christians because they were related by the blood of the New Testament. It was that blood which Jesus shed on the cross for the forgiveness of their sins that they all held in common and united them.
And -- all Christian brothers and sisters have the same mother as Paul writes:
"But Jerusalem which is above is free, and is the mother of us all." [Galatians 4:26]
“I read Childhoods End. Does that count?
What is your take on crop circles - the real ones,not the hoaxes?”
The whole UFO nonsense is nonsense. What is posted belongs to the realm of another poster’s theology.
When ridicule of the Catholic faith is offered to the egregious degree that it is at every turn, it is appropriate to show the opposing argument.
I think that is fair. Being called “magicsterials” worshipping the magical earth mommy does call for a rejoinder.
If one is going to describe the faith as myth, I think the offender’s myths need to posted for all to judge.
That’s all I am going to say. If you think the UFO’s are childish, take it up with him. He can explain it.
I find them completely unscriptural. Have good evening.
If you can stand it, read here:
http://www.remnantofgod.org/godmary.htm
here: http://www.abcog.org/mary4.htmv
here http://biblelight.net/worship_of_the_virgin_mary.htm
For evidence of Mary worship.
I admit to err regarding my 2nd point. The actual wording should have been “She was born by Immaculate Conception. A lie.”
The other things that you demand proof of, ‘tis a pity you think them true when there’s not a shred of Scripture for any one of them. If there is, prove it.
One more time, s l o w l y: Jesus’ mother was Mary. God has no mother. Jesus consented to His Earthly parents for a few years and then revealed to them what they had been told before His birth. Jesus is God become man. God has no mother.
Read Psalm 68:9 and tell me how you can come to any other conclusion that His mother had other children.
Either that or reject Douay-Rheims as a reliable Bible.
First, Challoner comments are not scripture, so it is not a question of translation. The Psalms are written by King David; they typify Christ without being literal description of Jesus and His family. Indeed, the part about giving vinegar to drink foretells the Passion; we should not conclude that it also foretells the supposed alienation of Jesus from His brothers, literal or figurative. The passage that includes the reference to the brothers begins by an acknowledgment of sins of the sufferer -- would you also use that as a prooftext of sinfullness of Christ?
I can help you out: the scripture does mention Mary's other children directly:
17 And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.(Apoc 12)
This is consistent with John 19:26-27, but clearly in either case the relationship is that of adoption.
Nestorian heresy.
Not true.
Nonsense,Dear Brother
Here is a whole page courtesy of http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html#St.%20Athanasius%20[295-373%20A.D.]
That lists Blessed Athanasius quoting from the deuts as inspired
excerpts
Here is another Deuterocanonical part of Daniel not contained in the Protestant Bible.
“But if this too fails to persuade them, let them tell us themselves, whether there is any wisdom in the creatures or not? If not how is it that the Apostle complains, ‘For after that in the Wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God?’ [1 Cor 1:21] or how is it if there is no wisdom, that a ‘multitude of wise men’ [Wisdom 6:24] are found in Scripture? for ‘a wise man feareth and departeth from evil;’ [Prov 14:16] and ‘through wisdom is a house builded;’ [Prov 24] and the Preacher says, ‘A man's wisdom maketh his face to shine;’ and he blames those who are headstrong thus, ‘Say not thou, what is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not inquire in wisdom concerning this.’ [Eccl 8:1,7:10] But if, as the Son of Sirach says, ‘He poured her out upon all His works; she is with all flesh according to His gift, and He hath given her to them that love Him,’[Sirach 1:8,9]” [7] Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 2:79 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:391
Here he quotes Wisdom and Sirach along with other Scriptural books. The reference to Wisdom is termed ‘Scripture’. In the same breath that he quotes from Ecclesiastes that the Preacher ‘says’, He says that the Son of Sirach ‘says’. He can refer to them in one breath as ‘non-canonical’ while still quoting them as Scripture.
“syggenes” etymologically is syn+genos = same family.
What a perfect example of “the Game.”
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.