Posted on 01/02/2010 3:32:55 PM PST by NYer
Matthew 1 is outside of your Scripture?
Matthew 1: 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 11 "Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means "God is with us." 24 When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home. 25 He had no relations with her until she bore a son, 12 and he named him Jesus.
That we call such things “surrogate parents”.
Legally, a surrogate mother has mother’s rights until a valid adoption has taken place. A child may have as many as 5 parents, even before you get into such things as gene splicing or gay/lesbian adoptions. The max number will increase as technology is further developed.
egg donor (biological mother)
sperm donor (biological father)
birth donor (gestational mother)
adoptive mother (legal mother)
adoptive father (legal father)
** If one does not believe in the Hypostatic Union, then one does not believe that Jesus Christ is true God and true man. End of story.**
THANK YOU ... this thread is reading like a Darwin Discussion at the DAILY KOS or DHUMMIES UNDERGROUND
Matthew 1:22 refers to Isaiah, which originally refered to the birth of King Hezikiah.
If you get a good old testament translation you can get a sense that the author of matthew overreached just a tad.
</heresy alert>
Are there more where you come from? Do you have Scripture to support these rather novel statements?
He doth protest too much.
You got me. I don’t believe.
Christ did not have a human nature before His human birth. At that time "the Word became flesh." God, as the second person of the Trinity, became man. God acquired the attributes of the man He became. Christ's body is God's body. Christ's words are God's words. Christ's manger is God's manger. And Chist's mother is the Mother of God.
Are you saying that the Apostles took 400 years to die? Nice conspiracy that you've got going there. Any proofs?
The Church long claimed divine authority based on the its subservience to the Whore of Babylon.
Church subservient to the Roman Empire - check, Whore of Babylon - check. Got some momentum there, chief. What's next?
Faith bump.
We are not calling this through current 20th century United States legality. Would the people of Jesus’ time see a child emerge from a woman’s womb and consider her the mother?
Heresy alert indeed. But the NT translation stands. It stands in Greek and in Church Slavonic. If one thinks that Matthew overreached, then who is to say that the whole business is not overreached?
The old testament selection was performed by the council of Rabbis after the Christians did their selection of authoritive books of the New Testament. The Catholic Church had some theological things that they could not justify in the rabbinically selected old testament, and so added what are known as the apocrapha. Tobit, Maccabees, ect. Various branches of Protestantism rejected the revisions of the Catholic church. The Septugent (LXX) greek version of the old testament has passages not written in the Hebrew texts, and so rejected by the Council of Rabbis (most famously the Susannah, Bel and Dragon narratives in Daniel, but many others) I like the New American translation because it brings out some of the alternatives (Freer logion in Mark) which give some variation of how much variation was available in the early church. The lost ‘Gospel of Peter’ has been recovered, and is available at your barnes and noble.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
who indeed! Well, I would, for one.
There are two ways to be a Jew: One is to convert, the other is to be born to a Jewish mother. No doubt that was plenty of evidence, but we keep in mind the scritural narratives that there were reportedly few people available in the Cave/Stable to witness the birth. The authors of Mark and John didn’t seem to think it mattered enough for them to mention.
And your opinion is yours to have and hold. :)
We DO know that the NT Scripture was edited and changed probably on purpose, in order to harmonize it better. And we know that, for instance Hebrews was NOT written by Paul and 2 Peter (and possibly 1 Peter) was not written by Peter either. We hold that the message of the Church is the message of Jesus; the Faith was taught and written in icons long before any written version of NT books were written.
:-)
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.