Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save
?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live
There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ
Jesus own words.
Both are true. In Christ God’s justice was accomplished in that His righteous threat that “the soul that sins, it shall die” was carried out and God’s mercy was accomplished in that the Seed of the woman crushed the serpent’s head for us all that we might live and not die. God never lies, nor does His Word. Nor does He ever contradict Himself.
Is God’s mercy greater than His wrath? OBVIOUSLY!!! Read John 3:16 a thousand times, and then get back to me.
But one does not affirm His mercy toward sinners by denying His wrath toward sin. No, by that one only sows confusion and doubt, one only sets the wisdom of man against the wisdom of God, who alone is wise in things eternal.
stfassisi wrote:
“I believe it was an act of love form God who did not owe us anything and your view seems to be that Christ had to be crucified because we are owed Salvation.”
Great, so do I, as I have said over and over and over and over again! There is no Christian, nor ever has there been, who doesn’t believe that Christ’s vicarious atonement was an act of God’s love that is beyond our comprehension.
Where do you get “because we are owed salvation,” from anything I wrote? I will say openly that I find that remark offensive. But I will not call it what it is, because the rules of FR preclude me doing so on an open forum. But you know very well what it is!
“Of course, since THE Septuagint is a fraud it is doubly fraudulent. Shame on them.”
What?
No smiley so I'll assume you are serious. My tongue in cheek comment was only partially serious.
A claim that the fradulent Septuagint was copied into a version which agreed with the Hebrew must be doubly fraudulent:
1. The Septuagint is a fraud.
2. To copy a fraud is similar to forgery of a forgery.
Get it? :-)
no.
Luke 4:15-22 (New King James Version)
15 And He taught in their synagogues, being glorified by all. 16 So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. 17 And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written: 18 “ The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed; 19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD.” 20 Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. 21 And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” 22 So all bore witness to Him, and marveled at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth. And they said, “Is this not Joseph’s son?”
Er.....would it be simply "LXX", referred to in critical works by the abbreviation, is the Koine Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, translated in stages between the 3rd and 2nd century?
My bishops would know better. None of the Slavonic Churches approved this version.
Then produce a version that they would approve. You have had 2100 years. Whatever are they doing? When exactly can we expect a Slavonic version.
You know, and I mean this kindly, but if there are people like you who are scholars in critiquing different versions of scriptures, surely it wouldn't be hard to write a corrected version now would it?
I believe their prelates were duped into endorsing without even seeing this "bible."
Wait a minute Kosta. That is the typical, tired argument we get from the Catholics. If they were "duped" into endorsing this bible, then what other doctrine were the "duped" into? You could take just about everything single document in the Orthodox church and start picking it apart.
And if the Slavonic church doesn't agree with the Greek Orthodox in America, then who is right? Orthodoxy sounds like a rudderless ship, each group left to do what they think is best.
Okay, I'll bite. SFA quotes Wisdom, which is not considered as part of the OT canon (according to Jews AND non-Catholics). This is a spectacular reason why and one of many whereby we know it is not from God. Can you find another comparable scripture - not deuterocanonical - that says what Wisdom does? Belteshazzar is correct in that God remains unchangeable yet still expresses hate for certain things. I do not see any contradiction in that.
1: an act of offering to a deity something precious; especially : the killing of a victim on an altar
2: something offered in sacrifice
3a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else b : something given up or lost
Victim
1: a living being sacrificed to a deity or in the performance of a religious rite
2: one that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent : as
a (1) : one that is injured, destroyed, or sacrificed under any of various conditions (2) : one that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment
b : one that is tricked or duped
Christ was not a victim. Christ free gave himself as a sacrifice. None of the interpretations agree with the term "victim". Nor does Church history concur that Christ was a victim in context. (Not to mention the said passage was added as commentary.) While you might think that Greek is such a pure language, when translating into English there are nuances to terms.
Even the American Greek Orthodox versions uses the word "sacrifice". ;O)
Joh 18:6 When Jesus said to them, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground.
they went backward, and fell to the ground; they were confounded, surprised, and intimidated, and seemed as if they would have chose rather to have fled from him, than to have apprehended him; and as they retired and went backward, they fainted away, as it were, either at the majesty of his looks, or at the power of his words, or both, so that they became like ad men, falling to the ground. Sometimes the majesty of a man's person, or his fame for some remarkable things done by him, or the innocence and uprightness of his cause, have had such an influence upon his enemies, that they have not been able to execute upon him what they intended. It is reported of Caius Maxius that being reduced to the utmost misery, and shut up in a private house at Minturnae, (a town in Italy,) an executioner was sent to kill him; and though he was an old man, and unarmed, and in the most miserable condition, yet the executioner having drawn his sword, could not attempt to use it; but, as the historian (y) says, being struck with blindness at the glory of the man, ran away astonished and trembling. Now, besides the above things, in their highest perfection, there was in our Lord something more than human; he was God as well as man, and he displayed his divine majesty, glory, and power. This was done, not to make his escape from them; but to give proof of his deity, and a specimen of his power at the great day; and to let them know, that if he had not thought fit to have surrendered himself voluntarily to them, though he was an unarmed person, they, with all their men and arms, could never have laid hold on him; and to show them, that he could as easily have struck them dead, as to cause them to fall to the ground: and sometimes striking a person dead immediately, is expressed by this phrase of striking to the ground; and is ascribed to God, who does it by the ministry of angels: says R. Simeon ben Shetach (z), to some persons at variance,
"let the master of thoughts come, (i.e. the blessed God,) and take vengeance on you; immediately Gabriel came, והבטן בקרקע, "and smote them to the ground"; and they died immediately.''
The like is elsewhere said (a),
"if thou transgresseth thy father's command, immediately comes Gabriel, and "smites to the ground".''
(y) Valerius Maxim. l. 2. c. 5. (z) F. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 19. 2. (a) Shemot Rabba, sect. 1. fol. 91. 2.
I agree. There is no such thing as pure unadulterated scripture, period.
What Greek version of the Old Testament did the Apostles use?
The one found in the New Testament quotes, which agree with the extant version of the Septuagint.
The key word is "supposedly". Legend is legend. Fact is fact. "Fact" is absent
Sure, but that is true of all scripture, which is why they must be believed. Obviously a Greek-language set of scriptures existed since the New Testament writers quote from them. It just so happens, as a matter of fact, that the same verses found in the Greek Old Testament found in various 4th century Codices correspond to them.
I suppose you could say that Christians wrote the Septuagint in order to make it "fit" the references made by New Testament writers, but that still doens't explain where did the same writers quote from; certainly not from the Hebrew Bible. So, clearly another set of scriptures existed, which Josephus and Philo refer to as the Septuagint.
All of them are 1st century sources. Ergo, there was such a thing as the Septuagint in the 1st century AD, despite the groundless claims of some to the contrary.
THE Septuagint is the one that corresponds to the Apostles Old Testament references.
It would help identify the books that correspond to the Apostle's Old Testament quotes in the New Testament. It would also make one aware that 1st century contemporaries such as Josephus and Philo recognized the existence of the Septuagint and even said it was divinely inspired.
You are using outdated sources. A lot has been discovered since 1851 that makes these sources obsolete and incorrect.
It is a proof of nothing. Apparently you choose to believe a ordinary man, and that is certainly your pejorative, but just because you believe something doesn't prove its; true.
You can't tell/see/know the difference between the spirit of good vs. evil - read one book or another - it's all the same to you
That's mind reading. It's no different than if I were to say you don't think even if that may seem obvious to me.
Different knowledge or the same
Or just different beliefs. Nothing factual about them.
Scripture is MORE than words on a page
Prove it. And while you are at it, tell me also why should I believe you?
When one doesn't believe God's every Word is true, one has a hardened heart to the things of God
What proof do you have that it's God's word?
Those “outdated” sources were good enough for you to link to in post 2727, twice.
Targums (aka "translations") in Aramaic.
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.