Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
Now who's being hyper literal? Jesus is certainly described in Scripture as God. And He was with us, "us" being humanity. So he fits the definition of Emmanuel.
It was not his name, you may not find a passage where he is addressed by this name, but the concept is there, for sure. And to this day, we call him by this name.
SD
If you used to be an Anglican, then you should know that it is inaccurate to describe it as a single denomination. You should know and you should be telling others the Anglican Communion is a confederation of many churches and that each province exercises a great degree of autonomy. Your description is quite accurate in regards to the Episcopal Church in the US and the Anglican Church of Canada, and some others, but does not even remotely describe many Anglican churches that have remained orthodox.
Further, with the exception of those mentioned, there is no need for Anglican churches to "return to the bible" because they never left it. One of the basic tenets of Anglicanism since the time of the reformation has been that holy scripture, that is the Old and New Testaments, contain "all things necessary for salvation" and are the "rule and ultimate standard" of faith.
No more so than this:
That's 2 millenia unless you are stupid.
SD
I believe the Word of God was inspired when originally written. Translations are fallible. Do you think Matthew meant to say "young woman" as well? The fact that Matthew, almost 2,000 years ago, said virgin is enough for me. If he translated that verse to mean virgin I accept that. For what he wrote is the inspired word of God.
Wow, its a wonder that you keep coming back around here. You must enjoy the 'stink of error'. If you don't, you are free to leave at any time.
Again you presume to speak for "The Bible." You know darn well that your interpretation of such is blinded to the special nature of Peter. And to speak as if someone "usurped" authority is to speak nonsense.
SD
Matthew called him Immanuel in his writing. He was an apostle. I accept his writing as the written word of God. What more do you want from me? :-)
Your evidence for this?
The real dispute is not over a "mistranslation" but the doctrine of the Virgin Birth and the rationalist/Jewish contention that it is a fabrication.
I disagree. It IS over a mistranslation. Words mean things. You cannot simply take a word and make it mean whatever you want it to. Well, not in the real world, anyway.
'...and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents---'
'Certainly,' said Alice.
'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'
'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't--till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you"!'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more or less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master--that's all.'
Two things. One, you seem to be saying that none would claim authority that was not there. Two, where are your histories of the Popes coming from. You guys quote that stuff as if it comes from authority; but, much if it comes from the Liber and other questionable sources. Much of what made it into the Liber is fiction with regard to your "early popes." What isn't Fraud is legend which means fiction any way you cut it. Where is the authority? I mean without it, you're just making noise and doing nothing else. Where is the authority.
Sorry to interject myself into this discussion -but two points. First, angelo, I don't know the Hebrew, but consider the actual quote from Isaiah: "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)"
Now, it seems to be your contention that since Jesus' was not given the name "Immanuel" by Mary, this is evidence Jesus is not the Messiah. However, the passage, at least as rendered in this English translation, seems to me to leave open the question whether it is the 'young woman' (and please pardon me if I say, 'virgin,' since I rely on both Scripture and Tradition for my theology rather than the passing fancies of modern translators) -anyway it leaves open the question whether it is the 'virgin' who will call Him Immanuel or God who will do so. Note, the first part states it is God who is giving the sign. Hence, it seems to me one can read this verse to say, God will cause a virgin to conceive, God will cause her to bear a son, and God will cause his name to be Immanuel -God with us.
This, perforce, leads to my second point, a point I'm sure you will not be surprised to find I make as a Catholic. I don't know if I'll say this well, theologically, but I think you would agree God saying a word virtually causes that word to be. For example, in Genesis God says, "Let there by light" and, boom, there's light. Hence, to me at least, if God says, "His name is Immanuel -God is with us" then, boom, God is with us.
And do I really need to go into just how deeply I, as a Catholic, believe God really is "with us" in the Eucharist?-)
I don't care who takes me seriously as long as God does. When I speak the truth, it is also for my Fathers ears and for His approval only. If I am ignored by men, He sees it and will judge righteous judgement. My witness has gone out on these threads and He will decide when that witness is complete. I would be disobedient to Him if I do any less than I am doing by my warnings and statements to my fellow believers. My love for my fellow man requires that I tell you the truth and suffer the consequences of wielding the sword God has given me. One edge is tainted with my blood, the other with the blood of the deceiver. God bless and keep you all.
If the second coming was in 70 C.E., does that mean that the millenial kingdom ended in 1070 C.E.? Wonder what happened that year...
Never mind, I think I've got it!
04 Jun 1070 Roquefort cheese was accidentally discovered in a cave near Roquefort, France, when a shepherd found a lunch he had forgotten several days before.
I think Matthew meant to say 'virgin'. And I do not think that what he wrote is inspired. This is not the only incidence where an author of the Christian scriptures misquotes the Tanakh.
Legend doesn't necessarily mean "fiction."
SD
Does this constitute a personal attack?
FYI ... Mr. Smarty Pants is a personal friend of mine. And, Angelo ... he's Jewish.
If Matthew translates the word to mean Virgin. That's confirmation enough for me. I take my scriptures just as seriously as you do.
I think you forgot to factor in the difference between the "Lord's year" of 360 days and the Julian, then Gregorian 365.24 day year. Also, throw in Dennis the Short's 4 or so year miscalculation of Christ's birth and voila.
The Millennial Kingdom ended in 1066. The event was the Battle of Hastings.
SD
Did you cut and paste this quote too? Cuz that's really profound.
I have little use for Paul.
Let me correct that.
I have little no use for Paul.
31691 posted on 3/4/02 1:23 PM Pacific by angelo
I shall let your own words confirm what I smell. God be the judge.
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.