Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
ping
No, they simply point to the fact that "John's" Gospel is an interpolation which is not obvious to an average uneducated reader.
Makes a person wonder how Christ managed without them
What do you really know about Christ except from a select number of books the Church picked for you? Books that have no basis in fact and events no one else has recorded.
Our friend Forest Keeper knows all this. His is just being a lawyer, right FK? :) Many of us (Orthodox/Catholics) have told him the same thing, and you certainly put it superbly, so there is no chance of any misunderstanding.
The Jews place the Torah (which they believe was written by God before the foundation of the world) as the central part of the Tanakh (Old Testament), with Prophets and Writings basically expounding (through inspiration of human writers) on what the Torah revealed.
The New Testament is treated exactly the same way: the Gospels are narratives of what Jesus said, the Epistles are inspired teachings of human authors based on those words.
In 2 Cor 1:11, however, "prosopos" is certainly not congruous with outward appearance: "εκ πολλων προσωπων το εις ημας χαρισμα" refers to people praying. Surely St. Paul did not mean to say that because the Corinthians made the outward appearance of praying it became a gift for him.
Now, can one say that in 2 Cor 1:11 the "individual with all the characteristics of self existence that confer upon him personhood"? I don't know. I know that in order to pray one has to be a person. An outward appearance does not pray; a presence does not pray. If there is a creature that prays yet lacks all the characteristics of personhood, I am not aware of it, unless you think it was a praying mantis that St. Paul was thanking.
Likewise, when St. Paul pardons the penitents in 2 Cor. 2:10 he does so in the person of Christ. The person of Christ here has enough of personhood to authorize St. Paul to forgive sin. That is consistent with John 20:21-23. To say that St. Paul did so "in the face of Christ" but not "in the person of Christ" could mean two things. One, St. Paul put on outward appearance of Christ. That is comical and of course not meant. Two, that St. Paul did so as Christ was watching, -- in the presence of Christ but with no authority of Christ. The latter is the unfortuinate version of events offered by some dynamic "translations". That is smoother for the reader as it does not engage his mind, adn that is the chief objective of dynamic translators. We often say things like: I gave him $10 in the presence of Jim. But does it make sense in the scenario on hand? I don't see what sense it makes if St. Paul pardoned the penitents who had already been pardoned, without attaching the authority of Christ to his pardon. Was Christ any less present when the penitents were pardoned the first time?
I think it is clear that St. Paul added that his pardon was in the "prosopon" of Christ in order to invoke the authority of Christ and not merely point to Christ's presence. If you have any explanation of this where the authority of Christ is not claimed by St. Paul, but his presence is mentioned, I'd like to hear it.
"the entry on iconoclasm from the Old Catholic Encylopedia" is available here. If you read through what I posted you made it to the section on Nicæa II, or about halfway through the article.
It is therefore without any doubt that prosopos is to be understood in Greek, in context, as either the face or an individual (person).
Your question is a nonsequitur.
Can you speak English?
Did you mean 'Imply?'
You're so very scholarly, just like the "serious scholars" you wish to protect from scrutiny, that deny Christ's deity, or in many cases, his very existence.
Paul cautioned us against trusting human philosophers, and with good cause.
Those that question God's word are not 'scholars,' they are destroyers.
Your disagreement with a TV minister fails to make them 'charlatans.' While there certainly have been some very compromised Christians doing TV broadcasts, their failures have been mostly in the area of dedication to Mammon, and to sexual pleasures, much like the Papist churches. Their doctrines have been mostly Biblically sound.
Instead of going off on the "preaching the gospel" tangent, just answer my question. I'm asking, even though I have a strong suspicion there will be another left turn into the boonies of obfuscation.
This is a question which NEVER gets answered.
If a person REALLY BELIEVES in the cosmic lottery (aka predestination) they should understand that praying and preaching is ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS. If EVERYTHING has already been decided, no amount of prayer or preaching is going to change what God has already predestined. If predestination is true, their prayers and preaching are really no different than an Indian rain dance.
It's like they're trying to work their way into heaven or something.
And Catholics attack non-Catholics about their view of the Trinity as if Catholics understand it.
What hubris Catholics display to claim to understand the infinite God.
Apology accepted. Not a problem.
Then please post supporting documentation from Trinitarian Protestant theologians where they make the case that the Protestant understanding of the Trinity is different in ANY WAY from the Catholic understanding.
Please post documentation where Protestants have somehow expanded upon or redefined Trinitarian formulas after the Reformation.
If you are going to suggest that the Protestant understanding of the Trinity is different from the Catholic understanding, you need to be prepared to prove it. Otherwise, you should accept the reality that the Trinity has NEVER been a point of contention between Catholics and Trinitarian Protestants.
Are you aware that there are Protestants who specifically DENY the Trinity? They don't make a secret about it.
Again all that will to come.. the question is who will will?
Men make choices based on their preferences. The question is can a man desire to surrender all claims to his self-salvation and being worthy or good enough to be saved ?
The sons of Adam have a will to have exactly what Eve did..He wants what is pleasing to the eyes, his flesh satisfied and most of all he wants to be equal to God. The will of men is in bondage to self because of Eden.
Our wills must be freed so that we have the absolute freedom not to make a god of our liking.. not to hide from the God of creation as Adam and Eve chose to .
Unsaved men have a will in bondage to self.. it is only the grace of God, a work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration that again gives man an ability to choose not to sin, to no longer be slaves to sin and to desire to see and understand that Christ has saved us from ourselves and our sin
I believe the crux of the New Testament is the forgiveness of sin and the reconciliation of God with men. The crux of the NT is the cross and resurrection of Christ
There is no apostolic succession taught in the scriptures, no priesthood, no pope, no mass etc.. all of that is extra scriptural and a lie from the pit of hell
I guess you did...through the entirety of the thread we have been told Paul and made stuff up was nuts and that the only important things are found in the red letter in the gospel
I have ever referred to you as the good Dr. E. I must be very foolish.
Your post reveals where you fall.
To be more accurate; my posts reveal the truth of Christianity and the failure of telephone booth sized non Christianity masquerading as Christianity.
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.