Posted on 01/24/2015 3:23:43 PM PST by NYer
We kind of wandered off of addressing your claim that Jesus ceased to be a man (post 288) when he died on the cross. Jesus rose from the dead in a physical body which to all appearances was that of a man. Do you disagree with that?
It's not that I disagree...
1Co 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
1Co 15:43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
1Co_15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
Jesus natural human body became corrupted when it died...It was raised as a glorifed, spiritual body...Apparently it took on the appearance of a physical body yet it could disappear and appear, it could travel thru walls, it had far too many holes in it...
So while, in a sense, Jesus appeared in a 'physical' body of a sort, it wasn't the natural body we or he was born with...
Does it not make sense that His defeat of death removed the curse that first Adam’s disobedience brought forth?
I would say no...
First Adam did not become something other than a man. We are not given a very much description about what First Adam was like; but, dare we to say that Second Adam discarded His Manhood? Would that not mean that God has despised the work of His own hands?
You're right...We do not know much about the 1st Adam...We do know he had no sin, no pain, no death and perfect weather, before the fall...God was not too happy with the work of his own hands after the fall of Adam and Eve...
Gen_6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
You may be right...But from where I sit, I see most of the Catholics on this forum talk about the unity of the Catholic religion...
Just think about it...We are all our own pope so it is expected we will not agree on much of anything...But your religion has the magisterium that does the thinking and teaching for everyone...You don't have much room except for unanimous consent...So I would think that saying 'they all' or 'they always' wouldn't be so offensive or out of line...
26 - And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27 - To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 - And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 - Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. 30 - And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. 31 - Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32 - He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33 - And of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 - And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? 35 - And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. -- Luke, 1
You are correct sir. We are not discussing brain surgery here. The explanation did not come from some guys putting their heads together. God "breathed" the explanation Himself. Men were simply the ones who wrote it down. We are free to interpret scripture as the Holy Spirit allows us to. The deal is, the only thing that matters, in all of creation, and that is Heaven or Hell, is so simple, that a 3 year old can understand it. It is so simple, it interprets itself.
Yes it does...But you can't get the answer if you're not willing to read the scriptures...
Wow! Just wow! No, God didn't die. It was Jesus fleshly earthly body that died and to which Mary gave birth. The absurd statement and belief that God "in some unfathomable way" died but to not understand that Mary "in some unfathomable way" did not give birth to God is astounding.
He certainly could...But it would be of no benefit...God provided physical food in the O.T....We have no need of physical food...We require spiritual food...Something that goes into your digestive system does not cross over into your spirit...It just goes into the latrine...
>>said unto her: Hail, full of grace<<<>
No, that falsehood is NOT worth repeating.
Every piece of Catholic literature I've read is that way...Distort and pervert scripture...Add and remove words...Interpret the plain words of scripture into something completely out of context...
They know Catholics won't search the scriptures...Even if they did, they became convinced they couldn't understand the easy, plain words of scripture anyway...
No..the jesus of Rome does not save anyone..he simply makes them “savable
In your own interpretation of the Bible, probably not. Too bad.
Wow...Millions of followers...
I was stunned when I watched that video. I was sent there to get an “explanation” if the Eucharist. The thing was based on a lie about what scripture says and attributed to Scott Hahn who Catholics put out there as some sort of example. If Scott Hahn and that priest are so unfamiliar with what scripture says I surely wouldn’t be putting Hahn out there as an example other then a dupe who didn’t know scripture and fell for Catholic lies.
“We are all our own pope.”
Every man for themselves, huh? : )
It's not my own interpretation. There is no way the word kecharitōmenē can be made to mean "full of grace". That has been made abundantly clear on these threads.
There is no such thing as a pope taught in the New Testament. It’s simply a fabrication by the Catholic Church.
The Markian passage (snake handlers special) and the Johanine passage (woman taken in adultery - John 8) are both episodes not found in the oldest of mss. I do not bring this up to offend, but just to point out that the jury is still out as to whether these are actually Scriptural or spurious. Erasmus did not have the benefit of later findings and he was without question, sympathetic to Rome.
But, with respect to "paraphrasing", I offer the following thoughts. Occasionally, "supplied" words are not necessarily "supplied". For example, the wooden word-for-word translation of a remark in Koine' Greek, does not mean the same thing in English UNLESS (occasionally) the missing (but understood by Greek speakers) words are "supplied". Are those words then actually "supplied" or are they "required"?
During the years I studied Koine' Greek in college, I began to recognize this important factor when it came to "translating". Thus, sometimes "paraphrasings" can be closer "translations" than what we have ordinarily called, "word for word translations".
Further, words in the King's English (such as "prevent")meant something quite different 500 years ago. In this example, "prevent" meant "go before" or "go in front of" rather than "stop from doing". Thus, the idea that the KJV moved into English, today leaves one with an incorrect understanding of the intent of the passage, although it was spot on 500 years ago. Our Greek professor embarrassed us all with some of these examples.
When one couples this with the issues of trying to make idiomatic remarks of Koine' move into idioms of the King's English and then into modern idioms, we sometimes have a very difficult time. Again, our objective is to apprehend exactly what the original writer was getting at. No more, no less.
I completely agree that there is no modern translation that seems to hit on all cylinders (idiom). But, reading and re-reading all of the translations, examining the good original language composite texts, using our lexicons, and continuing to "heed the basic Truth in any translation", is very good advice. Thank you for that.
I believe the folks at McKenzie Study Center combine all of this into an "authorial intent" objective. That is, they assume that any particular writer (principally of the NT epistles) is developing (primarily) a single argument throughout their letter. They strive to get the gist of the argument thread well-understood before deconstructing the individual passages or thoughts. Everything in the letter is assumed to support or add to this central argument. Thus, out goes "bumper sticker" theology supported by odd-ball single phrases or even "Verses". For example, how many folks have used John 3:16 as an "offer" rather than a "statement of fact".
Frankly, Chapters and verses were the construct of a medieval monk and often get in the way of the argument, yet KJV, NASB, Geneva, et al, continue to use this formatting. But, to have the text of any "book" translated into a single letter format is actually a very good exercise. That is the way the message came to the original readers, but we modernists tend to love our "references".
Anyway, I ramble. However, I deeply appreciate your remarks on this subject and the others to which you respond. Keep up the good work, my FRiend and brother. Grace to you.
Again, in your opinion!
It is an extortion racket, as are many of the cults. Up until 6 months ago, I had never heard of that nerd, and knew NOTHING about it, but I got educated about it. I see bill boards that say: Believe Apollo, accept Apollo. I just shake my head. The whole congregation wears white. It reminds me of whited sepulchers, nice on the outside, but full of dead men's bones. Nice people, but totally deceived.
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.