Posted on 06/22/2013 1:01:24 PM PDT by NYer
That's an interesting question.
Kinda hinges on the definition of 'man'.
To me; it appears that 'In the Beginning...' the GODhead consisted of 3 spirits: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
One of them took on flesh and resided on Earth for a while.
Did the 'flesh' make Jesus a 'man'?
Was (is) Jesus MORE than 'man'?
It's as hard for me think of Christ as a 'man'; with god-like powers; as it is for me to think of Him as GOD that somehow 'limited' His powers while incarnated.
I did not want to use to descriptive "3 spirits" as some might think I believe in multiple gods; like Mormonism teaches; but I can't think of another way to do it right now.
Perhaps a 3 part Spirit would be a better way.
he DID?
I thought he was a CATHOLIC??
He was a Catholic, then a heretic, then a Protestant.
He didn’t like Hebrews, revelation, and James, among others.
Are you familiar with the opposing views of St. Vincent of Lerins and John Henry Newman with regard to doctrinal development in the Catholic Church? Vincent believed that the doctrines that were to be believed by Christians were those that were believed "everywhere, always and by all" (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est). This idea was supposedly affirmed by the Council of Trent, with the idea of "unanimous consent of the fathers" - which looks to the past for validation of current doctrines and the interpretation of Scripture.
Newman, on the other hand, in the late nineteenth century, came up with the idea of the "development of doctrine" theory. He knew that there were many doctrines that the Catholic Church held to which did not have either the unanimous consent of the fathers nor antiquity to back them up. He stated:
There are myriad links I could give you that discuss these various ideas about the development of and changes to Catholic doctrines if you are interested. I won't bombard you with data if you are not. It is worth looking into, at least, that some to much of what modern-day Catholics are told about their church and its history is unproven and/or untrue. If you are like me, you would want to know the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I bid you peace.
Luther never removed ANY books from his German translation of the Bible. He even translated the Apocryphal books and included them, too. Some Catholics don't like the epistles of St. Paul. So what?
Good link:
Luther wanted to remove the Epistle of James, Esther, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation.
Calvin and Zwingli also both had problems with the Book of Revelation, the former calling it “unintelligible” and forbidding the pastors in Geneva to interpret it, the latter calling it “unbiblical”.
Many non-Catholic Christians like to accuse Catholics of “adding” Books to the Bible at the 16th c. Council of Trent. This is absolutely, 100% false. This Council, among other things, simply affirmed the ancient accepted books in the face of Protestant tinkering. How could Luther have relegated the deuterocanonical books to an appendix if they hadn’t already been accepted in the first place? The Gutenberg Bible was printed in 1454 — and it included the deuterocanonical Books. How could the Church have “added” them at the Council of Trent that began 91 years later? Most Protestant Bibles included the deuterocanonical Books until about 1815, when the British and Foreign Bible Society discontinued the practice! And note that Jews in other parts of the world who weren’t around to hear the Council of Jamnia’s decision in A.D. 100 include to this day those “extra” 7 books in their canon.
The Orthodox Russian and other branches of the Eastern Orthodox Church have a New Testament identical with the Catholic. In Syria the Nestorians possess a Canon almost identical with the final one of the ancient East Syrians; they exclude the four smaller Catholic Epistles and Apocalypse. The Monophysites receive all the book. The Armenians have one apocryphal letter to the Corinthians and two from the same. The Coptic-Arabic Church include with the canonical Scriptures the Apostolic Constitutions and the Clementine Epistles. The Ethiopic New Testament also contains the so-called “Apostolic Constitutions”.
As for Protestantism, the Anglicans and Calvinists always kept the entire New Testament But for over a century the followers of Luther excluded Hebrews, James, Jude, and Apocalypse, and even went further than their master by rejecting the three remaining deuterocanonicals, II Peter, II and III John. The trend of the seventeenth century Lutheran theologians was to class all these writings as of doubtful, or at least inferior, authority. But gradually the German Protestants familiarized themselves with the idea that the difference between the contested books of the New Testament and the rest was one of degree of certainty as to origin rather than of instrinsic character. The full recognition of these books by the Calvinists and Anglicans made it much more difficult for the Lutherans to exclude the New Testament deuteros than those of the Old. One of their writers of the seventeenth century allowed only a theoretic difference between the two classes, and in 1700 Bossuet could say that all Catholics and Protestants agreed on the New Testament canon. The only trace of opposition now remaining in German Protestant Bibles is in the order, Hebrews, coming with James, Jude, and Apocalypse at the end; the first not being included with the Pauline writings, while James and Jude are not ranked with the Catholic Epistles.
The real question is DID Luther “remove” any books? The answer is NO, he didn’t.
What is the source for your comments?
Well CB you gave him an out and he wasn't smart enough to take it.
Like I said this is izzy's position:And I correctly said that was conjecture on your part since the only evidence we have is that Jesus called Simon Cephas in Greek, not Kephas in Aramaic as you insisted...And none of us has any idea that they all spoke Aramaic...Again conjecture...
Would you care to explain to him that whether you spell it Cephas or Kephas, it is still Aramaic?
Sounds like he was in good company.
Didn't a bunch of Catholics get together and decide which books THEY liked?
They became the NT; if I recall correctly.
Yes - you are right.
Now why in the world would I do that when we can go check?
http://www.behindthename.com/name/kephas
KEPHAS
GENDER: Masculine
USAGE: Biblical Greek
OTHER SCRIPTS: Κηφας (Ancient Greek)
Meaning & History>br> Greek form of CEPHAS
It would seem that Kephas had it’s origins in Aramaic but was used in Biblical Greek as well. I know the Catholics would love to limit the meaning to rock because they desperately need something to hold on to given the plethora of scripture that disputes the claim that the church was founded on Peter as it’s head, it’s a rather weak stand they take.
One verse in scripture, misinterpreted by the RCC, on which their entire structure rests is a foundation built on sand.
Stand on the Kephas is Aramaic sand dune if you wish but it makes you appear desperate in my opinion.
And Catholics don't like Paul. Your point is?
http://www.aboutcatholics.com/beliefs/the-origin-of-the-papacy/
Cephas meaning and name origin Cephas \ce-phas\ as a boy's name is of Hebrew origin, and the meaning of Cephas is "rock"., Biblical: what Jesus called his apostle Simon. Peter is the Latin translation by which he is more frequently known. Read more at http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Cephas#db7lKoj7sgcDzemP.99
GMTA!!!
LOL
What do you mean, I love Paul.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 “As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church”
And the rest of quote is: “And fools seldom differ.”
But then, knowing the meanings would destroy the house of cards built around the misinterpretation of the verse. Structures are not build on pebbles or small stones but on bedrock. The bedrock is not the one who Jesus said *Get behind me, Satan.* nor is bedrock the one who denied Jesus three times out of fear.
But they can't say they don't know. If they persist in believing then it's because they don't want to believe the truth, they want to believe what they want to believe, truth be damned.
Petra – Peter rock
Matthew 16:18 - http://bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm
Jesus said that Peter was *petros*(masculine) and that on this *petra*(feminine) He would build His church.
Greek: 4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros (”small stone”) then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra (”cliff, boulder,” Abbott-Smith).
“4074 (Pétros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (pétra) is a cliff” (TDNT, 3, 100). “4074 (Pétros) always means a stone . . . such as a man may throw, . . . versus 4073 (pétra), a projecting rock, cliff” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
4073 pétra (a feminine noun) – “a mass of connected rock,” which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is “a detached stone or boulder” (A-S). 4073 (pétra) is a “solid or native rock, rising up through the earth” (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.
4073 (petra) is “a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
It’s also a strange way to word the sentence that He would call Peter a rock and say that on this I will build my church instead of *on you* as would be grammatically correct in talking to a person.
There is no support from the original Greek for the idea that Jesus meant Peter to be that which He was going to build His church on. The nouns are not the same as one is feminine and the other masculine and denote different objects.
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.