A question.

[SolomonVII]

"With the evidence of the Pentecost, the gospels were meant to be spread across the earth in all languages."

Are you sure? How often are we told to read the SCRIPTURES, which at that time was the OT, as the NT was not written yet. HEAPS. Were the OT Scriptures written originally in Greek or Aramaic? No, they were written in Hebrew. How many people can speak Hebrew nowadays. Not that many... Your point is thus invalid.

I am not sure what your point is on this. The gospel, or good news that became the compiled into the 4 Gospels of the New Testament probably all within a generation of Christ's death, was that Christ had conquored death with His resurrection. This good news was transmitted by word of mouth as much as by any writings though. As often as not, this would be in the lingua franca of the ancient world- koine greek.

Sorry, as much as I try to respond to most people that address me, I am really not clear at all about what you are trying to say.

 

[peschitta_enthusiast]

1) Koine was not the lingua franca of the mid_east. Aramaic was. Furthermore, the GNT and LXX are not even written in Koine Greek, they are writtein in Semitic translation Greek, as my book demonstrates.

2) My point was that the OT was written in Hebrew, even though it is meant for ALL Christians (Jesus' command to study Scripture...). Though English is today very widespread, do we then assume that the OT and NT were written originally in English?

 

[linden branch]

No dilemma. Jesus was both God and man. Obviously can God die? It was the flesh that died.

There is NO problem to Oneness believers when we are faced with "same" passages and with "distinct" passages, because manifestations can be both simultaneously. Does not the Word say that God was manifest in the flesh? Even Miltha means manifestation, proving that the Word is a manifestation of God.

As for the trintiy baptism formula, would you make the Apostles to contradict Jesus by not baptising in the name of trinity? they baptised in the name of Jesus. Either they were disobedient, or Jesus is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Regards,

Chris

btw we see the Father raised Jesus up, while Jesus said He would do it Himself. You cannot refute that and your argument makes no sense. This is a direct contradiction if Jesus is not the Father.

Hi Chris,

I am not sure how to proceed with this discussion since you failed to answer my questions. Here are the questions again:

1. How then do you do you distinguish these manifestations?

2. How is it that they relate not only to us, but also to each other?

3. How do you resolve this dilemma, since the example given is also one of simultaneous manifestations:

But manifestations do not sufficiently maintain a distinction, which is why it has been rejected as a solution to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being God. It becomes outrageously problematic at the Cross, when the Son dies, but it is clear that the Father and the Spirit do not participate in this. If it were but a manifestation the the Father would have died as well, even as if I should die, all of my manifestations, as a father, a husband, and a son, would be deceased. There would be no situation where I died and my mother would morn the death of her son but my wife had not suffered the loss of her husband.

As for your solution, I must say that it was not just the flesh that died, which was the whole point behind the council of Ephesus, that one does not separate the activities of the divine or human from the person of Christ. Your solution commits the heresy of Nestorianism (which Nestorius may or may not have actually been guilty of).

Additionally, if you will read again what I wrote, you would have realized that the question between us is one of hermenutical principles. I could just as easily ask you why you are making Jesus contradict the apostles. Nevertheless, the point is that I don't believe the apostles are contradicting Jesus, but rather, that it is understood that baptism by the authority of Jesus is baptism by the authority of God, since there is no disagreement within the Godhead. Allow me to spell out the hermenutic problem. You understand the Acts passage to be literal, that people are being baptized literally in the name of Jesus, while you understand the command to baptize in the name of the Trinity loosely, so that it can be accomplished merely by the name of Jesus. Thus you read the Gospel's account in subordination to a literalist interpretation of the Acts account. I understand the Gospel account on a literal basis, and thus interpret the Acts account to be short-hand for a trinitarian baptism. The solution to this problem is not to examine my reading under your interpretive framework (as you just did), but rather to step back from the problem and examine the underlying hermenutical principles in play and determine how we might judge them.

And finally, you made no argument against my solution, merely declaring it to be a contradiction. I am incapable of refuting non-arguments. Demonstrate its contradiction, and then we can resume the discussion.

God bless,

Isaac

 

[peschitta_enthusiast]

"As for your solution, I must say that it was not just the flesh that died, which was the whole point behind the council of Ephesus"

So do you believe that "God the Son", the spirit, actually died?

 

[rnmomof7]

There is also reference to Purgatory and a fair amount of Marian typology in the Deuterocanonicals, which is distasteful to most Protestants.

It is the suspicion of many Protestants that the reason they are in there is because they are the only place were the idea of praying for the dead is taught. So they are supportive of doctrine taught no where else .


I would mention that they are the only books in the OT not written in Hebrew.

St. Jerome did not include them in the cannon , he placed them apart from the other OT books.

 

[SolomonVII]

It is the suspicion of many Protestants that the reason they are in there is because they are the only place were the idea of praying for the dead is taught. So they are supportive of doctrine taught no where else .


I would mention that they are the only books in the OT not written in Hebrew.

St. Jerome did not include them in the cannon , he placed them apart from the other OT books.

In terms of Jerome, it should also be pointed out that he more than willingly deferred his own low opinion on many of the deuterocanonical to the will of the eucemenical council and the greater good of Christian unity.

In terms of being written in Hebrew, only for those that consider that Hebrew is a sacred language in and of itself, perhaps this would be a good argument against deuterocanical works.

However, it should be remembered that most of these works were of more recent vintage than most of the rest of the Old Testament, and reflected the language spoken by much of the diaspora at that time. However, since the New Testament was in all probability originally written in Greek, but definitely not in Hebrew, for any who hold the NT to be scripture, the language of deuterocanicals cannot be a strong argument against their inclusion.

The reason for the inclusion of these works was because they were a part of the Septuagint, which was for many early christians, was the only scripture that they had ever known.

 

[prodromos]

There is no basis for Peshitta being translated from LXX. Peshitta NT is the original NT. All evidence at my free book on the website: http://www.peshitta.netfirms.com

Peshitta OT seems to be translated from older Hebrew original, not Massoretic, or LXX. LXX and POT are in many ways superior to the Massoretic HOT which is revised, late, and corrupt.

Dear peschitta_enthusiast,

I am curious to know what sort of qualifications you have to produce such a book. Those who have the academic requirements to do such research, as a rule provide references to their qualifications. You have provided none

Glancing through your book I have already come across several factual errors so I am afraid that it does not come across as a particularly scholarly work.

John.

 

[linden branch]

"As for your solution, I must say that it was not just the flesh that died, which was the whole point behind the council of Ephesus"

So do you believe that "God the Son", the spirit, actually died?

No, I don't. But then I don't believe that God the Son is understood to be merely flesh or merely spirit, or simply the conjunction of the two. He is rather a person, and it is deity and flesh which are brought together in the unity of this personhood that has forged the bonds which the incarnation has made possible between God and his creation.

So, the question with Christ is not what died, but rather who died, the person of Christ, and it is undeniable that this person is both divine and human. Now naturally this death was experienced by this person only through that nature which was capable of experiencing it, but it was nevertheless the whole person who suffered death, for it is not possible to divide Christ as though his death was only partial, for then how could he serve as our savior, for the death that we are threatened with is not a partial death, but the doom of our whole person. Christ needed to suffer likewise if he was to overcome our nemesis, and he did so, thus becoming the perfect high priest that Hebrews speaks of.

The death that threatens us is not merely the death of the body, and it would be an inadequate soteriology that would limit Christ's death to only this aspect.

God bless,

Isaac