GCM Home | Bible Search | Rules | Donate | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
22
Have you heard reports that they are focused on recruiting followers from the Minneapolis, MN area?   Apparently 12 men from Minneapolis have volunteered to go fight with them.   These are the people who should be deported.
23
He's a comb-over guy. 

24
Apologetics Forum / Re: God's Word
« Last post by Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Today at 03:58:00 PM »
I hear you. The NASB uses 38 different words to translate it, but overwhelmingly favors word, words, statement, and message.

Allow me to explain my "weak" and "superficial" translation...

1) The Hebrew Meaning

If we assume that the NT writers were fluent readers of the Hebrew Scriptures, then we can conclude that "Logos" was chosen, because the LXX uses that word throughout to translate Hebrew "Dabar."  "Word" is generally the best translation for dabar, although this Hebrew word can mean anything from a single word to a whole book.  This is, in fact, the logic used to arrive at "word" in most translations.


2) The Classical Greek Meaning

Charles Freeman is an expert in ancient Greek language and culture, and unfortunately not a Christian.  I read his book.  There, he says that [sic] a logos was a written work, usually by a philosopher, in which they laid out everything about a topic from a logical perspective, attempting to completely describe the topic at hand.

Now, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John weren't experts in Classical Greek philosophy, so take this with a grain of salt, but that definition works reasonably well in the context of John 1:1, where it would cause the verse to mean that God's plan for the world, God's Treatise on Everything, pre-existed within God's mind, even before he voiced it (the voicing of which was the creative impetus for it coming into being.)

The ECF Justin Martyr, himself a student of Classical Philosophy, presents an explanation of the nature of the relationship between Father and Son that is downright identical this in his work Dialogue with Trypho.  Given when Justin lived, and who he received the faith from, I am not so quick to dismiss him out of hand.

From this paradigm, the best translation would be something like "treatise" or "master plan."


3) The Koine Greek meaning, according to an LXX-derived dialect

The NT writers probably were not regular, fluent readers of Hebrew.  They were fisherman from Galilee, and were lucky to maybe get a few lines of Hebrew at synagogue on Sabbath.

Likewise, they absolutely were not students of Classical, Attic Greek, although it may be surmised that the Attic dialect of Greek was the most influential, and thus might have something to do with the Greek they did speak.

The early church's dialect of Greek was the pigeon-Aramaic-Greek stuff of the LXX. It should be assumed that the NT writers most prominent Greek influence was the LXX, and perhaps even that it was their de facto Bible.

Now, consider for a moment the prophetic formula used in the the Major and Minor prophets ("the word of the Lord came to...").  Modern eyes typically read that to mean that a message came from Lord into the prophet's mind.  However, there is ample internal evidence in both the Bible and the writings of the ECF's to show that his is NOT quite how the early church read those passages.

The early church read, "the WORD of the Lord" as being a person, not a message.  That is, they read it as being Jesus, prior to His incarnation.  To their eyes, the story was that Jesus literally appeared to the prophet and brought a message.  I tend to think they are correct in this, since Daniel and Ezekiel include vivid descriptions of such a One with legs like bronze and brightness like the sun appearing to them.

From this paradigm, the best translation would be a proper name.


In my mind, the third paradigm gets the closest to the meaning of the text. 

However, here in John 1, these points are basically what they are trying to explain - the pre-existence of the Word, His  co-eternality with God, His self-revelations, and eventual incarnation.  Since this is so, we just can't use a proper name in the translation, until verse 14, where His Name is actually introduced.

That leaves us with a problem of translation, since there simply is no single word that adequately explains the breadth of the word according this paradigm.

So, I chose "mind" as a translation, fully aware that it was insufficient (and so noting in my preface), because it (a) agrees well with the Greek meaning, and (b) is used and agrees with the usage of Justin, and (c) falls within the scope of the Hebrew meaning of the word.

Superficial, my ass.

Jarrod
25
Catholic Forum / Re: Who was this Mary?
« Last post by Catholica on Today at 03:56:53 PM »
Another question that NO Catholic has ever answered....  Why would Mary need grace if she was sinless?   She is hailed as "Mary full of grace"...  but what is grace?  It is unmerited favor, you cannot earn it or do anything to get it.  God gives it.  He gives it to all believers. It is what keeps us in times of failing, God's grace.  If Mary had God's grace, she did not have to be sinless.  And, if she was sinless, she would not have needed Grace. 

Well (just my guess) I think they mean it in the way Jesus was (is) full of grace (John 1:14):

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


No kidding, I was googling full of grace to get this verse and the first link was about Mary, lol, even the second time I googled with Bible included I still got a link to a Mary-site (edit: the latter was actually about Mary-worship and critical of it).



We mean it in a different way.  Jesus is God and the source of grace.  Mary received grace as a gift.

You should try reading that first site you found.  It would save us both a lot of time.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-full-of-grace

26
I like his tie.   ::smile::
27
All this is irrelevant. Do you want to follow Jesus or not?

I follow what Jesus spoke about, that means not supporting the genocide Israel has/is doing.
I would suggest if you don't understand that and your interested, maybe look it over again.

Except that land has belonged to Israel for over 3500 years:

I doubt that the lands belonging to the aboriginals anywhere will be returned, I think God loves people equally, I don't think he puts any race or nation before or after another.
They can call themselves chosen or wonderful, whatever they want, doesn't mean all people are not wonderful and chosen.

I have to ask, are you serving Jews as you should be? I mean, what you do for them you do to God right?
You best find a Jewish house and serve. Serve to the day you die, you are just goyim, here to plow, you are a beast, not human, so serve and be happy within your servitude because as you serve a Jew you serve God. Maybe you already serve a Jew if not Quit being  hypocrites.

I am not going to support the murder of children or anyone, I don't expect people that accept the genocide of Moses not to accept the genocide the Jews do today. But really, saying Jesus supports this? How hypocritical can you be?



There is quite a difference between not having an understanding of something versus willful denial.

Christians are generally indoctrinated to be fearful of saying anything negative about Israel because of Genesis 12:3.  Pastors and evangelists regularly use that and one reason that they use that is so people will not challenge their extreme Zionist or Dispensational positions.   Are you aware of what Full Dispensationals believe?   They believe that Jews and Gentiles are two separate people under two separate covenants and they will even have separate eternal homes.   I was once Dispensational, Partial Dispensational, and came within a proverbial gnat's eyebrow of accepting Full Dispensational doctrine.   I was not willfully wrong about anything and I don't think I disagreed with others because I'm stupid and short of gray matter.  In this discussion you have gone beyond telling others that they may not be aware of some things but have pretty much told them that they are stupid.   You're not going to have much success when you tell others that they are stupid. 

There's a man here who often claims that he "wants intelligent conversation."   I pretty much ignore his threads.   I believe I'm as intelligent as he is but I don't like his condescending tone which implies to me, and probably to others, that we're not smart enough to engage him in a conversation.   
28
Catholic Forum / Re: Who was this Mary?
« Last post by Catholica on Today at 03:51:42 PM »
Another question that NO Catholic has ever answered....  Why would Mary need grace if she was sinless?   She is hailed as "Mary full of grace"...  but what is grace?  It is unmerited favor, you cannot earn it or do anything to get it.  God gives it.  He gives it to all believers. It is what keeps us in times of failing, God's grace.  If Mary had God's grace, she did not have to be sinless.  And, if she was sinless, she would not have needed Grace. 
Well (just my guess) I think they mean it in the way Jesus was (is) full of grace (John 1:14):

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


No kidding, I was googling full of grace to get this verse and the first link was about Mary, lol, even the second time I googled with Bible included I still got a link to a Mary-site.


Oh I believe that they fully intend it that way.  But, it's not biblical.  Jesus imparted grace. He is the grace of God personified. But, no where does the word give indication that Mary imparted grace to others or that she was or is the grace of God as Jesus is. 

The Bible also doesn't give indication that everything worthy of belief is written down in the Bible.  And no one is saying that Mary "was or is" the grace of God, or the personification of the grace of God either.
29
General Discussion Forum / Robin Williams
« Last post by geronimo on Today at 03:46:02 PM »
 Sorry if someone has already posted this link, and I couldn't think of a good place to put it. This is a great example of why Robin Williams was so special to so many people.

 http://biggeekdad.com/2012/03/robin-williams-american-flag/
30
Catholic Forum / Re: Who was this Mary?
« Last post by Catholica on Today at 03:44:04 PM »

@ Catholica
Do you have a Biblical verse to support such a claim, that Mary was sinless? Or is it some sort of [opinionated] heresy or hearsay huh?


I just provided it above.  Actually I have provided just the bare-bones of the scriptural support for it.  Much more could be said.


I can't find the Bible verse/s you claimed you provided above (that Mary was sinless). Kindly repeat it/them again.


... a cut and paste ...

Divine revelation also tells us that the woman whose seed would be the savior, God would put enmity between that woman and the devil.  Genesis 3:15.  Divine revelation also tells us that whoever sins becomes a child of the devil, 1 John 3:10.  At once one cannot have enmity with the devil and be his child.  Ergo God made "the woman" (a term which Jesus refers to Mary as several times in the Bible) to be free from the stain of original sin by a special grace and made her "full of grace" to help preserve her from committing any personal sins.  And we see this second fact in divine revelation's use of the Greek word "kecharitomene" in Luke 1:28.  An in-depth understanding of that word is expounded upon here.


Let me try to quote the verses you have provided with NASB. Please let me know if you prefer another version.

Genesis 3:15 (New American Standard Bible)
And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."

Assuming the fact that the woman (Eve) of Genesis 3:15 was Mary. I do not see the word "sinless." On the contrary, Eve "just" (there and then) sinned against God.

---

1 John 3:10 (New American Standard Bible)
By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.

Nothing on Mary being sinless is mentioned in this verse.

---

Luke 1:28 (New American Standard Bible)
And coming in, he said to her, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you."

No, nothing about her being sinless is mentioned in this verse. (Sorry!)

---

Wanna give it another shot?


I've provided the argument why these verses do in fact demonstrate biblical support for the belief. 

If you can provide biblical support for the idea that, for something to be true and believed by faith, it must be explicitly stated by a bible verse, or even to demonstrate, using the Bible, that Bible alone is sufficient for belief, OR provide evidence from the early Church that they EVER practiced "Bible alone", then you may have a point.

In short, there is no direct statement in the Bible that says that Mary is sinless; yet in truth, there doesn't have to be for it to be believed by faith.  I have provided argument with Bible verses that support the belief with evidence that the belief is true.  That you can't see that "enmity" between "the woman" who is the mother of "the seed" refers to Mary is a problem with your own tradition, not with Catholic dogma.


Well, since the discussion with you is not Bible based, I shall rest my case.


I have presented biblical support for Catholic belief, as any reader can see.


I'm a reader, and I can't see it.  There is no biblical support for her being sinless, or a perpetual virgin.  The evidence is to the opposite of that. She needed grace, she needed a savior.


I answered both above:

1) God placed enmity between "the woman" whose "seed" turned out to be Jesus.  Enmity between two parties places them at odds.  The opposite of that is "amity".  There was amity between Eve and the serpent (the devil) because of her sin and believing what he said over what God said.  "Woman" is a phrase which Jews of the first century did not call their mother.  Jesus had a particular reason for calling Mary that, and he was pointing back toward Genesis 3:15 and telling you and I that Mary is this "woman with enmity".

2) Answered in my last reply to you.

Luke tells us she gave birth to her "Firstborn son"...  why?  Why mention that he was the "firstborn"?  Because he was NOT her ONLY born son. He was her FIRST.  The word is plain...  Jesus is God's ONLY begotten son, and Mary's FIRSTBORN son.  It would be nice if people would read the Scriptures with the simplicity and beauty it has.


This is changing the subject.  But "firstborn" in Jewish terms was a legal term.  Jesus would have been called the firstborn son whether or not Mary had more children because it meant that he was the heir.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10