Search results

ἐν always takes the dative. Receiving actions -- whether the object of an active verb or the subject of a passive verb -- characterizes the objective dative, not the instrumental dative. Matt. 9:34 is clearly the latter. This may help: A Syntax of the Greek New Testament - The Dative case

I'm not going to argue with you over the early circulation of NT writings (although I could). And I won't dispute "the miraculous manifestation of the Spirit in the early church days." But "that's the reason"????? Sorry, I will argue that one with you until the cows come home. There is no...

How about Matt. 9:34? I will go with "by" for that one, or maybe "by means of" or "through" (just like King Jimmie does).

Well, you're not going to convince me that Jesus dictated anything to Maria Valtorta, so let's leave her out of the discussion.

Fine. I don't see it as helpful to a better understanding, but maybe others will. Whatever works. Isolating the “stuff” of “Godness” strikes me as impossible to express in physical terms, so I prefer to stay away from tangible analogies like water (as opposed to sound or light). The physical...

I certainly agree that whatever God's ousia may be, it subsists in each of the three “Persons” within the Trinity. It may help to use a musical analogy here, one I am indebted to Jeremy Begbie for: Think of a chord composed of three different notes, say the chord C major composed of the notes...

Because I'm not seeing the comparison at all, exact or inexact. H2O can be solid, liquid or vapor depending on temperature and pressure. How is the substance of water -- in any of its physical forms -- remotely analogous to the substance of God? After all, the "persons" of the Trinity are not...

Were it not for the "flood" mentioned in Daniel 9:26, that verse would be a good candidate.

No doubt, but that doesn't interest me at the moment. What interests me is the notion that mankind inherits Adam's sin simply by dint of being born, unless one parent was born again -- in which case Adam's inheritance is obviated for the baby. Fascinating.

Are you asking about literal fulfillment of OT verses, or typological fulfillment of OT verses?

I'm not getting it. One parent is Christian, therefore the child is born free of original sin. I'll have to ask Paul about that one when I see him beyond the Peary Gates some day!

I think clarity and ambiguity are found in both the OT and the NT. Each verse must be considered separately.

It's an interesting thought. The NT is rife with verses suggesting that God raised Jesus, not that Jesus raised himself. Equating the two based solely on John 10:18 just seems a bit of a stretch to me.

So, why are the infant children of Christians spared the taint of original sin?

Ah. So justification is genetically transmitted.

"Clarified," or "reinterpreted"? Clarification suggests an initial ambiguity. I don't think Zechariah was ambiguous at all.

I might phrase the question as "adopted rather than intended" but it's still a fair question: Did NT writers bend OT verses to their own purposes different from their original intent? And I think your example from Mark 14:27 is probably an instance of this. Assuming that Jesus did indeed...

Problem: water cannot exist in three "states" (solid, liquid, and vapor) SIMULTANEOUSLY. But God exists in three "persons" (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) simultaneously. Unlike water states, two of the three "persons" don't cease to exist as such whenever the third is present. So the analogy...

But my question was, when you were a minute old, and the umbilical cord was cut -- were you a sinner then?

You missed verse 3: "And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins." Every high priest is to offer sacrifices for his own sins! Aren't you committing yourself to Jesus being a sinner here?