Linear Expansion Bimetallic Strip Iron Aluminum

Isaiah 7:14 in the Magisterium of John Paul II

Publishing the speech by Pope John Paul II General Audience of 31 January 1996. With the title of announced maternity messianic, is studying the famous passage from Isaiah 7:14. The full text can be found by clicking on the site Vatican, which retains the copyright.

1. In discussing the figure of Mary in the Old Testament, the Second Vatican Council (Lumen Gentium, 55) refers to the well-known text of Isaiah, which has attracted particular attention in a way the first Christians: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, she will call Emmanuel "(Isaiah 7:14). In the context
annunciation of inviting Joseph to take with him Mary, his wife, "because what is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit," Matthew gives meaning Christological and Marian oracle. In fact, he adds: "All this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son who will be called Immanuel, which means God with us" (Mt 1:22-23) .
2. This prophecy in the Hebrew text does not explicitly announce the virgin birth of Emmanuel: the word used (almah), in fact, it simply means "a young woman," not necessarily a virgin. Moreover, it is known that Jewish tradition did not propose the ideal of perpetual virginity, nor had he expressed the idea of \u200b\u200ba virginal motherhood.
In the Greek translation, however, the Hebrew word was made with the word "Parthenos", "virgin". This fact, which may appear simply a peculiarity of translation, we must recognize a mysterious guidance given by the Holy Spirit to Isaiah's words, to prepare for the understanding of the extraordinary birth of the Messiah. The translation of the term "virgin" is explained by the fact that the text of Isaiah with great solemnity, preparing the announcement of the conception and presents it as a sign from God (Isaiah 7.10 to 14), raising the expectation of a conception extraordinary. However, a young woman who conceives a son together after her husband is not an extraordinary event. On the other hand, Oracle does not mention anything to her husband. This wording is interpreted and therefore suggested in the Greek version.
3. In the original context, the oracle of Isaiah 7, 14, was the divine response to a lack of faith of King Ahaz, who, before the threat of an invasion by the armies of the neighboring kings, was seeking its salvation in the kingdom and its protection of Assyria. Put on the board of the trust only in God, abandoning the fearsome Assyrian intervention, the prophet Isaiah calls from the Lord in an act of faith in the divine power: "Ask a sign from the Lord your God ..". Al refusal of the king, who prefers to seek salvation in human aid, the prophet speaks the famous oracle of "Hear, O house of David! not enough to tire the patience of men, because now you want to weary my God also? The Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son whom she will call Emmanuel "(Isaiah 7:13-14).
The announcement of the sign of Emmanuel, "God with us", means the promise of divine presence in history that will find its full meaning in the mystery of the Incarnation.
4. In announcing the miraculous birth of Emmanuel, the name of the woman who conceives and gives birth shows some intention to bind the mother to the fate of his son the prince intended to establish a perfect kingdom, the kingdom "messianic" and a glimpse of a particular divine plan, which highlights the role of women.
The sign, in fact, is not only the child, but the extraordinary conception, then revealed himself in childbirth, an event full of hope, which emphasizes the central role of the mother. Emmanuel
The oracle must be understood, moreover, the perspectives opened by the promise given to David, a promise that says the second book of Samuel. Here the prophet Nathan promises to the king divine favor to his descendant, "He shall build a house for my name and I will establish forever throne of his kingdom. I will be his father and he shall be my son "(2 Samuel 7:13-14).
With regard to the lineage of David, God wants to assume a paternal role, which will manifest its full and true meaning in the New Testament, with the incarnation of Son of God in the family of David (cf. Rom 1:3).
5. The same prophet Isaiah, in another well-known text, confirms the exceptional nature of the birth of Emmanuel. Here are his words: "A child is born for us, we were given a son. On his shoulders is a sign of sovereignty and is called: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace "(9, 5). The prophet expresses it, in the number of names given to the child, the qualities of his royal task: wisdom, power, paternal benevolence, peacemaking.
The mother here is no longer indicated, but the exaltation of the son, who leads the people everything that can be hoped for in the messianic kingdom, he also poured on the woman who has conceived and given birth.
6. Even a famous oracle of Micah alludes to the birth of Emmanuel. The Prophet says: "And you, Bethlehem Ephrata, too small to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient days. So God others put them in power until she who is in travail has brought forth ... "(Micah 5:1-2). These words resound waiting for a delivery full of messianic hope, in which it highlights, once again, the role of the mother, which is explicitly mentioned and ennobled by the wonderful event that brings joy and salvation.
7. virginal motherhood of Mary was prepared in a more general way by the favor granted by God to the humble and the poor (cf. Lumen Gentium, 55).
These, with each their trust in the Lord with their attitude anticipate the deep meaning of virginity of Mary, who renounce the richness of human motherhood, God has waited all the fruitfulness of their lives.
The Old Testament contains, therefore, a formal announcement of the virginal motherhood, fully revealed only by the New Testament. However, the oracle of Isaiah (Isaiah 7:14) to prepare the revelation of this mystery and has been clarified in this sense in the Greek translation of the Old Testament. Citing the oracle thus translated the Gospel of Matthew proclaims the perfect performance through the conception of Jesus in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

Zebra Print Monogramed Napkins

the notion of sacred and canonical the second Vatican Council

We shall study here the notion of sacred text and canon according to the faith of the Church. This is expressed by the First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius de fide Catholica , third session del 24/4/1870. Il tema è trattato nel capitolo II.
Rilevo che le due costituzioni promulgate dal Concilio Vaticano I hanno valore dogmatico nel corpo stesso del testo, a differenza dei documenti del Concilio di Trento, in cui il carattere dogmatico compete ai canoni, piuttosto che non al testo precedente.
Così dice la costituzione Dei Filius (evidenzio in grassetto le novità rispetto al Concilio di Trento):
“Haec porro supernaturalis revelatio, secundum universalis Ecclesiae fidem, a sancta Tridentina Synodo declaratam, continetur in libris scriptis et sine scripto traditionibus, quae ipsius Christi ore ab Apostolis acceptae, aut ipsis Apostolis Spiritu Sancto dictante quasi per manus traditae, ad nos usque pervenerunt. Qui quidem veteris et novi Testamenti libri integri cum omnibus suis partibus, prout in eiusdem Concilii decreto recensentur, et in veteri vulgata latina editione habentur, pro sacris et canonicis suscipiendi sunt. Eos vero Ecclesia pro sacris et canonicis habet , non ideo quod sola humana industria concinnati, sua deinde auctoritate sint approbati; nec ideo dumtaxtat quod revelationem sine errore contineant; sed propterea, quod Spiritu Sancto inspirante conscripti Deum habent auctorem, atque ut tales ipsi Ecclesiae traditi sunt ” .

A semplice lettura si nota che il Vaticano I riprende le parole di Trento, citate e commentate nel post precedente. La novità is that the Dei Filius explains in what sense the Church accepts the books of the Old Testament and New Testament as sacred and canonical.
To do this, first introduced some theological explanations insufficient, debated over the centuries elapsed after the Council of Trent, and specifies that they do not make it because of what the Church intends when he says that the books of the Old Testament and New Testament are sacred and canonical:
a) The sacred books are not such as, having been composed by men, were then approved by the Church (the theory of subsequent approval). Even though the Church acknowledges his infallibility can make a sacred book that is not. Should not confuse the fact that a writing is true (and the Church declares that it infallibly) the fact that it is the Word of God
The solemn declarations of the councils are true, infallibly declared as such by the Church, whose teaching is assisted by the Holy Spirit. The assistance of the Holy Spirit implies that the documents of the Magisterium are always authoritative. The solemn Magisterium, then, is infallible. But even then it only follows that what he teaches is true, that is the Word of God
Inspiration comes farther: the texts of the Bible are not only true, they are also teaching the word of God does is recognize (infallibly) something that even before God had given her.
b) The sacred books are not liable because contain revelation without error. Every dogmatic formula, from the Nicene Creed, contains the revelation without error, but not enough to ensure that it becomes the Word of God Otherwise, add at the end of the New Testament faith and dogmas of the Simobolo subsequently defined. But we do not.

Positively, the VaticanoI teaches that the sacred books "Spiritu Santo inspiring conscripti auctorem Deum habent, atque ut tales ipsi Ecclesiae sunt betrayed." I
sutdiare reconcile the structure of the statement: the sacred books (A) and canonical (B) are such because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit (A ') and betrayed ut tales (B'): it contains So with the definition of sacred and canonical, we can now explain.
a) holy books: their principal author is God This is believed, can not be seen, and for this reason the Council says. The Council does not say explicitly that they also have a human author, because this should be discounted. But one might wonder: the Dei Filius does that mean that the human author is not true author? met by the Second Vatican Council, with its Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum (Vatican II): the human authors are true auctores . They get inspiration from the Holy Spirit and under its influence they write these books. So that the entire book can be attributed God as author and man as a "sacred author."
b) canonical books: as sacred have been entrusted to the Church. It therefore adds another notion: the custody of the holy books in them Chiesam receiving a gift of God The Church recognizes the sacred books under sensus fidei of the People of God, who is infallible in matters of belief. The Magisterium, then, is an infallible teaching. And 'what has happened: the people have passed on the books, the pastors have specified what they are, where doubts have arisen.

early as the fourth and fifth centuries, there are provincial councils (African) that contain lists of books are sacred and canonical. Then the Ecumenical Councils offer whole list. Florence (in the Bull of union with the Copts "Cantate Domino" of 4 February 1442), where, however, is not meant to define a Domgasse, and Trento, where instead dogmatically defined list of sacred books and canons. The Vatican adds the definition for inspiration.

So, what to reality, first there is the holy book and is then received by the Church as canonical. In the order of our knowledge, however, we know first what are the books accepted by the Church and through the list of canonical books known with certainty what are the sacred books. Our knowledge goes back to : effects, though known to us more back in reality, we come to the cause, although less known to us earlier in the reality.

Knowledge of the inspiration of the books, therefore, part of Tradition (the use in the liturgy, spiritual life, catechesis and the teaching of the Church). Not based on knowledge of and The distinctive names of the authors of the books. And because there are saints and prophets who do not write books, and because some sacred writers are not prophets, because as they themselves say they told rather interrogating witnesses. For example, St. Luke says that to write about the facts and sayings of Jesus has diligently interviewed the eyewitnesses and servants of the word. When he writes on the basis of that material has the charism of inspiration. His opinion in this is guided by God, his Gospel is the word of God of the Old Testament of some authors do not even know the name. Many books also pass through different stages editorial (second and third writing of Isaiah, newer parts of the Pentateuch). Yet all these books, we know that they are sacred and canonical, whoever the author was inspired. The claim of inspiration and canonicity of a book does not start from a historical and archaeological research, but by tradition.
If there are doubts about the authenticity of a letter from Pauline or part of a book, we are dealing with a literary problem, which can be also important because it will help for the interpretation of that song or that book, but tells us nothing about canonicity.
is why we can do exegesis within the faith or without putting in jeopardy: the commentators do not take away the ground beneath the feet of shots of historical literary criticism.

Birds In A Summer Wedding

which are sacred and canonical the books?

It was expressed about the Council of Trent, session IV, 8 April 1546. As in every session of the Council of Trent, it is necessary to distinguish the first decree, the dogmatic ( de fide) from the second decree, disciplinary ( de reformatione ). The first decree matter perennial giccché defines dogmaticamente il Canone delle Scritture. Il secondo è riformabile.

Il 1° decreto è intitolato “Recipiuntur libri sacri et traditiones apostolorum”.
Dopo aver riportato l’elenco dei libri dell’Antico e del Nuovo Testamento, il Concilio dice:
Si quis autem libros ipsos integros cum omnibus suis partibus, prout in Ecclesia Catholica legi consueverunt et in veteri vulgata latina editione habentur, pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit, et traditiones praedictas sciens et prudens contempserit: anathema sit .
Il criterio per discernere i libri sacri è il fatto di essere contenuti nell'antica edizione vulgata latina, mediante la quale “in Ecclesia Catholica legislative consueverunt.
The Latin Vulgate is a collection of books at the time of the Council of Trent from 1000 years now the Catholic Church was reading the word of God This is the criterion adopted by the Council Fathers to define which books are canonical: the Church's living tradition . For a thousand years the books in the Vulgate were read in the Church as the word of God, which led to the liturgy, prayer, theological reflection.
In the second decree (de reformatione ) is prescribed in the liturgy instead of the Vulgate and other translations or the originals, it also states that in theological discussions, the summons of the Vulgate have evidential value. Unlike the first decree the second speaks of translation as such. since this is a decree regulating and non-dogmatic, can not be said that as the Vulgate translation is not improved. So much so that after the Catholic Church has reformed the second decree, when Pope John Paul II published the Nova Vulgate, in 1979 (second edition in 1985). The Nova Vulgata reform and correct the Vulgate as a translation. Consequently, the commentators can freely criticize the translation of a particular step is in the Vulgate. Nor is there only one possible translation, nor the translation of the Vulgate is the only option.

Back to dogmatic decree, where the Vulgate as a reference to "place" where to find the holy books and their parts. In part that contains the definition of faith that the decree can not be reformed.

We pause to comment briefly on the phrase by which the Cocilio of Trento welcomes the books of the Old and New Testaments, "cum omnibus suis partibus integrates books," as contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition.

What the Council Fathers intended to supplement books? It seems related to the transfer of the text. For example, in the Gospel of Luke recounts that Jesus, in the Garden, sweated blood. Not all manuscripts have this sentence (the earliest to fail), but a tradition has been handed down and it is included in the Vulgate. Therefore, if the textual criticism coming to the conclusion that the blood of sdore appaartiene archetype of the text, not necessarily the Catholic faithful will deny the sacred character of the verse excised.
A most important case is that of John 7.53 to 8.11, which contains the famous passage on adultery. However, it is lacking in the earliest manuscripts: Codex Beza appears from trdizione and is binding in later manuscripts. There are also important domestic reasons (especially the Johannine terms, do not you use) that lead scholars to rule out that the passage was part of the archetype of John. Even so, the percipoe is considered non-canonical. Indeed, the Fathers of Trento, expressly stating in their discussions with the word "book supplements" affirm the canonical understood. The Catholic faithful are free to accept the conclusions of textual criticism, which expunge the passage from the reconstruction of the archetype of John, but the passage itself and retains its value of Sacred Scripture. It is a sacred text in cnonico, written by unknown author, preserved in the Church and, from the fifth century, contained in the Gospel according to John. When chapters are numbered in the Middle Ages, the passage is on the border between the 7th and 8th chapter of John.
Another case, also raised in the discussions expressly conciliar that of Mark from 16.9 to 20, the "long end" of the Gospel. It is lacking in the earliest manuscripts, which ended in Mark 16.8, in words that the reader sends a strong inteprellano their views on the resurrection of Jesus ( did not say anything to anyone because they were afraid ). The syntax of Mark from 16.9 to 20 is different from the rest of the Gospel. Furthermore, the author shows to know the Easter story of Matthew, Luke and John. It seems logical to infer that the conclusion was added by an editor other than the Evangelist, to offer readers, dissatisfied with the original closed, an account of the harmonious appearance of the resurrected. Now, perhaps this assessment shows into question the canon of sacred and 16.9 to 20 Mc? The response of the Fathers of Trent is negative. The conclusion of the Gospel was read by the Church as the word of God and the Church's tradition is a source of knowledge of revelation. Putting two and two, it can be concluded that it was composed of 16.9 to 20 Mc inspired by an author whose name is not known.

now consider the expression reconcile "cum omnibus suis partibus". There are books in the Bible composite character. Eg., Daniele has 12 chapters in Semitic languages \u200b\u200b(Hebrew and Aramaic). They have been translated into greek and formed part of the LXX version. This version also picked up two short books, the story of Susanna and the book tells the story of Bel and the Serpent: In both Daniele appears as a character. In the various manuscripts of the LXX the two little books have different locations. As in the story of Susanna Daniel is a child, in some manuscripts of this book is initially separated before the book of Daniel (with 12 chapters in the Semitic language) and eventually added instead Bel and the Serpent.
St. Jerome, when retranslated the Hebrew prophets (and in the case of Daniel, in part Aramaic), placed the story of Susanna and Bel in the appendix to the book of Daniel. In the Middle Ages the two appendages became the 13 th and 14 th chapter of Daniel.
In light of the Council of Trent, we can not say that only 1-12 Dn is sacred and canonical because they are sacred and canonical the books in the Vulgate, as they were read in the tradition of the Church.

's comment, finally, the term used by the Council, when speaking of the Vulgate as "edition". No way, therefore, as a translation. The Council is rather refer to the editorial work, consitent in the selection of books. Who copied by hand has chosen to enter the four Gospels known to us and to leave out the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of the Ebionites.
We said that the Vulgate as a translation can be reviewed. They did Pope Sixtus and Clement (with-Clementine edition Sisto) and he did John Paul II (leading to completion as initiated by Paul VI) with the New Vulgate.
It 'also important to identify the Vulgate speaks of the Council of Trent with the Sixtus-Clementina. The dogmatic decree of Trent speaks of the "old Latin Vulgate edition. Now, in 1546 the Sixtus-Clementine Vulgate did not exist. It has been prepared pursuant to Decree II (disciplinary) was first published by Pope Sixtus, who intervened freely in the text, with corrections and improvements alleged language, then by Pope Clement, who eliminated the corrections made by his predecessor.
the ancient Latin Vulgate editions are now scientific criticism, which seeks to present the archetype, riucostruito through the collation of extant manuscripts. They are Stuttgartensia the Biblia Sacra, edited by R. Weber, Biblia Vulgata and the Abbey of San Benedetto in Urbe (started at the behest of Paul VI). Unfortunately, this latest edition contains only the Old Testament, nor is it expected that the work be stopped now continued.

Rash A Few Days After Using Veet

who wrote John 21 and John 10-20?

I think John 21 That Was Not Written by the Same Person That wrote John 1-20. I find

The following Reasons:

1. Chapter 20 ends in vv. 30-31 with a fully-fledged conclusion, That points back to the σημεῖα (signs), That can not be found in John 2-12. Therefore, Unless the Contrary is provision, as I Understand John 20.30-31 The Conclusion of John 1-20 (Whether you include the Prologue or not).

2. John 21,24 says the the beloved disciple wrote ταῦτα. It is reasonable to think that ταῦτα refers to what comes before, that is to the Gospel as a whole down to the first conclusion in John 20,30-31.

3. I find six reasons to think that Chapter 21 is not written by the beloved disciple who wrote John 1-20. I list them as follows:

3.1. John 21,24 says that "we know that his witness is true" (οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀληθὴς αὐτοῦ ἡ μαρτυρία ἐστίν). The verb is in first plural, so that whoever is speaking can be easily distinguished from the beloved disciple, that is referred to in third person: "he".

3.2. If the person speaking were the same as the author of John 1-20, he would be a person who testifies on his own behalf. As John 5,31 says: "If I testify on my own behalf, my testimony cannot be verified" (Ἐὰν ἐγὼ μαρτυρῶ περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ, ἡ μαρτυρία μου οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθής).

3.3. John 21,20-23 says that Jesus didn't say that the beloved disciple wouldn't die, contrary to the word spread among the brothers. These verses make sense if they were written after the death of the beloved disciple: the author seems worried that some brothers might think that Jesus was wrong. Therefore the beloved disciple didn't wrote these verses.

3.4. The fact that we find a conclusion in John 20,30-31 make it plausible the once the Gospel ended there, and chapter 21 was added subesequently. The fact that the conclusion in 20,30-31 is not modified when chapter 21 is added leads to think that the author of John 21 didn't think he could change what was already written. This doens't happen in John 1-20, whenever the
test is modified. For instance, in chapter 4,2 a correction is inserted within the text. The author of John 21 doesn't take the same liberty.

3.5. Chapter 21 names some disciples that are never named before: that is, the sons of Zebedee. It is striking that they are never named in John 1-20. Whatever the reason, it no longer stands when John 21 was written.

3.6. Chapter 21 uses 174 different words. 27 of them are not existent in John 1-20. For instance, in chapter 6 fish is ὀψάριον, while ἰχθύς is never used. Chapter 21 uses ἰχθύς. It is unlikely that the author of John 21 is the same as the author of John 1-20.

I think that 3.1-2 are the strongest reasons, that give me certainty. I recognise Reasons That The following do not provide full evidence. If Considered separately, they're make it more Likely That the author is different. All together, They make a strong case Against Identity of Author.

Yellow Chunky Discharge During Pregnancy Mean

what equality with God in Phil 2:6-11? 1.1

considerations sull'inno of Philippians 2.5 to 11. The hymn

culminates in the profession of faith of 2.11, which contains an updating of Is 45.23, not as in the Hebrew text (and thus in the Vulgate), but as it appears in ancient Greek translation of that the LXX. Phil 2.11 echoes the text of the Greek translation of Isaiah, some changes that they live it. Is

45.23 LXX says ὅτι ἐμοὶ κάμψει πᾶν γόνυ καὶ ἐξομολογήσεται πᾶσα γλῶσσα τῷ θεῷ.

In Isaiah, God speaks and every knee bows before God Saint Paul adds that "in the name of Jesus."

Isaiah says, "every tongue confess to God." San Paolo complete "every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."

St. Paul makes it the identity of Jesus Christ and the Lord. The "Lord" is the name of God who reveals himself in history: for Paul, therefore, God reveals himself in Jesus Christ, and yet Jesus did not take the place of the God of the Old Testament. The confession of the name of Jesus is "the glory of God the Father." For St. Paul's affirmation of the divinity of Christ is not to the db of the divinity of the Father.

He wonders if the hymn is divided into two or three moments. Until recently it was thought that is divided into three stages, which would: 1) Jesus pre-exists with the Father in divine form, 2) Jesus emptied himself (ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν) becoming man; 3) Jesus is exalted by the Father.

observe immediately that this scan is a literary improbable as the three parties could have an extension so unequal? The first included a verse, the second two, the third three. Rather than structure of the hymn, then we should talk about lack of structure, since there is not no regular verbal expression of thought. But then, rather than saying that St. Paul draws a disproportionate anthem, it would be better to say that we have not yet realized that the structure had the anthem?

Whilst it may be that you accept the division into three stages, it becomes very difficult to understand in what sense Jesus is "empty" places perhaps the gods?

There are interpretations that read the hymn the heterodox idea that Jesus was God and became a mere man. You can do this in several ways: a) stating that Jesus was God only in appearance (very forced interpretation of ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων) b) stating that Jesus was God, but then gave up to be equal with God, and a certain henceforth no longer is (the death of God theologies).
Interpretation a) is weak because μορφή in greek means the form so visible, but apparently not as opposed to the substance, interpretation b) instead is metaphysically untenable: if Jesus is God, and has forever, if at a given moment it is not, then it never was. You can not stop being God

There are orthodox interpretations, trying to save the divinity of Jesus But if they want to maintain the tripartite division of the hymn, you are faced with insoluble problems, which arise from connecting to 'embodiment of ceasing to be equal with God if the lowering of Jesus consisted in the incarnation, in that way would be exceeded by his exaltation? Perhaps with the exaltation of Jesus stops the incarnation? No way out.

The best solution is to take the exam again the hymn, to recognize that there is in three parts, but in two.

From the point of view, the division into two parts of three verses each seems more harmonious. The first part would be the humiliation of Jesus, the second in his exaltation. The raising of Jesus above every name follows the resurrection. With the resurrection, Jesus does not cease to be a man. In contrast, returns to being a living man. His humanity passes from death to life. It follows that the humiliation of mankind is not at all in recruiting. In that sense, Jesus "emptied himself"?

In 1974, the CEI 2.6 bc translated as follows: "did not count cling to his equality with God." The translation, now changed in the third year, was not entirely clear. What is equality with God? Maybe it means "to be equal with God"?

should look to the greek text, which says: τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ (2.6 c). We observe that

ἴσα is neutral plural. If you want to say in greek "to be equal, it seems ἴσον, using the masculine singular accusative in a construct with the infinite (or ἴσος construct a name with the infinite). The use is already in Sappho: φαίνεταί μοι κῆνος ἴσος θέοισιν ἔμμεν 'ὤνηρ, ὄττις ... = I think that is equal to the gods that man, who ... Here we use the masculine singular ἴσος (the name).

What's different is the accusative plural ἴσα neutral, that does not agree with a singular subject. This is an adverbial form, which means "equal," "equally." The use is already in Homer ( Od. 11.484-485). Odysseus encounters the shade of Achilles dead and says πρὶν μὲν γάρ σε ζωὸν ἐτίομεν ἶσα θεοῖσιν Ἀργεῖοι (= before, when you were alive, we Argives honored you also to the gods). The expression ἶσα θεοῖσιν means "equally to the gods." Concerns that the Argives bestow honors to Achilles alive.

ἴσα θεῷ St. Paul writes, replacing Homer with the plural the singular, consistent with its monotheism. Saying "equally" does not refer to the divine nature so of Jesus, but to divine honors, that is being treated as befits God to Jesus to this waiver, rather than taking the form of a servant. Is not honored as God, but ignored and even condemned to death by crucifixion.

So humiliation is not the incarnation, which in fact is not told by Paul, but in the way that historically there is the life of Jesus became a man (2.7 c: ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος), so that in ' Anthem is narrated briefly. The humiliation is not the assumption of human nature, but historical condition in which there is the human life of Jesus, servant and master, and punishable by death and glorious and immortal.

It is thus also explain what constitutes exaltation. The humanity of Jesus after the resurrection, is glorified. Throughout the hymn Jesus is God and man, after the resurrection becomes a glorified man.

From a theological viewpoint, the union of two natures does not involve the alteration of either.

How Many Calories In Beef Chow Mein Takeaway

Luke alludes to John?

1.1 Luke says that "many have ordered an account (διήγησιν) of events accomplished among us." At the end of 2006 on the mailing list of discussion group on the Johannine literature, Kym Smith has suggested that "many" may be a group of bishops and that the story is the Gospel according to John. That would explain that John is mentioned many times in the first person plural "we."

So I expressed my skepticism about the possibility that a group of people can write a book

As for the idea of \u200b\u200ba group of authors That writes the Gospel, I am skeptic. I Do not Think That A group of people can write a text. We have no news this That Happened at the beginning of EC We know of texts Orally That Developed with the contribution of many authors, But we do not know of texts that were written by several hands at once. When an author wrote, he was alone or he enjoyed the help of a secretary, but no more than that. The author could dictate the text, and the secretary could be granted freedom to add something, as Tertius does in Romans . In this case, Tertius says that he is adding a line of his own. Or Paul sometimes says that he is personally penning a sentence, when he is no longer dictating. The author could also ask his secretary to shape his ideas into a written text. In this case, the literary author is the secretary, who writes in his own words. Cooperation could go no further than that. The bottom line is that no more that one hand could hold the calamus at the same time.

Kym Smith ha risposto:

It may not be a gospel but the very process you deny must have happened with the letter from the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:22-29).
There is no reason why a group could not have shared thoughts and worked cooperatively on a gospel like happens every day with all manner of books, reports, etc.

Al che ho replicato:

[In Acts 15] we have a letter, written by somebody, possibly under dictation, to reflect the agreement of the Council, that is quoted as a document in the book of the Acts, that is not written by a council.

I don't deny that people can work cooperatively. They can do this in various ways. But in the antiquity this was done orally. Written texts are written by individuals, that can take full advantage of the work of the group.

Today we have wikis , that allow cooperative writing. In the antiquity writing was a very slow process, that lead to a single manuscript. The manuscript then had to be copied, and this is slow, too. Modifications could be done, but other people woulnd't know about them until the modified text was copied and distributed. There was no multiple access to the same text.

Printed texts were a revolution. Digital text are a revolution. We should be careful not to bring our habits back to the time when a book was written and copied by hand.

Al che Kym Smith ha sollevato la questione del prologo di Luca:

An even more appropriate text is Luke 1:1. There the 'many have undertaken to compile a (single) narrative'. The common view of this is that many attempts to write gospels had preceded Luke's but the grammar - and Luke is known for his excellent Greek - only indicates a single narrative. It is my view that the 'many' did cooperate to produce a single narrative - I would not be the first to suggest this.

Il 2 dicembre 2006 ho cercato di confutare tale interpretazioni di Luca 1,1, con un messaggio dal titolo 4G Redactors . Proponevo allora i seguenti argomenti (in lingua inglese).

I would contend that:

1) Luke 1:1 does not say that the narrative is a written narrative
2) even if he did, this cannot be the same narrative as the Gospel of John
1-20.

1) διήγησις is certainly a narrative. And this narrative has been arranged
according to a τάξις, that is, an order that can be recognized.

My point is that a narrative can be arranged in a written form, but also in
an oral form. On its part, a written narrative can be arranged according to
an order that a reader can recognize, or it can be written in such a way
that the reader doesn't perceive a tάxis.

I will refer to a famous fragment by Papias, quoted by Eusebius in his
Ecclesiastical History:

Mark the Eugenikos while performing Peter void emnimonefsen what, exactly wrote, οὐ μέντοι τάξει, τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα. οὔτε γὰρ ἤκουσε τοῦ κυρίου, οὔτε παρηκολούθησεν αὐτῷ, ὕστερον δέ, ὡς ἔφην, Πέτρῳ, ὅς Unto chreίas epoieito Tas teachings, But, Is not Like the sύntaxin Sundays poioύmenos logίon.

Here we have Peter that arranges his teachings according to need, and Mark
that listens to Peter and writes down what he heard from him. Mark writes
th ... tάxei. He does not impress into his narrative an order that is
perceived by Papias.

I am not asking that you agree that Mark reflects the preaching of Peter,
nor that Mark's narrative has no τάξις at all. Rather, my point is that the
Greek τάσσω, when used to speak of a narrative, does not mean "write
down" a narrative, but rather "impress an order" to a narrative. This can be
done orally or in a written form.

The same fragment by Papias shows that Peter 's teaching included accounts
of Jesus' words, but also of his actions (πραχθέντα). An account of actions
is a narrative. Here we have oral narratives by Peter, that are the source
for Mark's written narrative.

Again, I am not asking that such accounts by Peter were available to Mark.
Rather, I am suggesting that our text allows for narrations to be organized
and told even before anything was written.

In other words, we should distinguish between "composition" of a narrative,
that can be either oral or written, and "redaction", which is written.

In my opinion, there is no prove that Luke's ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν refers to
written composition. It may as well refer to oral composition. The Greek
allows for that.

Luke 1:3 says that he is going to write (γράψαι) a narrative, not that
" many " wrote narratives. If you contend that "many" wrote, you should prove
that, and ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν is no proof.

You seem to agree with that, when you write in the excerpt of your book: "On
every other occasion in the gospel and Acts, apart from two, Luke uses a derivative of γράφω if someone was writing". It appears that Luke uses the verb γράφω when he refers to a written account.

2) Even if Luke 1:1 referred to written accounts (and I disagree with that),
those accounts could not be the fourth Gospel as we know it. John 21:23 says
that the beloved disciple is the one "who bears witness and wrote these
things (ὁ γράψας ταῦτα)". Even if we knew nothing else about the beloved
disciple, this text says that he is one person and that he wrote: the third
singular is used. He could be one of the "many" that Luke 1:1 speaks about, but
he couldn't be all of them.

Of course, you can deny that the picture of John 21 is accurate. But, if
so, why should Luke 1:1 be more accurate? Why Should the picture of Luke 1:1
Provide a better understanding of John That picture provided by the John 21? Rather I would use John
21 to form a picture of John 1-20, and use Luke 1:1-4
to form a picture of Luke 1-24. At least, we are sure That
John 21 speaks of the Gospel of John, while it is yet to Be Proved That
Luke 1:1 speaks of the Fourth Gospel.