The serpent will strike at *whose* heel?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Savagedds
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
fr ambrose et al. - i see how this line of thinking (the discussion of RCC vs Orthodox traditions) crept into this thread due to a signature. a genuine and honest mistake. however, to continue discussing the issue here is to prove correct a former suspicion of ‘hijacking’. i ask as a member of this forum - please move any further discussion of a non-strike-the-heel nature to another thread.

thanks!
 
40.png
jimmy:
This is wrong, ipsa is not feminine. It can be feminine, masculine or nueter. As I previously said, in latin you are supposed to assume the masculine unless the feminine is expressed.
Click to expand...
HUH!

Here is the declension of all the singular forms of ipse, ipsa, ipsum
Code: 
        Masc.     Fem.      Neuter
NOM. ipse ipsa ipsum
GEN. ipsíus ipsíus ipsíus
DAT. ipsí ipsí ipsí
ACC. ipsum ipsam ipsum
ABL. ipsó ipsá ipsó
 
Fr Ambrose:
Dear Amarkich,

Would you mind clarifying? In the light of this “infallible” quote from the “Ecumenical Council of Florence” are you saying that the “Eastern Schismatics” cannot be saved? Do you believe that all the Orthodox are bound for hell?

Phew… the Orthodox would not make any such statement about the Roman Catholics, nor about the Anglicans, the Quakers, the Lamas of Tibet or the Bantu Pigmies. All may be saved, as Saint Paul teaches in Romans since Christ on His return will judge those who do not have the Faith on the basis of how they have kept the law which God has inscribed in their hearts.**

But… all the Orthodox going to hell… I know this is not Catholic teaching. Why are you propounding it as if it were?

** “For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another, on the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.” Roman 2:14,etc.
Click to expand...
Catholics do not believe that all Orthodox are going to Hell. The catholic church believes the same as the Orthodox on this issue. They believe that all Christians are related to the church in some way we do not know.
 
40.png
jimmy:
Catholics do not believe that all Orthodox are going to Hell. The catholic church believes the same as the Orthodox on this issue. They believe that all Christians are related to the church in some way we do not know.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. But why are some Catholics able to claim that the Orthodox *are *going to hell, and they can quote what they see as infallible statements to prove it? Can Amarkich hold his belief about the damnation of the Orthodox (Eastern Schismatics) and still be Catholic? Is this within the acceptable boundaries of Catholic dogma?:confused:
 
40.png
jeffreedy789:
fr ambrose et al. - i see how this line of thinking (the discussion of RCC vs Orthodox traditions) crept into this thread due to a signature. a genuine and honest mistake. however, to continue discussing the issue here is to prove correct a former suspicion of ‘hijacking’. i ask as a member of this forum - please move any further discussion of a non-strike-the-heel nature to another thread.
thanks!
Click to expand...
Yes, you are right! We ought to keep this thead for its original purpose - the discusion of Genesis 3:15.
 
Fr Ambrose:
HUH!

Here is the declension of all the singular forms of ipse, ipsa, ipsum

Masc. Fem. Neuter

NOM. ipse ipsa ipsum
GEN. ipsíus ipsíus ipsíus
DAT. ipsí ipsí ipsí
ACC. ipsum ipsam ipsum
ABL. ipsó ipsá ipsó
Click to expand...
I am sorry, you are correct.
 
Fr Ambrose:
Yes, of course. But why are some Catholics able to claim that the Orthodox *are *going to hell, and they can quote what they see as infallible statements to prove it? Can Amarkich hold his belief about the damnation of the Orthodox (Eastern Schismatics) and still be Catholic? Is this within the acceptable boundaries of Catholic dogma?:confused:
Click to expand...
The doctrine that everyone outside the church is going to Hell kind of reminds me of the calvinist doctrine that we are predestined for Heaven or Hell.
 
And…

one of the characteristics of the ancient Hebrew text of the Pentateuch was the same inscription for a third personal singular pronoun, irrespective of gender, known as an epicene HW’.10 An epicene personal pronoun is one which has but one form to indicate either male or female sex. In other words, the same word הוא
was used for both “he” and “she.”1 This explains why both translations, one referring to a woman, the other to a man, are correct.

From here…

jesuschristsavior.net/First.html
So “he” or “she” is OK, so context is important after that.
 
40.png
John_19_59:
And…

one of the characteristics of the ancient Hebrew text of the Pentateuch was the same inscription for a third personal singular pronoun, irrespective of gender, known as an epicene HW’.10 An epicene personal pronoun is one which has but one form to indicate either male or female sex. In other words, the same word הוא
was used for both “he” and “she.”1 This explains why both translations, one referring to a woman, the other to a man, are correct.

From here…

jesuschristsavior.net/First.html
So “he” or “she” is OK, so context is important after that.
Click to expand...
I stand (well, actually, sit) corrected. I was letting modern Hebrew slip in. Sorry.

I think, however, that from context it’s still obvious that it’s talking about the Seed of the Woman because, even leaving the pronoun aside, the verbs are all masculine.

DaveBj
 
John_19_59 said:
Huu = he.

I read in other places that it is not necessarily so.

catholicapologetics.net/gen315.htm
Click to expand...

The page mentioned is not giving examples. I have read enough Greek to know that the ending, not the particle, determines the gender of the greek.

Autos is masculine, singular, nominative.
AutH is feminie, singular, nominative.

It could show up as reference to her in some constructions, but there would be other words to give this away.

For example, wife, is often constructed by puting two ‘the’ words in front of the husbands name.

the(f) the(m) uriah would be the wife of uriah.

In the case of genesis, the Greek word for woman has a masculine ending because a similar construction is being used to show that the woman is also a wife.

tHs(f) gunaikos (m).

When a woman is not a wife, the word:
gunH(f) is typically used.

The genesis, Greek text, does not appear to be ambiguous.
It asserts a masculine form for the seed of the woman ( which is implied to come from a husband ), and that the seed and the serpent are in a ‘guarding’ match of head and heel.

The apologetics page listed is not lying, just leaving out a few important details. I do not know Hebrew, but if the Greek is treated that way - I wouldn’t trust the Hebrew research either.
A few examples need to be given so that a better determination may be made (perhaps I haven’t noticed this problem, the bible is pretty big and I haven’t read it all in greek yet).

To the best of my knowledge, the Septuagint is masculine, the Vulgate is feminine, and the Hebrew is ambiguous ( he or it ).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top