The well-mapped western part of the Ottawa River Gneiss Complex (ORGC; new name), a large metamorphic core complex, hosts a system of gently plunging cross-folds of outcrop to regional scale situated in the ductile detachment zone between the lower grade cover and high-grade core of the complex. The cross-folds are buckle structures that deform the attenuated gneissic layering, plunge parallel to the regional elongation lineation, range from upright to recumbent, and exhibit distinctive hinge-parallel elongation lineations, all features of extension-dominated ductile transtension. Our L–S fabric data are consistent both with kinematic modelling that predicts progressive constrictional strain in the hinge zones of transtensional folds, and with dynamic modelling that predicts rotation of flattened fold limbs into moderately dipping attitudes. On the basis of petrologic data, we show that cross-folding postdated the peak Ottawan metamorphism and took place during retrogression and exhumation of the thrust-sheet stack. The cross-folds form an inclined system that is principally developed in retrograde melt-weakened amphibolite-facies rocks, with the transtensional origin implying that exhumation and retrogression of the high-grade core of the complex took place in an oblique extensional setting. A transtensional origin for the cross-folds removes the need to appeal to orogen-parallel regional shortening, an implausible requirement of previous interpretations, and is compatible with data indicating that much of the visible fabric and structure of amphibolite-facies domains of the ORGC developed during post-peak exhumation, retrogression, and gravitational collapse of the thrust-sheet stack.
This article contends that there is a legitimate place for exorcism in the church today, but urges caution in its use. It begins with a survey of biblical, theological, historical, and practical considerations which favor the recognition of exorcism as a valid form of ministry. It then examines claims that the teaching and practice of Jesus are not normative because (a) his knowledge was limited by the incarnation, (b) he consciously accommodated himself to a prescientific world view, (c) exorcism is not mentioned in the New Testament epistles, and (d) genuine possession was limited to the ministry of Jesus. The next section discusses the following difficulties inherent in the ministry of exorcism: (a) the diagnosis of cases where exorcism is appropriate, (b) the risk of aggravating the condition of a disturbed person, and (c) the tendency to develop beliefs and practices which lack biblical support. Some guidelines for the practice of exorcism conclude the article.
Eph. 4:12 consists of three prepositional phrases that indicate why Christ gave the Church apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. Recent translations take the second of the three phrases as dependent on the first, so that together the two phrases refer to the single purpose of equipping the saints for the work of ministry. However, a careful examination of the prepositions used in verse 12, the grammatical structure of the verse, the key terms found here, the literary context, and the way the text was understood by Chrysostom suggests that the three phrases ought to be seen as parallel to one another, in which case they describe three distinct purposes for the giving of the individuals mentioned in verse 11.
The author responds to reactions by Beck and Lewis (1989) and Wilson (1989) to his article, “The Role of Exorcism in Clinical Practice and Pastoral Care” (1989), and argues for the possibility that psychological and demonic explanations of certain types of aberrant human behavior may be complementary and compatible.
Traditionally Christians have interpreted Isaiah 52. 13–53. 12 as a prophecy of the passion of Christ,1but modern biblical scholars have disagreed about how this identification of the suffering servant with Jesus arose. In particular, those who have investigated the question of whether Jesus saw himself as occupying the role of the servant have reached conflicting conclusions.2In the background of this discussion is another contentious issue, namely, whether a messianic interpretation of the suffering servant had already been adopted in pre-Christian Judaism. Representative of a negative response to this question is H. H. Rowley, who writes: ‘There is no serious evidence … of the bringing together of the concepts of the suffering servant and the Davidic Messiah before the Christian era.’3A much more positive assessment is given by Jeremias, who has championed the view that the first and fourth servant songs were consistently interpreted messianically in Palestinian Judaism, and that it is highly probable that a messianic interpretation of the sufferings of the servant was associated with this.4
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.