Posted on 10/08/2014 11:39:09 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Why would intelligent, successful people give up their careers, alienate their friends, and cause havoc in their families...to become Catholic? Indeed, why would anyone become Catholic?
As an evangelist and author who recently threw my own life into some turmoil by deciding to enter the Catholic Church, I've faced this question a lot lately. That is one reason I decided to make this documentary; it's part of my attempt to try to explain to those closest to me why I would do such a crazy thing.
Convinced isn't just about me, though. The film is built around interviews with some of the most articulate and compelling Catholic converts in our culture today, including Scott Hahn, Francis Beckwith, Taylor Marshall, Holly Ordway, Abby Johnson, Jeff Cavins, Devin Rose, Matthew Leonard, Mark Regnerus, Jason Stellman, John Bergsma, Christian Smith, Kevin Vost, David Currie, Richard Cole, and Kenneth Howell. It also contains special appearances by experts in the field of conversion such as Patrick Madrid and Donald Asci.
Ultimately, this is a story about finding truth, beauty, and fulfillment in an unexpected place, and then sacrificing to grab on to it. I think it will entertain and inspire you, and perhaps even give you a fresh perspective on an old faith.
(Excerpt) Read more at indiegogo.com ...
ME from post 1143: I do agree that the translation one uses influences their take on the Scripture. For this reason I rely upon the 4th Edition United Bible Societies for the Greek and NASB for English. The USB is recognized for its scholarly accuracy while the NASB is the closet word for word translation currently available.<
YOU from post 1143 : I interpret this to mean you have rejected the Greek Textus Receptus of the Protestants and Fundamentalists and think the 4th Edition is the best latest and greatest available. It seems to me that concedes to larger point on inspiration of the scriptures to Catholic Church, and completely abandons the Fundamentalists, this one verse notwithstanding. If you reject the Latin Vulgate, hold that better manuscripts have been found recently, it suggests you have neither had the complete Bible until now, and since other manuscripts may be found in the future, you may not have it now. Forth edition you say ? How many editions will it take to settle the original manuscript issue ? I think there is one frequent poster who believes all the original manuscripts were written in Hebrew. With that position, one could do what you are essentially doing, but by projecting what thee Hebrew was like that the Greek was based on and forming doctrine based on those hypotheses, a risky proposition.
ME from post 1143: First: the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are no longer in existence. So no one can lay claim to having the "original" texts....or as you want to put it the "complete" Bible. Unless you're referencing the apocrypha which Jerome noted as being non-canonical....at least until Trent. Any who do are deluding themselves.
What we do have is ongoing scholarly research to provide us with the best translation possible from the best texts possible. I'm all for that. The good news is that the Bible as we have it today is considered to be a very accurate rendition of the original texts.
There are issues in the translation of the Vulgate. One of the most glaring occurs in Luke 1:28 regarding the greeting to Mary.
Instead of translating κεχαριτωμένη as "you favored with grace", as in the Greek, the Vulgate translates this as "full of grace". There is a big difference between the two renderings in terms of theological meaning.
YOU from post 1188: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
YOU from post 1188: I understand your comments to mean you don't believe the texts we have are true copies of the holy scriptures.
ME, again from post 1143: First: the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are no longer in existence. So no one can lay claim to having the "original" texts....or as you want to put it the "complete" Bible. Unless you're referencing the apocrypha which Jerome noted as being non-canonical....at least until Trent. Any who do are deluding themselves.
YOU from post 1188: That is a direct contradiction of the Fundamentalist position, as well as the Orthodox Jewish position. It exposes one of the problems with Sola Scriptura when you admit you don't really have "The Bible" but only the best Bible money can buy, so to speak.
ME from post 1143: What we do have is ongoing scholarly research to provide us with the best translation possible from the best texts possible. I'm all for that. The good news is that the Bible as we have it today is considered to be a very accurate rendition of the original texts.
YOU from post 1188: It seems to me you have a problem with this text; you may not know if it is accurate or not; did it only guarantee the Hebrew scriptures would be preserved, every jot and every tittle ? 2 Timothy and 2 Peter would then apply to the Tenach with a looser interpretation that Paul's writings were like other Tenach scriptures; this would be untenable in my view, most especially with the words of Jesus in the Gospels and Revelation. No, I see a huge problem for Sola Scriptura when you confess you don't have the genuine Bible, but it is getting better as scholarship improves.
ME: As I clearly said in post 1143 we do have accurate copies of the original texts. You seem to redefine "complete Bible" in each conversation....but that is par for the course for catholicism to twist words.
It in no way undermines relying upon the Bible. In fact it reinforces confidence in the texts we have today.
If you are suggesting 2 Timothy is Scripture and will not pass away, I am in agreement. This means that 2 Timothy 2:16-17 reinforces the notion of relying upon the Bible and not man-made tradition. The Bible is the source upon which we are to rely upon...not man-made tradition. I'm glad you finally acknowledge that.
The issue we do have is with translation as noted in the example I provided in post 1143 that you conveniently ignored.
I bet if you cleaned off the gunk she'd make one heck of a chandelier.
are you insinuating that all books of the bible, except those with apostolic content are dispensible???
Of course you didn't. You merely asked:
Approaching blasphemy, some gobbledegook, and a personal slur. How deep can a man's arrogance reach?
Hyperbole comes in many forms. Even when the practitioner doesn't realize it. The rest of your questions were answered.
I see. You're just doing your job.
That's right. Everything else is just opinion.
I don't think it should be surprising that this was why the Latin Vulgate became the preferred translation.
I agree. We've pointed out the problems with the vulgate's translation of the greeting to Mary and yet the catholic cult stays true to form and refuses to acknowledge the evidence...I guess because it's "tradition"!
A little honest academic research on their part would really open their eyes.
btw...this will be my last post on this thread. I think after about 1200 or so we've about beat this horse enough.
There will be other discussions I'm sure. Surprised the RM has allowed this one to go as long as it has. I'd hate to have that job!
Ya'll have a blessed week!
εν ο Χριστος
-— Why did the Church turn away from the teachings of Jesus’ first Apostles and forbid Priests and Bishops the freedom to marry? -—
Paul commends celibacy, and Jesus commends celibacy for those who are called to it. Since the Church has the power to bind and loose, She has the authority to determine the criteria for priesthood. No one is forced to be a priest, so no one is forced not to marry. Regardless, there are some married priests in all Rites. Priestly celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma.
That ought to be easy for you...Show us a copy of the Septuagint dating back to 250 B.C...Or to 50 A.D...Or 100 A.D....Or 200 A.D...
Who says they are two different things?
Jesus did...He said he was the head, the bridegroom...Jesus said the church was the body, the bride...They couldn't possibly be the same...
What angel preached sola scriptura to Luther? There’s no mention of his doctrine in the Bible, or Christian history, prior to Luther.
Paul commends celibacy, and Jesus commends celibacy for those who are called to it. Since the Church has the power to bind and loose, She has the authority to determine the criteria for priesthood
Paul “commended” it but said a man should have a wife and a woman should have a husband.
Jesus said woman is the reason a man leaves his parents and the two become one flesh.
Catholics mandated celibate, single priests even though the Epistles describe proper attitudes for the wives of Bishops.
One of us is accurate. The other is repeating talking points.
What part of the Bible did “prots” ignore? What parts are ignored by Catholics?
He speaks to me and answers my prayers. Like the one when my BP was 190/95. The dr was going to send me to the ER if it did not go down in a hurry. I had a talk with God and said I really needed his help. When the nurse came back a few minutes later, it was normal. I am very, very happy being a Chrstian and a member of my SBC. Notice my church comes last. Church membership has nothing to do with salvation. Can you imagine the mess that would cause?
“That’s why I have so much confidence in what some call the “Hermeneutic of Continuity.” If such-and-such is what serious scholars thought it meant for the first 1500 years, I give that credibility at a significantly higher notch than I give to Joe Gyro’s sincere best guesses a millennium-and-a-half later. “
I can understand your comfort by this, but hermeneutics are not based on if some or many believed something in the past.
Original language, history at the time, contemporary usage of language, comparison to other related passages, context within the scroll or book itself, etc. are what determines what the most likely meaning is via hermeneutics.
It may cast some light on a passage that someone believed something about it - particularly in the study of the History of Doctrine - but that is not a leading factor at all in knowing what a passage means. There are often underlying reasons why someone in an earlier time was bound by their current beliefs, understanding, ignorance, etc. Their understanding and beliefs never change what the passage means.
[To be frank, there are many passages in contention after centuries exactly because they are not clear. We know with certainty what they cannot mean. We know for certainty what the possibilities are. We do not know with absolute certainty which possibility is the correct meaning.]
Blessings.
It certainly worked better to obscure the truth in the Hebrew and Greek. ,
No, what would be sad is having a one world religion. Thankfully, God never said we had to belong to just one. Believing on Him is enough.
See what happens when someone ignores His call?
Mary wasn’t necessary?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.