Posted on 09/22/2016 7:57:02 PM PDT by marshmallow
GERMANY, September 21, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — The German Bishops have presented a new “Unified Translation” of the Bible that follows a significant modernization of the language and will be binding for all German-speaking areas starting in 2017.
On Tuesday, the German Bishops Conference (DBK) presented in Fulda the fruit of many years of scientific work: a new edition of the so-called “Unified Translation" (Einheitsübersetzung) of the Bible into German. It’s called “unified” because, from the original published from 1962 onward, these editions are supposed to be used ecumenically, unifying Catholics and Protestants in Germany. The original aim, however, was thwarted in 2005 when Protestants reverted to the Luther translation.
The leader of the research project was the bishop (now emeritus) of Erfurt, Joachim Wanke, who explained that the new edition is a “moderate revision” of the older text. Wanke added that a translation is always also an interpretation. The new edition shows more “braveness” to present “biblical jargon,” he said, reported by kath.net.
According to Jewish tradition, the personal names of God cannot be pronounced, so “Yahweh” is substituted by “Lord” in the new edition. In fact, every paragraph has a change, explained Michael Theobald, president of the German Bible Association.
When the apostle Paul calls two new followers, they are not two men anymore, Andronicus and Junias; rather, a new discovery showed that apparently it was one man and one woman, hence Andronicus and Junia. This led to the discussion that the word “apostle” must be applied to women as well as men (Author’s note: In German, different genders of the word exist and usually gender-ideologists insist on using male and female forms).
Other changes are more ideological.
Most frightening is the change to the iconic Isaiah passage (7:14): “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son”.....
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
Yes...this is directed to John.
The Greek behind own indicates this was very private, personal. It is particular to the individual. In this case John.
It does not mean what the catholic wants it to mean that Christ gave Mary to all of us.
Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.
And I am sure John did this.
Do they talk to you ? Do you hear audible voices ? Your claim is false. AntiCatholicism is not Christianity and it does not save.
Anti-catholicism is pointing out the false doctrines of the roman catholic church....like the worship of mary.
Belief in Christ is what saves and what makes you a Christian.
Islamic extremists are antiCatholic too.
Belief in Christ is what saves and what makes you a Christian.
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh. And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like: He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock. But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
Matthew, Catholic chapter seven, Protestant verses twenty one to twenty three,
Matthew, Catholic chapter twenty five, Protestant verses thirty one to forty six,
Luke, Catholic chapter six, Protestant verses forty five to forty nine, ,
James, Catholic chapter two, Protestant verse fourteen,
And most of the Gospels are directed to the Apostles, those disciples eligible to be disciples, the women with them, and the Jews; by your reasoning you can exclude yourself as a Gentile from most of the Gospels; similarly most of the other books are directed to those at that time so you can exclude yourself from those. You cannot, however, exclude other beloved disciples from honoring blessed Mary as their spiritual mother and loving her, the Apostles and other saints, as they love the Messiah. That you have no power to do.
Islamic extremists are anti-everyone not Muslim. Catholics don't have a monopoly on this. Though there does seem to be a lot of catholics who are anti-everyone not roman catholic.
If you believe in Christ you're gonna do what He says to do.
Christians understand this.
Conflation is all you got. YOUR assertion: ‘Most of the gospels are directed to the Apostles’ ... the little you know is far overshadowed by the mass of what you think you know but are no better informed than your buddy ebb tide who didn’t even know which John was at the foot of the cross. And just so you will know hereafter, the Gospels are aimed at everyone and specifically at those who will seek HIM. You can work your way to Hell, or you can take the lesson of the Gospel of Grace and be born from above in the here and now and forever more. Work or Grace ... have you heard The Gospel?
She is not the Christians "spiritual" mother. For the Catholic to insist otherwise is eisegesis.....reading into the text something that's not there.
Perhaps if catholics studied the Greek and not Latin they might get it.
on one point you're correct. I cannot stop the Catholic from worshipping and bowing down and praying to the idols they call Mary.
But for the readers of these posts who do not participate in the conversation it might shed light on the false religion called roman catholicism.
Meaning therefore she is the infallible authority on it, to whom all are to submit, and upon which basis you have your assurance of Truth, versus ascertaining the veracity of Truth claims based upon the evidence?
Taking your point to its logical conclusion, would those in your sphere would protest continually against the Twelve Apostles while they traveled throughout the known world in the First Century as they shepherded the one holy catholic apostolic church, or would you and they submit yourselves to those in authority over you ?
If one is not a beloved disciple, I can understand such as not honoring blessed Mary, the mother of "God with us."
Perhaps if catholics studied the Greek and not Latin they might get it.
Ah, the Greek religion; if one studied the Greek he might become Orthodox, and so Catholic.
on one point you're correct. I cannot stop the Catholic from worshipping and bowing down and praying to the idols they call Mary.
Catholics do not worship, bow down to, or pray to idols. Perhaps you are ignorant of what an idol is, or perhaps you write this on purpose because Catholics are one of the few groups against whom one can be biased and prejudiced. AntiCatholicism does not make one a Christian.
But for the readers of these posts who do not participate in the conversation it might shed light on the false religion called roman catholicism.
Is why you post on FreeRepublic ?
But the Peter of Scripture was a believer in the Lord who established His claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did His apostles, and thus we need to examine what being given the keys to the kingdom meant, and who "upon this Rock" applies to, the in the light of the rest of the NT.
the keys of the kingdom of heaven
In which we see that it is by believing the gospel that one enters the kingdom of God, "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son," (Colossians 1:13) and which keys Peter, as the street-level leader among the brethren (over whom he never manifestly exercised authority) first used on behalf of both Jews and Gentiles. (Acts 2;10) But which was not exclusive to Peter, as the whole scattered church "went preaching the word," while the apostles remained in Jerusalem. (Acts 8:4,14) And the Lord also sanctioned (after reproving the apostles for reasoning who would be greatest among themselves) such as manifestly did ministry in His name but who operated independent of the apostles. (Lk. 9:49)
authority to bind and loose on earth.
But which also was not exclusive to Peter, but is applied to the whole church, (Mt. 18:15-20) and understood such as exercised in 1Co. 5 in which Paul (who received his gospel and commission directly from the Lord, later affirmed by men, and power thru the certain devout disciple Ananias), "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ," (1 Corinthians 5:4) delivers an incestuous man (whom the church failed to discipline) over to the devil for chastisement. (cf. 1Tim. 1:10) And says that if they forgive any thing, he forgives them also in the person of Christ. (2Co. 5:10)
Nor is thsi power of binding and loosing new, but flows from the OT magisterium, dissent from whose binding or loosing judicial judgments was a capital offense. (Dt. 17:8-13) But
And besides formal judicial magisterial judgments together with the church, spiritual power of binding and loosing is provided for all believers of holy fervent faith like that of Elijah, who bound the heavens from raining for 3.5 years and then loosed them to do so later. "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." (James 5:16). Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:19-20) )
the one holy catholic apostolic church is built on the foundation of Kephas,
Which is first a linquistical argument, which (since the Lord did not say "upon this Kephas I will build my church") presumes the Lord was speaking Aramaic, but which, unlike certain other cases, the Spirit chose not to record it as but choose Greek, and which makes a distinction btwn petros and petra, resulting in an endless and ongoing linquistical debate.
However, the answer is to be found in what the rest of the NT reveals as concerns Peter being the stone/rock upon with the church is built or Christ, and after that of Peter particularly being the foundation of the church.
In which nowhere interpretive of Mt. 16:18 is Peter called or described as the Rock upon which the church was built. Instead, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)
Which leaves RCs relying on Ephesians 2:20: "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." But Peter is not mentioned here, nor is submission to, or remembrance of Peter as the supreme head of the church enjoined or commended.in any of the instruction to the churches (Romans to Revelation), and is rarely even mentioned (contrary to Rome), not even in Romans among the over 30 persons mentioned. Nor it is exampled in the life of the NT church, as it is James who delivers the Scripturally substantiated doctrinal and disciplinary final judgment in Acts 15, confirmatory of what Peter exhorted and testified to, which Paul and Barnabas taught and also testified to.
Thus the issue is not that Peter was the leader among the 11, but that the manner of leadership is not that of Rome, which even Catholic (among others) scholars testify against, even before Constantine.
And critically, the NT church never manifestly saw apostolic successors being voted for after Matthias was chosen for Judas (even though James was martyred: Acts 12:1,2), which was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles (cf. Rv. 21:14) and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots. (cf. Prov. 16:33)
I will no longer post on this thread.
That's why I left it. I couldn't handle all the false doctrines. You have the patience of Job bro. Keep up the good work. 😇
It reminds of John 12:38. that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? It doesn't return to Him void.
Amen brother...
Two scenes recorded in The Bible show us Peter, under Holy Spirit direction, opening The Kingdom to the Jews with Peter's preaching The Gospel of GOD's Grace in Christ Jesus: The Day of Pentecost and the House of Cornelius. And yes, the House of Cornelius sermon was to Proselyte Jews, since the Roman Centurion was following Judaic customs and Judaism as his chosen religious expression, until the Angel instructed him to send for Peter.
It is Paul who takes the Gospel of The Grace of God in Christ to the Gentiles. The scene in Acts 15, of the first great Ekklesia Council, is purposed on what to carry as message to The Gentiles being converted to Christ. It is James the brother of Jesus who makes the final statement and dictates the wording for the letter. This same brother of Jesus did not believe Jesus was Messiah until the resurrection! [Link that reality to the scene where the brothers of Jesus and His Mother come to seek an audience with Him privately ... it is instructive.] The Apostles recognized this same James as head of the Body of Believers in Jerusalem, not Peter.
What the Catholic religion has done is ignore the Word of GOD in order to establish a false religion founded on Peter as carrying all the attributed power and authority, so the catholiciism priesthood and hierarchy is empowered.
We see what such a mutation creates, with the faux veneration of Mary, taking focus from Jesus, the ONLY mediator between Man and God. The Grace of GOD for salvation is IN CHRIST, not Mary the Mother of Jesus. A fair look at how much religious emphasis is placed on Mariology tells us what we need to know in order to see Catholicism as 'another gospel' ... which Paul in his letter to the Galatians dealt with succinctly: 'Let those carrying another gospel be accursed!' If Catholicism were an Apostolic succession, they would have to start with the leadership as recognized by the actual Apostles, AND every leader following would have to meet the Lord in person, as that was one of the Apostle-recognized attributes for Apostleship, not just discipleship, Apostleship!
See you in the clouds, Brother!
At least you admitted that the Messiah gave someone, the Apostle Peter directly, the power to bind and loose on earth. Not only that, you admitted the whole (one holy catholic apostolic church) assembly of Apostles, including those eligible to be Apostles and those in communion with them. was given this authority. You also linked it to the Jewish origins of binding and loosing. You have admitted much here. Now, any gainsaying aside, it is simply a matter of succession and provenance.
If Catholicism were an Apostolic succession, they would have to start with the leadership as recognized by the actual Apostles (they accept James as the eladership), AND every leader following would have to meet the Lord in person, as that was one of the Apostle-recognized attributes for Apostleship, not just discipleship, Apostleship!
You concede the principle and are quibbling about the details. Was it you, or another, who denied Matthias is a bona fide Apostle who replaced Judas Iscariot as one of the Twelve Apostles, having met the criteria the bound by the Apostle Peter ?
Apparently, it has escaped your Catholicism focus that James was head of the body of believers instead of Peter. Rome is not the birthplace of Christianity. It was James who declared what would be the instructions to the gentile converts. Peter was the Apostle to the Jews and Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles. James was the leader of the body of believers centered around the location of the Temple, as Judaism shrank to insignificance with GOD's Spirit birthing believers, birthing them from above not from an institution.
And you have the meaning of bound and loosed all messed up under the religion of catholiciism rather than The Holy Spirit ... GRACE to men and women was loosed on earth and in Heaven (Rev 4:1).
Your man-made, satan directed religion would declare all manner of 'traditions' of your 'other gospel' are loosed by Peter's supposed Apostolic successors. Not one pope has ever been selected by Jesus; Paul was the last Apostle Jesus selected. Peter worked (casting lots no less!), Jesus Graced Saul in being selected. The Gospel is of Grace, not works.
I dunno, Bro,I read it as Mariolatry . . . just sayin'.
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.