Posted on 04/22/2010 9:55:26 PM PDT by Salvation
This website surveys the origin and development of Roman Catholic Christianity from the period of the apostolic church, through the post-apostolic church and into the conciliar movement. Principal attention is paid to the biblical basis of both doctrine and dogma as well as the role of paradosis (i.e. handing on the truth) in the history of the Church. Particular attention is also paid to the hierarchical founding and succession of leadership throughout the centuries.
This is a set of lecture notes used since 1985 to teach the basis for key doctrines and dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. The objectives of the course were, and are:
The course grew out of the need for the authors to continually answer questions about their faith tradition and their work. (Both authors are active members of Catholic parish communities in the Diocese of Richmond, Virginia. Dr. Robert Schihl was a Professor and Associate Dean of the School of Communication and the Arts at Regent University. Paul Flanagan is a consultant specializing in preparing people for technology based changes.) At the time these notes were first prepared, the authors were spending time in their faith community answering questions about their Protestant Evangelical workplaces (Mr. Flanagan was then a senior executive at the Christian Broadcasting Network), and time in their workplaces answering similar questions about their Roman Catholic faith community. These notes are the result of more than a decade of facilitating dialogue among those who wish to learn more about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and why.
Opportunities of Grace: The Eucharist: The Lord's Supper
Roman Catholic Christians share with most Christians the faith that Jesus Christ, on the night he was betrayed, ate a final or last supper with his Apostles. This final meal was also the celebration of the Jewish Passover or Feast of the Unleavened Bread which commemorated the passing over of the Jews from the death in slavery to the Egyptians to life in the Promised Land.
Christians differ in the meaning this Last Supper has to them and the Church today. Catholic Christians together with other historical Christian Churches (e.g., Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Christians, Lutherans, Anglicans and some Episcopalians, etc.) believe the literal words of Jesus - that the bread and wine are truly his body and blood. Other later Christian Churches profess a mere symbolic meaning to the words of Jesus.
The faith of the Catholic Church is based on both a fundamental principle of hermeneutics and the constant faith of the Church from Apostolic times.
The Catholic Church teaches that the first principle of hermeneutics--the science of the translation and interpretation of the Bible--is the literal meaning of the text.
The first writer of the New Testament was the apostle Paul. His Letter to the Corinthians was written as early as 56 AD, earlier than the first Gospel, Mark's, written about 64 AD. Paul was also not an eyewitness to what he wrote but testifies to his source.
The next New Testament text in chronological order would have been Mark's Gospel. Written about 64 AD, in Rome, Mark, not an eyewitness, probably heard the account of the Last Supper he recorded from the Apostle Peter.
The third account of the Last Supper could be Matthew's. Matthew, the tax collector Levi, was an eyewitness to the meal. He was one of the twelve Apostles. Matthew probably wrote his Gospel in the 70's.
Luke's account of the Last Supper, written from the standpoint of a Gentile convert and a non-eyewitness, probably heard the details of the Last Supper from Paul. Luke was a traveling companion of Paul. Luke also wrote in the 70's.
The beloved disciple, John, the last of the New Testament writers, wrote his Gospel in the 90's. John was an eyewitness to the events of the Last Supper (Jn 6:30-68).
Hence Catholic Christian belief in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist rests upon the literal meaning of the words of the Last Supper as recorded by the Evangelists and Paul.
The uniformity of expression across the first four authors affirms the literalness. Belief in the real presence demands faith--the basis of new life as called for by Christ throughout scripture. But faith in signs conferring what they signify is the basis also for the Incarnation--appearances belying true meaning. The true significance of the real presence is sealed in John's gospel. Five times in different expressions, Jesus confirmed the reality of what he means.
The best way a person can make a clear literal point is repetition of the same message in different ways. Jesus did this. Those around him clearly understood what he was saying--cannibalism and the drinking of blood--both forbidden by Mosaic Law.
Had these disciples mistaken the meaning of Jesus' words, Jesus would surely have known and corrected them. He didn't. They had clearly understood his meaning--Jesus' flesh was to be really eaten; his blood to be really drunk.
Non believers often respond that even at the Last Supper, the apostles did not sense that they had flesh in their hands and blood in their cup. But Jesus is God. The creative literalness of the words: "This is my body; this is my blood" must be believed. God cannot lie. And God can turn bread into flesh and wine into blood without the appearances of bread and wine changing.
Medieval philosophers and theologians called this expression of Divine Truth and Creative Power "transubstantiation". Yes, God can change the substance of any created matter while the appearances remain unchanged. And this demands faith.
Paul confirms elsewhere in his letters the reality of the real presence.
The persuasion of the Church from Apostolic times about the objective reality of these words of Christ is clear from many documents.
Irenaeus (Asia Minor, 140 - 202), Tertullian (Rome, 160 - 220), Cyprian (Carthage, 200 - 258) are just a few of the earliest who attest to the objective reality of the words of Christ.
In the Church in Alexandria, Athanasius (293 - 373) and Cyril (376 - 444) equally attest to the literal meaning of the words of Christ at the Last Supper.
In the Church in Palestine, Cyril (Jerusalem, 315 - 387) and Epiphanius (Salamis, 367 - 403) also affirm in their teaching the same reality.
Unanimity is found across the universal church until the 11th century. Berengar (Tours, France, 1000 - 1088) was one of the first to deny the real presence by arguing that Christ is not physically present, but only symbolically.
The Council of Rome (a local council), 1079, taught against Berengar that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ.
By the 16th century, some Reformers (excluding Luther) also taught that Christ's presence in the Eucharist was only figurative or metaphorical. Since there were other opinions being taught as truth (figurative presence and metaphorical presence) a teaching authority (see Chapter 5) had to be appealed to discern error from the truth. The way of the Church was to follow the model of Acts 15.
The Council of Trent (1545 - 1563) defined the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the Eucharist as both the continuing sacrifice of Christ and a real sacrament. The institution of the Eucharist as sacrament was contained in the words "Do this in remembrance of me."
Roman Catholic Christians celebrate the Eucharist in the liturgical act called the Mass. The word Mass comes from the Latin missa ("sent"). It was taken from the formula for dismissing the congregation: Ite missa est ("Go, the Eucharist has been sent forth") referring to the ancient custom of sending consecrated bread from the bishop's Mass to the sick and to the other churches.
The Mass contains two parts: the liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Word is a copy of the Jewish synagogue service of the first century: readings from Scripture followed by responses from the congregation often from the Book of Psalms. The Liturgy of the Eucharist is a reenactment of the Last Supper. A celebrant does what Christ did: take bread and wine and say the same words Christ said and then share the now consecrated bread and wine with the congregation.
Roman Catholics believe that the bread and wine become the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and remain such until the elements are entirely consumed. The Body and Blood not consumed at one Eucharist are reserved for the next celebration of the Eucharist and venerated as the Body and Blood of Jesus.
Roman Catholic Christians take the word of God seriously and seek to remember Christ in the Last Supper "as often as" possible. And in doing this proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
Catholic Christians also believe that there is only one sacrifice, Jesus', but following the command "as often as" to proclaim the death of the Lord, the sacrifice of Christ is made physically present to every Christian in all places in every age. The Eucharist makes the atemporal aphysical actions of Christ's redeeming action truly present to us always and everywhere. This is incarnational.
Following the word of God, Catholics also know that Christ is not and cannot be resacrificed. This has never been the teaching of the Catholic Church.
The constant faith of the Church from the Apostolic Fathers attests to the fact that the Mass was the one Sacrifice of Calvary made present to the faithful.
The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church makes this statement explicitly.
The Roman Catholic Church through history approached her faith life with the clarification of language. That is, she translated the essentials of revealed faith into the vocabulary of living language.
Transubstantiation reflects Roman Catholic faith in the literalness of the words of the Bible.
Jesus (omnipotent God) said: "This is my body; this is my blood." And again Jesus said: "I am the bread of life;" "My flesh is true food; my blood is true drink;" "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood ...;" etc.
Roman Catholics take Jesus at His word: the bread is his body; the wine is his blood.
From the Apostles at the Last Supper until today, the bread and wine of Eucharist looks and feels and tastes like bread and wine in the eating and drinking.
Similar to all of God's Word, faith is essential. Faith in what? In the words of Jesus even though the bread does not look, feel, taste like flesh; even though the wine does not look, feel, taste like blood.
Medieval philosophers and theologians sought simply to label this simple biblical faith: Jesus said that bread is his body and wine is his blood even though it did not appear to change into visible flesh and blood.
Transubstantiation means the substance part of the bread and wine elements changes; but the accidental parts--sight, taste, smell, touch--do not. Catholics believe that since Jesus said it and He is God, he can do it. They believe! "Transubstantiation" merely labels it.
In everyday life, it is not at all uncommon to believe in things man cannot perceive by the senses: wind, electricity, love, peace, etc. All the more when Jesus says it.
And eating human flesh and drinking human blood is a thoroughly pagan ritual.
I don't really hold out any hope for a decent response. Their claim to interpret "literally" is false in most cases. It simply boils down to interpreting the Scriptures according to their dogmas and practices - the dogmas and practices being the most important to them.
Let me give them more to operate on :-)
1. The term “elder,” in its first century use and meaning meant a person of age and experience, and it is used as the word to describe the character of the leadership of local assemblies of Christians. It is the Greek word “presbuteros,” of which there were many in each local Church of Christ.
2. The term “bishop,” in its first century use and meaning meant the title of an office. This is the word the Greek speaking world at the time of Christ used to describe the office of one who “oversees” a group of people. Example: A “foreman” is an “overseer,” a “bishop” of those he is in charge of. It is the Greek word, “episkopos,” which is used to describe the office of the “elders” of the Church of Christ.
3. Putting 1 and 2 together, we find that the “presbuteros” held the office of an “episkopos,” or to put into our American English: “The ‘elders’ held the office of an ‘overseer’.”
“From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the ELDERS of the Church. When they arrived, he said to them: ’… I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole counsel of God. Guard yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you OVERSEERS. Be shepherds of the Church of God, which He bought with His own blood’.” (Acts 20:17, 27–28).
Now understand, the word which is here rendered “overseer” is “episkopos,” which is the same that is rendered “bishop” wherever the term “bishop” occurs in the New Testament Scriptures!
We also have to notice that Paul uses another word to describe the office of “bishop/overseer” — the word “shepherds,” which in other places is rendered as “pastors.” We have a very similar expression used by the Apostle Peter: “To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder … Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, …” (1 Peter 5:1–2). Here we have Peter using the words “presbuteros/elder,” and the word “shepherds,” which Paul used in the plural also to describe the office of the “episkopos/overseer/bishop.” Both Peter and Paul are in complete agreement that the word “presbuteros/elder” describes the character of the one who is an “episkopos/overseer/bishop.” Here, then, are two instances in which the “elders” are commanded to do the work of an “overseer,” which shows that when the writers of the New Testament used the term “elder” as an official title, they always applied it to the “bishops” or “overseers” of the local Church of Christ.
Let's see how Salvation (them) weasel their way out of what I just brought out from the Scriptures!
Your problem is that you “think,” and use consistent logic in accordance with scriptural norms (and observe correct word usage).
Didn’t you know that on these Catholic posts you are supposed to just “drink the Kool-Aid.”
What amazes me, though, is the lack of even an attempt to address those who challenge the erroneous (from a Biblical perspective, not one of fantasy) content posted.
You would think if the poster didn’t want to have a discussion, just a cheerleading rally, they would post in a “caucus” forum.
The Jewish Pentecost is yearly. The Eucharist is celebrated more frequently because it is the communion with our Lord and God whose Body and Blood we are commanded to eat and drink. John 6: gets into it pretty good.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html
is a verse dump with a long list of proofs from the OT, the Gospels and Paul. But for frequency, it leans upon 1 Corinthians 11:23-29.
Interesting perspective.
G-d would never have an affair with a human woman?
Could he impregnate a virgin through the power of the Holy Spirit?
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Take a mans wife.
Actually, Joseph decided to take her for his wife AFTER it was found out she was with child during their betrothal. He could have put her away.
Have a hybrid god-man child out of wedlock.
Actually, Mary and Joseph were married when the Messiah was born. As far as Jesus being fully human and fully divine you will have to deal with it or ignore it (for now).
Take this hybrid child and offer him as a human sacrifice
Actually, God did not offer Jesus as a sacrifice, sinful humanity did. Of course it was in God’s heart to allow the Messiah to die for our sins, otherwise all men would perish.
Jesus freely offered His life.
John 10:17-18 (New International Version)
17The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again.
18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
after expressly telling humans he hates human sacrifice.
Yes. He does. But His love is such that He would sacrifice Himself rather than allow others to die without a chance. Even as many of our brave troops willingly lay down their lives for their friends in times of war...willingly sacrificing themselves so that others may live.
Mislead humanity for nearly 2000 years by telling them to follow the Torah, telling humanity He is alone, besides him there is NO other, no other saviour....then say...Hey! just proving a point there! You cant do the Torah! And I am really NOT alone! Beside me is my Son, a hybrid god-man!
There are Hebrew words for absolute unity and compound unity. God is “One,” just not in the way many think, one person or individual. Humanity’s understanding was so corrupted in the garden through Adam and Eve’s disobedience that God had to establish a beachhead in order to invade the fallen race with redemption. Consider how much difficulty He had delivering Israel from Egypt. The problem was not getting them physically out of Egypt, but in getting Egypt (and bondage) out of the Hebrew heart. It’s all in the Torah. In a similar way to the Allies landing on the continent on D-Day, where Germans were killed as fast as they could be, for the purpose of establishing a foothold, God placed his hand on Abraham to separate a people for Himself. Since D-Day the rules have changed and Allies are no longer killing Germans, as Jews are no longer killing man, woman, and child of the cities they would occupy. Abraham is the father of not just one, but multiple nations.
Genesis 17:4 (New International Version)
4 “As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations.
His relationship with God also extends to the Gentiles:
Genesis 18:18 (New International Version)
18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him.
And if you don’t believe in him....you’re going to hell!
You have an issue with God allowing people to suffer the consequences of their own decisions? That’s not a very Jewish perspective (if you are Jewish).
Yes, it's an astounding SILENCE!
From Rabbi Singer:
It should be said at the outset that the word "virgin" does not appear in the seventh chapter of Isaiah. The author of the first Gospel deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew word ha'almah as "a virgin." This Hebrew word ha'almah does not mean "a virgin." It means "the young woman," with no implication of virginity. Most modern Christian Bibles1 have corrected this erroneous translation, and their Bibles now correctly translate this Hebrew word as "the young woman." Let's now examine the context of Isaiah 7:14.
The seventh chapter of the Book of Isaiah begins by describing the military crisis that was confronting King Ahaz of the Kingdom of Judah. In about the year 732 B.C.E. the House of David was facing imminent destruction at the hands of two warring kingdoms: the northern Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Syria. These two armies had laid siege to Jerusalem. The Bible relates that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear. Chapter seven relates how God sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand -- the Almighty would protect him, their deliverance was assured, and these two hostile armies would fail in their attempt to subjugate Jerusalem. In Isaiah 7:1-16 we read,
And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz son of Jotham, son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah son of Remaliah, king of Israel, marched on Jerusalem to wage war against it, and he could not wage war against it. It was told to the House of David, saying, "Aram has allied itself with Ephraim," and his heart and the heart of his people trembled as the trees of the forest tremble because of the wind. The Lord said to Isaiah, "Now go out toward Ahaz, you and Shear-Yashuv your son to the edge of the conduit of the upper pool, to the road of the washer's field, and you shall say to him, 'Feel secure and calm yourself, do not fear, and let your heart not be faint because of these two smoking stubs of firebrands, because of the raging anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah. Since Aram planned harm to you, Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, saying: "Let us go up against Judah and provoke it, and annex it to us; and let us crown a king in its midst, one who is good for us." So said the Lord God, "Neither shall it succeed, nor shall it come to pass . . . ." ' " The Lord continued to speak to Ahaz, saying, "Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God; ask it either in the depths, or in the heights above." Ahaz said, "I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord." Then he said, "Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well? Therefore the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign: Behold the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; for, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."
It is clear from this chapter that Isaiah's declaration was a prophecy of the unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem by the two armies of the Kingdoms of Israel and Syria, not a virgin birth more than 700 years later. If we interpret this chapter as referring to Jesus' birth, what possible comfort and assurance would Ahaz, who was surrounded by to overwhelming military enemies, have found in the birth of a child seven centuries later? Both he and his people would have been long dead and buried. Such a sign would make no sense.
Verses 15-16 state that by the time this child reaches the age of maturity ("he knows to reject bad and choose good"), the two warring kings, Pekah and Rezin, will have been removed. We see, in II Kings 15-16, that this prophecy was fulfilled when these two kings were suddenly assassinated. With an understanding of the context of Isaiah 7:14 alone, it is evident that the child born in Isaiah 7:14 is not referring to Jesus or to any future virgin birth. Rather, it is referring to the divine protection that Ahaz and his people would enjoy from their impending destruction at the hands of these two enemies, the northern Kingdom of Israel and Syria.
So, the notion of G-d impregnating a human woman has more basis in Grecco-Roman pagan mythology than the G-d of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.
"Actually, Joseph decided to take her for his wife after.."
Yes but He was engaged or betrothed. So, G-d impregnated an engaged woman? Knowing the potential scandal? It is still taking a mans woman. That is not the behavior of a Holy G-d.
"Mary and Joseph were married when the Messiah was born...
Yes but Joseph was not the father. G-d and Mary were not married, so the baby was born out of wedlock.
"God did not offer Jesus as a sacrifice.."
John 3:16? And he humbled himself to death...death on the cross. And if Jesus is God...
Again, a hybrid god-man, offering himself as a human sacrifice is thoroughly pagan.
"Jesus freely offered His life
He is not allowed to do that. No man can die for another mans sins...Ezekiel 18
19 "Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
21 "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. 22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
24 "But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die.
" ...allow others to die without a chance..."
Again, G-d would never give us the Torah if it was futile! What kind of cruel god would do that? He has given us means of grace (forgiveness) by prayer, repentance and charity. Blood animal sacrifices were only for unintentional sins.
So, there is no need for a Roman hybrid god-man to offer himself as a human sacrifice. G-d had already given man everything he needed to atone for sins, with and without a Temple. And since G-d says vicarious atonement is invalid (Ezekiel 18 and other places) the whole man from Nazareth thing is of no value.
bkmk
Wlsie,
Sorry Elsie!
As far as I know all the Catholics I am acquainted with take all those words at their face meaning. We aren’t as uneducated as many Protestants think.
But it’s because Catholics ARE reading and studying the Bible now!
Remember, I said you could always come back.
Was my response logical?
Oh, no, it isn’t. Catholics take the Bible quite literally in the Luke’s narrative of the Archangel Gabriel’s visit to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Protestants don’t.
Also when Mary visits Elizabeth........that narrative is one that Catholics believe word for word.
“How is it that the “Mother of my Lord” should visit me?
Translation — this is where Catholics get the title for Mary as Mother of God!
It’s not cannabalistic, Elsie. He broke and blessed the bread and said — “Take this and eat; this is my Body.” It’s about transubstantiation.
Why would Catholics not take this seriously when that particular narrative talks about many of Jesus’ followers leaving?
Jesus was telling the truth and we believe his words about the bread becoming his body.
Sorry that you don’t believe that.
I hope you are aware that the Pentateuch is in the Catholic Bible.
Christ replaced the Old Covenant of the Old Testament and gave us his New Covenant of the New Covenant.
There are many accounts of Jesus confronting the Pharisees and Sadduccees on the matters of cleansing hands, eating, etc. Picking grain on the Sabbath is another one.
He even confronted them when he cured someone on the Sabbath by asking if their ox were stuck in the mud, would not they go out to rescue it on the Sabbath?
**What amazes me, though, is the lack of even an attempt to address those who challenge the erroneous (from a Biblical perspective, not one of fantasy) content posted.**
Good grief, what do you think all the apologetics are doing?
They are addressing these beliefs from a Biblical standpoint. LOL! (I think you knew that, right?)
Is the Trinity Found in the Torah? "To whom then will you liken G-d, or what likeness compare with him?" Isaiah 40:18 (NRS)
One of the most desperate (and often offensive) attempts to give Christianity the air of validity is trying to find evidence of plurality in the Creator. There are a variety of problems with this theory, which we shall explore below.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth. (KJV) In the beginning, who created the heaven and the earth? (Note: most translations use a plural of "heavens.") G-d did. No help from Jesus or a Holy Ghost is indicated here. However, some Christians can’t let it go right there. So, they pore over the Hebrew, trying to find evidence that will support their beliefs, trying to find evidence that the Jews were wrong.
Genesis 1:1 Bereisheet barah Elokim et hashamayim v’et ha’aretz. (Hebrew Transliteration)
Christians point to the name of G-d used in this first verse of the Bible: Elokim. This word ends in "im," which is an indication of plurality. Obviously, there must be a plurality to G-d, right? Absolutely not! If the meaning of this word were to be plural, then the verbs would agree, also being in the plural. The word for "created" is "barah," in the singular.
Exodus 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. (KJV)
The word for "god" used in this verse from Exodus is "elokim." How strange! Did the Almighty reconfigure Moses to be comprised of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Did Moses become more than one person? Of course, not! According to some Christians, because a plural suffix is used, the G-dhead must be plural. Therefore, every time you find a word with a plural suffix, that word will be plural. So, there must have been a plurality in Moses, wasn’t there? The Lord is infinite and perfect. "Elokim" is simply a name that shows His very magnitude by using a plural form of the word.
I’m sure some people who read this essay know of the traditional Jewish toast, "L’Chaim!" To life! "Chaim" means life (singular), yet it uses a plural suffix. The word for "water" is "mayim," which uses a plural suffix. The word for "face" is "panim." Even the word for "heaven," "shamayim" used in the first verse of Genesis has the plural ending. Clearly, not every word in Hebrew that employs a plural suffix is actually a plurality. Just as it is not true that every word in English that ends in "s" is a plural word, not every word in Hebrew that ends with "im" is plural.
Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD: (KJV)
In Judaism, we call this verse the "Shema," which is the word for "hear." It is our fundamental declaration of faith.
Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: HASHEM is our G-d, HASHEM is the One and Only. (Artscroll) A slightly different wording, but the meaning is the same. When I was a child, the translation I was taught was "Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our G-d, the Lord is One!" Believe it or not, some Christians try to prove that the Trinity is in this verse from Deuteronomy! Let us observe the Hebrew rendering:
Deuteronomy 6:4 Shema, Yisrael, Hashem Elokeinu, Hashem Echad. (Hebrew Transliteration)
Literally, the verse reads "Hear Israel Hashem Our G-d Hashem One." The word "echad" in Hebrew means "one." There are instances, as some Christians are quick to point at, where the word "echad" denotes a compound unity. They point to passages in Genesis, for instance:
Genesis 1:5 G-d called to the light: "Day," and to the darkness He called: "Night." And there was evening and there was morning, one day. (Artscroll)
The word "one" used here is "echad." Christians point to other instances where "echad" is used to denote a compound unity, and as such, they declare that every time "echad" is used, that it denotes a compound unity, and therefore, The Lord must be a compound unity, proving that the Trinity is in the Torah! Correct? No, this is totally incorrect. The word "echad" in Hebrew actually works in the same way the word "one" does in English. It can mean either a single unity or a compound unity. These Christians are very quick to point to Genesis 1:5, but you’ll never see them point at verses like these:
Exodus 9:7 And Pharaoh sent, and, behold, there was not one of the cattle of the Israelites dead. And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go. (KJV)
2 Samuel 13:30 And it came to pass, while they were in the way, that tidings came to David, saying, Absalom hath slain all the king's sons, and there is not one of them left. (KJV)
2 Samuel 17:12 So shall we come upon him in some place where he shall be found, and we will light upon him as the dew falleth on the ground: and of him and of all the men that [are] with him there shall not be left so much as one. (KJV)
Ecclesiastes 4:8 There is one [alone], and [there is] not a second; yea, he hath neither child nor brother: yet [is there] no end of all his labour; neither is his eye satisfied with riches; neither [saith he], For whom do I labour, and bereave my soul of good? This [is] also vanity, yea, it [is] a sore travail. (KJV)
The word for "one" used here is "echad." "Not one of the cattle" Was each cow a compound unity? Were the king’s sons more than one person each? Of course, not. Just as "one" in English can work both ways, so can the word "echad."
In trying to prove a plurality, all that a Christian does is create the possibility of a 2-part, or even a 2-thousand part G-d. The fact remains:
Nowhere in the Torah will you find that G-d is comprised of a Trinity.
At the Council of Nicea (325 CE), the doctrine of the Bianity became canonized, equating Jesus to the substance of G-d in Christian theology. The Council of Constantinople in 381 CE added the Holy Spirit to the Bianity and the Trinity was canonized. These councils contradicted the Torah of Moses. See Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 (13:1) for instructions regarding changes to the Torah. Who are we to believe? Moses, or these councils?
You posted:
21 “But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die.
Have you done so? Are you righteous before God based on your behavior and the keeping of the “law” in the Torah?
Perhaps you could explain away this verse as well:
Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
You stated: Most modern Christian Bibles have corrected this erroneous translation (”virgin” in Isaiah 7:14), and their Bibles now correctly translate this Hebrew word as “the young woman.”
To which modern “Christian” translations do you refer? I just checked around 10 of them, and only one used young woman, which could or could not mean virgin — the rest translate the Hebrew word to virgin.
“There is no instance where it can be proved that ‘almâ designates a young woman who is not a virgin. The fact of virginity is obvious in Gen 24:43 where ‘almâ is used of one who was being sought as a bride for Isaac.” (R. Laird Harris, et al. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, p. 672.)
You further posted: The author of the first Gospel deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew word ha’almah as “a virgin.” This Hebrew word ha’almah does not mean “a virgin.” It means “the young woman,” with no implication of virginity.
Actually, ha’almah is used 7 times in the Old Testament. 4 times it is translated as virgin in the KJV, twice as maid, and once as damsel.
Gen 24:43 Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin cometh forth to draw [water], and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;
Exodus 2:8 And Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, Go. And the maid went and called the child’s mother.
Psalms 68:25 The singers went before, the players on instruments followed after; among them were the damsels playing with timbrels.
Proverbs 30:19 The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid.
Song of Songs 1:3 Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee.
Song of Songs 6:8 There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number.
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
You added: Missed a topic....regarding compound unity.
You forgot to expound on Genesis 1:26 and 27:
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
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.