Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
Catholicism makes Christianity way too complicated.
They’ve gotten away from repent and believe and the simplicity of Christ alone.
> “Catholicism makes Christianity way too complicated.”
.
Catholicism has no effect on Christianity.
Catholicism is the worship of humanity.
.
Very good post ,dear friend. The KJV is a mess or errors and you just touched upon another.
I'm pinging Kosta 50 to this because he has brought KJV error into the light many times
Did (many, many times). Have and still do. Nope, ain't gonna happen - I know better now! And, BTW, a person can be catholic and not be Catholic. :o)
Kinda like a Vulcan Mind-Meld?
“Very good post ,dear friend. The KJV is a mess or errors and you just touched upon another.
I’m pinging Kosta 50 to this because he has brought KJV error into the light many times”
********************************************************************************
Kosta50? The same kosta50 who is a self-professed agnostic?
The same kosta50 who argues against the deity of Christ?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2495846/posts?page=2766#2766
You trust his discernment on spiritual matters?
No wonder the Catholic church is such a mess.
There was a Catholic priest when I was in junior high who questioned the virgin birth. How he got far enough along to be ordained is beyond me. However, he didn’t last long after that sermon, to that parish’s credit, which is more than I can say about whoever ordained him.
Post-Christian Masoretic text agrees with the pre-Christian Qumran (Dead Sea) Scrolls to a very high degree. They also agree (to a lesser extent) with the Septuagint. Trouble is, pre-Chirtsian Septuagint doesn't exist, except in some fragments spanning more than two centuries. Post-Chritsian era Septuagints also don't exist. What we have is a little bit of one and a little bit of the other...but we really don't know what the "original" Septuagint contained.
The Torah (Pentateuch) portion of the Septuagint agrees very well with the MT, but the rest doesn't. Cerveza's argument about Isa 7:14 is a separate issue, but ti is true that KJV departs form the MT and uses the Septuagint in verse 7:14. This is nothing new in the manipulative doctrinally "adjusted" editions of various Bibles.
But, Even if it is about a "virgin," it is irrelevant because Isaiah 7 is not about Jesus. That much is obvious to anyone who has actually read the whole chapter.
_____
As for Harley's unsuccessful search for the Greek word "victim," Christ is most definitely considered a victim, but you won't find it in the Reformed Bibles and reformed Random Verse Generators because it clashes with the Deformed Protestant theology! So, it's doctrinally inadmissible and therefore expunged. (more biblical manipulations) From the Reformed point of view, God demanded, indeed preordained, Christ as the just propitiation, so how could Christ then be a "victim!"
This may come as a shock to the Paul-worshiping crowd, but it was none other than him who introduced the word hilestarion (Roman 3:25) among other plentiful innovations, which means an expiatory sacrifice or an expiatory victim.
In general, the term "victim" also means "sacrifice" in Greek (thusia, prosphora); also Greek-derived Church Slavonic zhertva, or hebrew pecach. If you think about it, a sin offering was an innocent specimen (by definition a victim) offered in place of the guilty one! The Gospel of Luke makes it very clear that Christ's death was supreme injustice, because he was the last man on earth who deserved to die.
Even the idea that Christ offered himself as ransom as an act of supreme mercy is also an act of supreme injustice, because mercy and justice are diametrically opposite.
All this changed when Anselm (11th century) introduced the ridiculous notion of "satisfaction of divine justice " theology of atonement, making Christ's suffering and death a vicarious satisfaction of the divine "justice."
Being agnostic doesn't prevent anyone from pointing to an error, especially when the publishers of the first edition of KJV admitted to a couple of hundred errors.
The same kosta50 who argues against the deity of Christ?
I merely pointed to the fact that he is not portrayed as God in various parts of the NT. I document my claims. You are more than welcome to provide your documented counter-arguments—if you can that is; which remains to be seen.
You trust his discernment on spiritual matters?
SFA asked me to comment on a linguistic issue, not spiritual matters. Do you understand the difference?
This is where knowing The Bible comes in. KNOWING who Jesus IS, WHAT HE came to the earth for.
If you were convicted of a crime and the penalty of that crime was HUGE. Your best friend comes along and pays that penalty out of his own pocket, would you consider your best friend a ‘victim’? Or did he make a personal sacrifice on your behalf simply because he loved you and wanted to be with you forever (and not thrown in jail forever).
Would you go around and say the courts state ‘my best friend is the victim now because he took my place and paid all the charges involved’?
There is no victim hood here and the court says everything has been expunged from your record - it’s as if you never committed the crime. And your friend ‘paid the price’ - he’s the one who sacrificed for your release. It’s doesn’t make him a victim but, truly your best friend.
After this happened, can you see yourself wanting to shout to everyone about this ‘good news’ - nearly too good to be true news?
Or would you open up the cell gate and say, ‘nope, I’m must pay some penalty, for surely I am guilty’? In the eyes of the court, you are not. Only in your own understanding - that you must pay somehow. And now your best friend’s sacrifice is null and void. I hardly doubt you would do that to your best friend - where you would allow ‘what you think’ to override when he has already done. And, of course, you know Who your best friend is.
Yes, you were called in for your "linguistic" knowledge, so why did you also feel the need to add your comments on the "spiritual matters"?
For example, you don't believe Isaiah 7:14 is a Messianic prophecy, you think Paul was wrong-headed about many things, you think the KJV was "manipulated" and "untrustworthy", you think the "Reformed" are wrong, etc. Can you just give a knowledgeable contribution on language without adding your "agnostic" opinions? I really do think that is what stfassisi was asking for since you "dis" his faith along with everybody elses'.
John 15:13
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends
BINGO!!
I think at times it’s best to ignore silliness lest someone think we take it seriously.
The Septuagint is know to have existed for about two centuries before Christ. We do know that the inspired writers of the NT quoted from the Septuagint. If you don't believe NT inspiration, that is beyond the scope of Protestant-Catholic debate. Belief in NT inspiration supports the Septuagint. Also, First Century Jewish writers Josephus and Philo both attested to the divine inspiration of the Septuagint.
The Torah (Pentateuch) portion of the Septuagint agrees very well with the MT, but the rest doesn't.
The writings of the Prophets where highly condemnatory. It is no surprising if latter day rabbis would scale back the severity of those curses.
But, Even if it is about a "virgin," it is irrelevant because Isaiah 7 is not about Jesus. That much is obvious to anyone who has actually read the whole chapter.
It does if read Isaiah as prophetic language. Many parts of the bible are written like that. Prophetic visions combine scenes of different events, symbols, and parables in ways that can be confusing. The Risen Christ explained the OT to his Apostles in ways they had never understood before.
The Gospel of Luke makes it very clear that Christ's death was supreme injustice, because he was the last man on earth who deserved to die. [...]
All this changed when Anselm (11th century) introduced the ridiculous notion of "satisfaction of divine justice " theology of atonement, making Christ's suffering and death a vicarious satisfaction of the divine "justice."
Why does it have to be one or the other? I agree that His Crucifixion was a great injustice committed by His betrayers and persecutors, but could it not at the same time have been a sin offering?
Mark 14:21: And the Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed. It were better for him, if that man had not been born.
I didn't talk about spiritual matters, but matters that are objectively available for examination.
For example, you don't believe Isaiah 7:14 is a Messianic prophecy
It's not a messianic prophesy but a sign God promised to king Ahaz, the king of Judah, who lived seven hundred years before Virgin Mary. Read the whole chapter and tell me where it becomes a 1st century "messianic" prophecy.
you think Paul was wrong-headed about many things
Yes, and you think is was not.
you think the KJV was "manipulated" and "untrustworthy"
That is objectively true. Nothing spiritual in that.
you think the "Reformed" are wrong
On some things, yes. And your point is?
Can you just give a knowledgeable contribution on language without adding your "agnostic" opinions? I really do think that is what stfassisi was asking for since you "dis" his faith along with everybody elses'
I was invited to comment on the usage of a word in KJV, which involved also Isiah 7:14. I didn't mention anything that was not mentioned prior to my invitation to comment. Not that an invitation is needed for, or the scope limited in an open threat.
Do I go around policing your posts and telling you how much you should comment? I mean the liberty some of you take when it comes to me is really over the top.
As for SFA, I think, unlike some, he is way too confident in his faith not to be threatened by a dissenting opinion.
Not if my friend just paid a fine, but if in paying my penalty he ended up being hounded, tortured, and unjustly killed, then yes my friend would be a victim.
Would you go around and say the courts state ‘my best friend is the victim now because he took my place and paid all the charges involved’?
The analogy breaks down here. Christ is the Sacrificial Lamb. He is more than just a friend who paid a fine for me.
There is no victim hood here and the court says everything has been expunged from your record - it’s as if you never committed the crime. And your friend ‘paid the price’ - he’s the one who sacrificed for your release.
That is too cut and dry. Why would Paul say that a sinner can only be saved "as though through fire?"
It’s doesn’t make him a victim but, truly your best friend.
This ignores what actually happened leading up to and during the Passion. Christ was victimized by extremely evil men.
Or would you open up the cell gate and say, ‘nope, I’m must pay some penalty, for surely I am guilty’?
Of course not but we cannot define our own reality. I have to look at what biblical history says the Apostles thought Jesus and he Holy Spirit were telling them. Also, I have to look for consistency and linear logic that conforms to history. I do not think the truth is that hard to find if you stay focused on truth and not just on what you want to believe.
In the eyes of the court, you are not. Only in your own understanding - that you must pay somehow.
Not me. I want all the freebies I can get but I also know that the Devil is out laying snares. I must stick very close to the truth of my friend to avoid deception.
And now your best friend’s sacrifice is null and void. I hardly doubt you would do that to your best friend - where you would allow ‘what you think’ to override when he has already done. And, of course, you know Who your best friend is.
My friend does not want to stop me from thinking. His sacrifice does not become null and void if I do think. He also knows the enemy is prowling about and wants me to use every means available to emerge victorious.
Do I go around policing your posts and telling you how much you should comment? I mean the liberty some of you take when it comes to me is really over the top.
This is hilarious. How DARE you have a comment!
And it is a translation of pre-existant Jewish scriptures. It was translated in stages over a period of about 150 years. Except for the Pentateuch, most of the books of the LXX are not considered good translations. In fact, some books are not even translations.
The fact that NT authors use is in over 90% of OT references is irrelevant as to the accuracy of the translation. They used what was available in Greek.
The actual BC fragments include parts of only seven books, mostly the Torah and some Minor Prophets. There are only 2 books (Leviticus and Deuteronomy fragments) that are from the 2nd century BC; the other five are from the first. For a complete copy of the Greek OT one must go to the 4th century AD Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and the 5th centiry AD Alexandrinus which are know for their "redact ions".
Only 5% of the Qumran scrolls correspond to LXX type text compared to 60% for the Masoretic.
It does if read Isaiah as prophetic language
Don't hold back, let's see it.
Why does it have to be one or the other?
Because the two atonement interpretations are diametrically opposed.
That was exactly my reaction. I mean, it's outright infantile.
That was such a revealing comment.
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.