They transmitted CONFUSION to me!
 |
a SAILBOAT??? |
|
 |
I Dream of Jeannie ? |
Posted on 04/13/2013 2:54:16 PM PDT by NYer
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The Catholic faith is not centered simply on a book -- the Bible -- but on Jesus Christ, the Word of God made flesh, Pope Francis said.
"The sacred Scriptures are a written testimony to the divine Word," which came before the Bible and exceeds it, the pope said April 12 during a meeting with members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, an international body of scholars that advises the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Commission members met at the Vatican April 9-12 to conclude work on a document about inspiration and truth in the Bible, which is likely to be published in the coming months.
Archbishop Gerhard Muller, prefect of the doctrinal congregation and president of the commission, told the pope the aim was to help people interpret the Scriptures "in accordance with the nature" of the Bible itself. The focus on "inspiration," he said, was an attempt to explain the divine origin of the Bible and the focus on "truth" was an attempt to describe what the Bible says "about God and his plan for salvation."
The archbishop said the commission recognized that when the church describes the Scriptures as being divinely inspired and true certain "challenges come from the Bible itself," including when passages seem to contradict scientific or historical evidence.
Another challenge, he said, is posed by "the violence in some passages" that seems to contradict basic Christian teaching and even phrases the Bible attributes directly to Jesus.
The point of the document, he said, is to help Catholics "overcome both fundamentalism and skepticism."
Pope Francis said the themes of biblical inspiration and truth are important not only for individual believers, "but for the whole church because its life and mission are based on the Word of God, who animates theology and inspires all of Christian existence."
Interpreting the Bible in an honest and authentic way means respecting its nature and recognizing its purpose, the pope said.
"The texts inspired by God were entrusted to the community of believers, the church of Christ, to increase the faith and guide the life of charity," he said. It is only with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and with full respect for the tradition and teaching of the church that the Scriptures' true meaning can be understood.
So who is she then if she’s not the mother of God?
Scripture calls Mary the mother of Jesus.
God is eternal. God dos not have a mother.
Therefore the term *Mother of God*, is at best misleading, and at worst diabolical.
Mother of Jesus does not say or mean the same thing as Mother of God and all the semantic gymnastics Catholics want to use to justify conflating the two terms will not change that.
“Scripture calls Mary the mother of Jesus.
God is eternal. God dos not have a mother.”
Therefore Jesus is neither eternal nor God.
The Holy Spirit calls Mary the mother of Jesus in the Scripture HE inspired in John 2:1, John 2:3, and Acts 1:14.
A keyword search in the Bible of the term “mother of God” turns up zero results.
You should try reading it sometime so you can learn stuff like that.
In reality, meaning that ultimately Rome defines what is right and wrong, thus she herself cannot be wrong, yet regardless of your attempt to provide immunity for the Roman church, my stated fact remains that historically Rome did not overall encourage Bible literacy among the laity.
Looking at images can certainly convey truth, but Lord did not use art to rebuke the devil or establish His claims and open the disciples mind to art, (Lk. 24:44) and it was the Scriptures that the Lord and His apostles and disciples so abundantly referenced or alluded to when preaching. As was Paul's manner, (Acts 17:2) mainly to those who knew them, (Acts 2:14-36; 10:24-43;13:16-41; 18:28; 28) while appeal to natural revelation was first made for the ignorant, (Acts 14:15-17; 17:22-31) and along with supernatural attestation, making "the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God," and sacrificial labor in love and holiness. (Rm. 15:18,19; 2Cor. 6:4-10)
And (ignoring the debate about graven images), the issue is not whether art can be used, but whether this and less knowledge is preferred over actual reading, and thus working to educate the masses in that most basic and blessed ability, and to read and be fluent in Scripture in the common tongue.
It is the latter that Rome often hindered rather than promoting overall, while later teaching revisionist Bible scholarship to millions.
ruthlessly destroyed by the Protestant iconoclasts because it was not presented in a media acceptable to them or in a form that they could manage the interpretations.
That reason is an interpretation, rather than anger against Rome and the idea that graven images were wrong, while in any case what angry peasants, etc. did it is irrelevant, unless you can show that this was and is a standard Protestant doctrine. It was torture and killing of that had papal sanction, and which worldly means early Prots also had to unlearn.
If Mary birthed God, where did Mary come from and how did she get pregnant?
Which ecumenical councils do you accept? Do you accept Ephesus?
“Where did Mary come from”?
You can look it up in Luke. It has her genealogy.
“How did she get pregnant”?
Also in Luke - the Annunciation.
First, Pasting such portions of an article (http://www.catholic-defense.com/bible.htm) without attribution is plagiarism, but you should return what you borrowed as damaged goods.
And despite the polemical assertion, the answers to that question is Yes: “The liberty of the Scripture interpreter remains extensive. Taking due consideration of the factors that influence proper exegesis, the Catholic Bible interpreter has the liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage that is not excluded with certainty by other passages of Scripture, by the judgment of the magisterium, by the Church Fathers, or by the analogy of faith. That is a great deal of liberty, as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty” Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers ; http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101bt.asp
If one were to put two persons of the "same" non-Catholic Christian denomination (i.e., two Presybterians, two Lutherans, two Baptists, etc.) in separate rooms with a Bible and a notepad and ask them to write down their "interpretation" of the Bible, passage for passage, shouldn't they then produce the exact same interpretation? If guided by the Holy Spirit as Scripture states, the answer should be "Yes."
Invalid. Even the 1st century church did not have comprehensive doctrinal unity, while there is much disagreement in Catholicism about what the Bible teaches, as Rome has only "infallibly" interpreted a few verses at best, while unity in core essentials is evidenced among classic evangelical commentaries (which are far more extensive than in Rome), and as said, evangelicals testify to greater unity in moral views and basic truths than Catholics, which reveals what Catholicism really is teaching. .
For that matter, aren't ALL non-Catholic Christians as individuals claiming "infallibility" when it comes to interpreting the Bible?
Not so, as unlike the presumption of Rome, under SS no individual can claim assured infallibility, but instead the veracity of teaching is dependent upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation. And which is how the church established its truth claims, not under the unScriptural premise of perpetual assured infallibility as per Rome. "..by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (2Cor. 4:2)
Moreover, it is in Roman Catholicism that sola individualitica (if there is such a word) is a reality, as the pope is supreme over councils, and supremely decides what is consistent with the past.
In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma.
True, unlike the Bereans but like cults, RCs are not to objectively search the Scriptures to see if what it taught is true, and while they engage in debate using the Bible as if they were reasonable souls open to be persuaded, and as if the weight of Scriptural warrant was a necessity for their doctrine and assurance, the reality is that it is not, and that they cannot allow even as a possibility that their church could be wrong, for she has infallibly declared herself to be infallible. At least as regarding higher levels of the magisterium, which level the RC may often have to discern, and its meaning to some degree.
I have a bad cold so i am late in responding. Hope you do not get it.
This verse has not been infallibly defined, and RCs can and do disagree about it. As the CE states,
The translation “she” of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent’s head, is Christ; the woman at enmity with the serpent is Mary. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
As with others, the official Roman Catholic Bible for America translates this,
“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; They will strike at your head, while you strike at their heel.”
The approved notes (1970 ver.), while also noting the Traditional Messianic exegesis, explains this saying, “They will strike…at their heel: the antecedent for “they” and “their” is the collective noun “offspring,” i.e., all the descendants of the woman.” (http://old.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis3.htm)
“He” .. in the original Hebrew is masculine. It is pronounced “hoo” and can also mean “it.” Many think it means “it” in reference to collective offspring of the woman crushing the head of the serpent. In the LXX, however, it is rendered autos “he,” indicating that the passage should be understood as a Messianic prophecy about Jesus Christ alone crushing the head. “He [Jesus] will crush the serpent’s head.” http://reformedapologeticsministries.blogspot.com/2012/02/catholic-misuse-of-genesis-315.html
RC apolgist Jimmy Akin states,
Q: Please explain to me how come the Douay-Rheims Gen 3:15 and the the New American Bible Gen 3:15 differ. I’m sure you know what I am talking about.
A: I certainly do. In most editions of the Douay-Rheims Bible, Genesis 3:15, in which God is addressing the serpent, reads like this:
“I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.”
In the New American Bible, as in all other modern Bibles, it reads like this:
“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.”
The essential difference between these two renderings — or at least the one people always ask about — concerning who will crush the serpent’s head and who the serpent is trying to strike. The Douay-Rheims uses feminine pronouns — she and her — implying that the woman is the person being spoken of in this part of the verse. All modern translations use masculine pronouns — he and his — implying that the seed of the woman is the of that part of the verse.
The reason for the difference in the renderings is a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). The variant probably originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman.
People notice this variant today because the expression found in the Douay-Rheims has been the basis of some popular Catholic art, showing a serene Mary standing over a crushed serpent.
This is because Christians have recognized (all the way back to the first century) that the woman and her seed mentioned in Genesis 3:15 do not simply stand for Eve and one of her righteous sons (either Abel or Seth). They prophetically foreshadow Mary and Jesus. Thus, just as the first half of the verse, speaking of the enmity between the serpent and the woman, has been applied to Mary, the second half, speaking of the head crushing and heel striking, has also been applied to Mary due to the manuscript variant, though it properly applies to Jesus, given the original Hebrew. www.jimmyakin.com/mary-and-genesis-315
In a rare instance of a mild form of reproof of excessive Marian exaltation, no less a devotee of Mary than Cardinal Ratzinger at least recognized that the title “Co-redemptrix ” “departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings” (see comments on Co-redemptrix below), Yet as regards Scripture, this is also true of other aspects of Catholic exaltation of Mary, which depart too greatly from the sober and balanced descriptions given of Mary in Scripture, showing how she was a holy saint and a virgin, but not going beyond into the extremes of Catholic devotion, in which the Roman Catholic apologists add to their transgressions in their attempts to find support from Scripture by many unwarranted extrapolations, which the list below examples.
“It is not that technicality it might not be allowed in a strict context (Jesus is God, Mary is His mother), but what it otherwise conveys (God had a mother) and what it is part of and the manner in which the Holy Spirit describes her (the mother of Jesus)”
There’s no question about it. God does have a mother. Mary. The only reason you have difficulty saying so is because it means admitting that the Catholic church is right and you are wrong.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Resorting to ad hominem mode will not refute the reasons i gave, and in your attempt at mind reading you have made a false statement, for the reason i reject the title is due to wanting to be consistent with Scripture in what it provides, and with its use of titles and tempered praise of souls, whereas Rome has ascribed to mortals much more than what is written.
And the reason i agree with Rome in many things she teaches is that i seek to validate truth claims by Scriptural examination, rather than assurance being based upon the premise of a perpetually infallible autocratic magisterium.
Yet the fact that an entity is right on some things does not mean they are right on all, and the way God established truth claims in Scripture, as written, was by Scriptural substantiation.
And the way God often preserved truth was by raising up men from without the magisterium to reprove it if needed. And thus the church began as the body of Christ, and thus it will continue.
I did not.
It was posted to NArses.
And you don't.
You trust the guys who have 'explained' the bible.
Ok; then how does THAT... how does that allow for evil popes?"
“consistent with Scripture”
I ask you the same question I asked of the others.
1. Jesus is God.
2. Mary is his mother
Therefore Mary is the Mother of God. Which do you deny? 1 or 2?
Better question - are there any priests who aren’t evil?
They transmitted CONFUSION to me!
|
a SAILBOAT??? |
|
|
I Dream of Jeannie ? |
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.