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 ...
For the Clauds of the world, tradition trumps the Scriptures ...
Will Tim Staples get you born again, born from above? When will you know you are born from above, when Staples confirms it for you?
The learned rabbis who translated the Old Testament into the Greek Septuagint were of a different opinion. Of course now the rabbis would have a motive to deny this meaning in order to deny its application to the birth of Jesus. In any case, Saint Luke gives the definitive meaning when, following the Greek Septuagint, he renders it as virgin in his Gospel.
The problems with the model are obvious. Firstly, a half-baked Greek scholarship in contradiction to what the Greeks actually say (as pointed out by another poster). Wouldn't it be prudent to study the wrtings of the Greek Orthodox on Mary's perpetual virginity? They are Greek, after all.
Secondly, a rejection of 2,000 years of Church tradition on this subject and the writings of numerous saints and doctors.
Thirdly, a prideful, personal analysis of Scripture, divorced from the Church which gave us Scripture.
Put those three things together and it's a certainty that you'll end up in the swamp of heresy.
Read the English carefully. Character is only one attribute. You did not address the substance of his argument and tried to dismiss them based on his name.
I find the protesting argument weak because it continually strays from two millennia of Church tradition, and not just in one area. Everyone sits under one's own fig tree and interprets for oneself, and do not agree. The Messiah's words testify against this case. He said he would build His church on Peter, that the gates of hell would not prevail against it, that He would give Peter the keys of the kingdom, that whatever Peter bound on earth would be bound in heaven and whatever was loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven. One either believes the Messiah or does not, and looks for excuses not to believe Him, excuses that will be examined in the judgment. Love covers a multitude of sins.
There was no full consensus on the doctrine of perpetual virginity within the early Church by the end of the second century, e.g. Tertullian (c.160 – c.225) did not teach the doctrine (although he taught virgin birth), but Irenaeus (c.130 – c.202) taught perpetual virginity, along with other Marian themes.[37] Origen (185-254) was emphatic on the issue of the brothers of Jesus, and stated that he believed them to have been the children of Joseph from a previous marriage.[45] However, wider support for the doctrine began to appear within the next century.[37]
Some writers from 4th century, Helvidius and Eunomius of Cyzicus (one of the Arians leaders), interpreted Matthew's statement to mean that Joseph and Mary did have normal marital relations after Jesus' birth, and that James, Joses, Jude, and Simon were the biological sons of Mary and Joseph, a view held by Helvidius and Eunomius.[46] Helvidius appealed to the authority of Tertullian against the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity, to which Jerome (c.340-419) replied that Tertullian was "not a man of the church."[47] Basil of Caesarea denied Eunomius' view since Basil sees Matthew 1:25 as evidence for, not against, Mary’s perpetual virginity.[46]
By the 4th century, the doctrine of perpetual virginity had been well attested.[48] For example, references can be found in the 3rd century writings of Hippolytus of Rome, who called Mary "the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption," [49] and the 4th century works of Athanasius,[50] Epiphanius,[51] Hilary,[52] Didymus,[53] Ambrose,[54] Jerome,[55] and Siricius[56] continued the attestations to perpetual virginity – a trend that gathered pace in the next century.[6][7]
source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary
I'll address his position later. I don't have my resources handy right now.
And as I've told you before I follow Christ and Christ alone. He is the only means of forgiveness and salvation.
Paul lived in the era in question, hundreds of years before the faux perpetual virginity issue was finalized by the catholiciism institutional org. HE stated ‘the brother of Jesus’. But the religion of catholiciism needs certain magic issues to continue their hold on souls, so the scriptures are twisted or denied and tradition rules the dogma. BUT Paul lived then, free of these institutional traditions the religion of catholiciism has conjured up for organizational empowerment.
Do you believe Peter was already born from above when he spoke on the Day of Pentecost? Your answer will edify your thinking without me conjecturing for your satisfaction.
Every separatist sect and cult makes the same claim. Many claim a personal knowledge that takes them in separate directions. It seems to me they struggle with the words of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts as well as of the Apostles.
Does that mean you do not know ?
Here's another HINT: were the people in the House of Cornelius born from above when they began speaking in tongues, illustrating the Holy Spirit was in them?
I know the concept of a personal Savior is a foreign concept to the Catholic who can only approach Christ through the priest whereas the Christian can approach Christ directly.
The Greek Fathers were looking at the exact same Scriptures as you and had all the same verses you could cite with the “brothers of the Lord” and “until she gave birth” and “firstborn” and all that.
There isn’t a single verse that was added to the Scripture from their day to ours.
The only difference is that they spoke Greek natively and you and I don’t.
Also, no one is saying that marital sex is bad. But the High Priest had to abstain from any relations with his wife an entire week before entering the Holy of Holies.
So now St. Joseph, knowing this as a devout Jew, is told by an angel that God would now be dwelling *in his own house*. Those rooms, that whole dwelling was now more holy than the innermost sanctum of the Temple! And Joseph couldn’t just visit it once a year either. From the day Joseph took Our Lady in till the day he died, he was dwelling in the direct presence of God continually. Does it seem credible that the High Priest would know his wife carnally in the Holy of Holies?
You have to look at this all as Joseph in his culture would have looked at it, not as we in our culture can piece together from a concordance and a dictionary.
To which Church are you referring?
See my post 66. Refutes your claim.
Really? So, Pope Francis IS authoritative? That is wild. Francis says things in direct contradiction to the Bible and then the Bible speaks clearly on the subject of the brothers and sisters of Jesus and that is unacceptable...but Francis IS acceptable? Oh wow.
Your equating Jospeh and Mary’s house as the Hoky of Holies is a stretch at best.
Have you ever heard of someone learning a second language and then trying to dictate to the *original* speakers what a passage MUST mean? Despite unanimous opinion to the contrary?
Because that's exactly what you are doing. You are saying the whole Greek-speaking Church got it wrong for 2000 years. Oh, and, incidentally, the Syrian Church and the Alexandrian Church and the Roman Church which were all Greek speaking in the beginning, despite their later adoptions of Syriac and Coptic and Latin.
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.