Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
Perhaps to be "Roman-ically correct," one should conclude that the council cannot err because it is infallible since it was certified by the pope. However not all council statements "define a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church." Disciplinary action is not a definition of faith or morals. St. Joan of Arc was condemned to death by a council but was later exonerated. So disciplinary actions against individuals are not infallible. The condemnation of Honorius' heresy is infallible but not the condemnation of the man.
Amen
Amen...awesome post! Praise be to the name of the Lord.
OR: On this I agree with Kosta. There is not, nor ever has been, such a thing as a Septuagint.
Well, I never said that. The pre-Christian era Septuagint was completed, gradually, by about 150 BC. We just don't know with certainty what books were in that canon because only seven pre-Christian books are known to exist.
The next complete canon of the Septuagint (LXX) is in Codices known as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (written c. 350 AD), which is to say about 500 years later, and in the case of Alexandrinus, almost 600 years later! (note also that Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus are not exactly identical either).
By comparison, the earliest complete Jewish Masoretic Text (MT) is another 500 years removed from the Greek! The only thing that the MT has to boast about is the claim that allegedly its verison of Isaiah matched "perfectly" the Qumran (Dead Sea Scroll) version of Isaiah. Even if true, that doesn't mean we can say the rests does!
The fact that post-Christian era rabbis tried to re-write the LXX and bring in closer to the MT (and that at least three such versions—Theodoton, Symmachus and Aquila—existed in the 2nd century AD) shows that scriptural manipulation existed so much so that Origen called on the rabbis to provide a version of their scriptures that was not fraudulent!
What are we to say of the two versions of Luke's Gospel (one so-called "long" and the other one "short")? Which one is genuine? When it comes to biblical manuscripts nothing is clearly black and white.
Cerveza makes states correctly that the New Testament authors quoted from the Septuagint, but doesn't tell us which Septuagint! Let's not forget that there are no first century New Testament manuscripts to reveal what that version of LXX was. The earliest extant copies and fragments of the New Testament are 2nd century AD copies, when at least three Septuagint variants were in circulation.
And there are serious theological variations in the Septuagint in such passages as Isaiah 9:5/6, and other verses.
For example:
and
It's like night and day! Also other translations change the tense. For instance, the Catholic NAB version puts it in the future tense
The Jewish translations also vary. For instance this English-version Tanakh puts the same verse in the past tense, as something already accomplished:
or
For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom; [JPS]
So, clearly, not only do the version of the Septuagint vary, but the Englih translations are clearly doctrinally "harmonized" (read: corrupted!).
I am reminded of the incident in scripture in which Josiah commanded the temple to be refurbished. There in a hidden room, they found the word of God after 400 years in which it was missing. Josiah read from that holy text to the people from sun up to sun down while all the people stood the entire day listening to it.
People did not call into question the authenticity of the text that had been missing for 400 years. Nor did they figure that it was the word of God simply because Josiah said it was and they took it on faith in Josiah. And, one would suppose that after 400 years it was probably a bit tatter and parts were missing. That didn't seem to matter. They knew that it was the word of God because God speaks to His people through the words and His people hear His voice. And when they heard the word read by Josiah, the people wept.
We know that the scriptures are the word of God because God speaks to us through them. Not because we can prove their authentication, or we take it on faith from someone, or that we accept portions that we like. If a person cannot hear God through His holy word, he should ask himself as to why not.
I missed this post. They're coming in a flurries now.
Yes, Kosta, this is predictable from the Orthodox view of "victim". This is the direction the Catholic Church is moving. However, many of those versions that I quoted are derived from international scholars painstakingly researching the text for the correct meaning. In many cases, these are not all Reformed people. I'm perfectly satisfied with the versions.
The Orthodox just published their version of the scriptures (after 2000 years-better late than never). If I can find an on line version I'd be happy to look for the word "victim".
[snip]
The condemnation of Honorius' heresy is infallible but not the condemnation of the man.
These two statements seem mutually exlcusive and contradictory. How could a teaching even be called a heresy in the first place without "defining a doctrine regarding faith" ?? And further, how could the condemnation of the heresy be called "infallible" if it did not "define a doctrine regarding faith"?
That doesn't make any sense.
Cordially,
The first ever full-length Orthodox Study Bible in English presents the Bible of the early church and the church of the early Bible. Orthodox Christianity is the face of ancient Christianity to the modern world and embraces the second largest body of Christians in the world. In this first-of-its-kind study Bible, the Bible is presented with commentary from the ancient Christian perspective that speaks to those Christians who seek a deeper experience of the roots of their faith. The Orthodox Study Bible, created by The Orthodox Study Bible Old Testament Project and published by Thomas Nelson, uses the New King James Version of the Bible as the basis for a fresh translation of the Septuagint text. The Septuagint is the Greek version of the Bible used by Christ, the Apostles, and the early church. Also available as a Leatherbound volume.
Your post is very similar to Jonathan Edwards “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”
In any event, Catholic’s don’t believe in a dualistic God-We understand that God does not change and the love crushes sin,not anger.
The Bible literalest can never reconcile.
I applaud you for admitting this,dear sister.Most people try and hide this.
I question the sincerity of those who do and who, whether they realize it or not, are used by Satan to confuse and draw others away from the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
What makes you think it could not be God allowing a trial where even those around the person in trial learn a lesson that brings them closer to Christ?
"apparent" death?!?! metmom said: "Now she didn't really die? What next? She resurrected herself? If she committed no sin, she didn't need a savior and therefore lied when she sang her song in Luke and said *God, my savior,*. But then if she lied she wasn't without sin."
I just realized something, metmom: The RCC teaches that Mary was Immaculately conceived. That she was without sin her entire life.
The wages of sin is DEATH.
If they say Mary died, they are hoisted. They claim she never sinned.
So they MUST say 'apparently' or some such nonsense.
God forbid we should seek the truth, lest some delusional individuals lose their faith! It's best to stifle all search and reason that migh challenge their convictions, for they obliviously presume they know all there is to know!
You are perfectly free to ignore what I have to say. No one is forcing you to read my posts if you find yourself stumbling in your certitude.
I question the sincerity of those who do and who, whether they realize it or not, are used by Satan to confuse and draw others away from the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
You know, I am merely an agnostic looking at both sides of the coin. Is that insincere? Apparently in your book it is. And that's putting it mildly. You seem to think it's outright satanic! That's the type of mindset that was operative in Salaam witch hunts and in Europe where the religiously "incorrect" were incinerated.
Plenty of heretics through the ages claim the same thing,but how do you measure this...by some warm feeling in your belly that those who disagree with you also claim?
I'm glad to have pretty good consistency of a 2000 plus year old Church rather than guess at it
I just realized something, metmom: The RCC teaches that Mary was Immaculately conceived. That she was without sin her entire life.
Mary needed a savior to preserve her from original sin and provide her with sanctifying grace. She is thought to have died but it was not possible to tell for sure since her body was assumed to heaven.
God certainly can do that, but that was not my point. I said:
On the other hand, not once did I express my doubts, questions and conflicts to total strangers because I did not want to cause anyone to stumble or be caught up in what was my own to bear.
My point was that I did not announce my doubts to strangers, try to get them to agree with my doubts or cast aspersions on those who had a strong faith. My "crisis of faith" was my private ordeal and it was resolved by prayer, fellowship and council with strong mentors, and God proving his truth to my heart which allowed me to resolve the doubts and come out stronger, able to help others experiencing the same tests. We are told not be a "stumbling block" to those who are weak in faith.
"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful." Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX.
AND
"She was ever absolutely free of all stain of sin, all fair and perfect"
Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX.
AND
She remained "free of every personal sin her whole life long." The German Bishop's Conference, The Church's Confession of Faith (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 46, quoting J.A. Mohler.
emphasis mine.
stfassisi wrote:
“Your post is very similar to Jonathan Edwards ‘Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.’”
Could be. I never read him. But I think I will take that as a compliment.
stfassis also wrote:
“In any event, Catholic’s don’t believe in a dualistic God-We understand that God does not change and the love crushes sin,not anger.”
Dualistic? Hardly. You, stfassisi, are now standing in the temple with the Pharisee and the tax collector ... and, from your answer, you are inclined to go the way of the Pharisee. It leads to where you do not want to go.
Dualistic? That is a near blasphemous adjective. You need to meditate on the very thing the apostle admonished Timothy to do as he trained the pastors of the third generation of the ambassadors of Christ: “This is a faithful saying: For if we died with Him, we shall also live with Him. If we endure, we shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him, He also will deny us. If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself. Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not TO STRIVE ABOUT WORDS TO NO PROFIT, TO THE RUIN OF THE HEARERS. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH. But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer.” (2 Timothy 2:11-17)
Rightly dividing the word means dividing it, distinguishing it into Law and Gospel, Demand and Promise. Stfassisi, you will never ever fulfill what God demands, only One has done that, and what He has accomplished is offered to you freely. Beware that you do not call the Holy Spirit a liar in this.
stfassisi also wrote:
“The Bible literalest can never reconcile.”
No. We leave reconciling to our God: “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.” (2 Corinthians 5:19)
SOLI DEO GLORIA
The scriptures were infallible and in existence long before the Church existed. At least the Old Testament.
BTW-What does it matter anyway? The Church tells you everything to believe.
...That's the type of mindset that was operative in Salaam witch hunts and in Europe where the religiously "incorrect" were incinerated.
Not that there's anything wrong with that </Seinfeld>
This is a North American (English-language) project that is totally flawed but obviously well-funded. First, it does not represent the "official" Orthodox Bible. Just to give you an example how fraudulent it is it, let's look at the side-by-sdie Greek-English Isaiah 9:6
|
Greek text ὅτι παιδίον ἐγεννήθη ἡμῖν υἱὸς καὶ ἐδόθη ἡμῖν οὗ ἡ ἀρχὴ ἐγενήθη ἐπὶ τοῦ ὤμου αὐτοῦ καὶ καλεῖται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελος ἐγὼ γὰρ ἄξω εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας εἰρήνην καὶ ὑγίειαν αὐτῷ |
What the Greek text says For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him |
NKJV text For to us a child is born. To us a son is given; and the government will be on his shoulders. His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. |
It's actually an Evangelical Trojan Horse that some North American prelates fell for, to their shame. AS per Wikipedia, some who didn't describe it as something that "feels far too much like a piece of evangelical propaganda decked out in the trappings of Orthodoxy" [Archimndrite Ephrem] and Priest Seraphim Johnson wrote "the Study Bible reproduces the whole textual apparatus of the NKJV, including many of the doubtful decisions of modern non-Orthodox biblical scholarship," both commenting on the project in the Orthodox Information Center book review.
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.