Posted on 12/14/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by ealgeone
The reason for this article is to determine if the worship/veneration given to Mary by the catholic church is justified from a Biblical perspective. This will be evaluated using the Biblical standard and not mans standard.
Look at the inverse, assured veracity requires historical descent.
Now apply these thoughts and this model to the Gentiles who wandered from the holy catholic apostolic churches in the First Century.
The word Protestant does come from the German princes and cities presenting a defense of freedom of conscience against an edict of the Diet of Spires in 1529 intended to suppress the Lutheran movement (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/protestant), and thus it was not repression of a form of Swedenborgism that they were protesting against but a basic Lutheran faith.
A valid description for a label must be conformity to at least original basic and distinctive doctrines. Thus considering the source of the title Christian," (Acts 11:26) the broad label atheists use to denote Hitler as one must be rejected, as well as those who reject the basic salvific fundamental beliefs by which one becomes a Christian.
This also excludes such faiths as Russelism, Unitarianism, Scientology, Swedenborgism from being Christian.
Likewise one can hardly be considered a Protestant if he denies basic and distinctive beliefs as God as the Creator; the virgin birth; the deity of Christ and the Spirit; salvation by grace thru faith (versus believing one is justified and enters glory by the merit of his own level of holiness); yet that true faith must be the kind that effects practical holiness; the eternal punishment of the wicked lost; Scripture as the supreme standard as the wholly inspired word of God, the rejection of perpetual magisterial infallibility (as well as rejection of any magisterial office).
Maybe more could be added, while if we will be as strict as RCs demand "Catholic" be defined (some reject the EOs as being so), then we must reject evangelicals as being Protestants, since we differ from the basic Lutheran faith that was the original context for the term Protestants, which was actually more Catholic than evangelical Protestantism today.
But which is set in contrast to such a broad definition as John A. Hardon, S.J. of the word Protestant as meaning Protestors, which thus means "weve got many more Protestants than we find in the books of the Protestant denominations." - http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Church_Dogma/Church_Dogma_013.htm
Yet Catholics take offense as even using Roman Catholic to describe their church, and would never allow Santeria to be called Catholicism.
Where do you see that in your link? Making an entire paragraph or even an article into one big hyperlink is not common or good .
And note that "Manalo's" last stop before becoming a Filipino "pope" was agnosticism/atheism.
As I said Christian Missionary Alliance is another denomination and is still existing today as the present Christian Missionary Alliance of the Philippines (CAMACOP)(http://www.camacop.org/).
No, you said it was the DoC.
You mean how the church of Rome wandered from the NT church into a significantly different form ? Not so much that some souls could not find Christ and the body of Christ continue, but by the 4th c. you have a pope even employing murderers in working to secure his seat.
Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.Peace,
For Jerome, it was a dilemma. He probably consulted a rabbi, who said: Of course it is the Jewish nation battling Satan. Jerome, being Christian, recognized that not only by grammar but in truth it is Jesus crushing the serpent. However, he probably felt that to translate "He will crush" would be seen as reaching by non-Christians, who can also consult a rabbi.
Something similar is occurring with Isaiah's "virgin shall conceive", where Christians see a prophecy and Jews see nothing out of the ordinary, a young girl, העלמה, getting naturally pregnant. In that case Jerome threw caution to the wind and translated as the Holy Ghost lead him.
Why Jerome followed a judaized interpretation in the case of Genesis 3:15, but not in Isaiah 7:14 I don't know. It could be that to him Mary was a natural amalgamation of the Jewish nation and the Christian Church personified all at once, so he felt a marian reference would resolve the puzzle.
Of course, this is pure play of imagination on my part. It could be that quite simply the copy Jerome was working on had a feminine pronoun.
You mean the ones who HEEDED John's angelic warning to LEAVE these seven, woinderful Catholic churches in Asia and RAN like Hell?
Interesting. I don't recall seeing that from any Jewish source.
It seems to me it would make one dizzy If one assumes the Messiah did not leave a visible, historic, holy catholic apostolic Church on this earth against whom the gates of hell will not prevail. With that assumption none of the last eighteen centuries make much sense.
Well, I may be wrong. But also a rabbi of the 4th century may differ in his world view from an American rabbi in the 21st century.
A rabbi from the 4th century, if identified, would be much more authoritative than someone more recent.
There may be such an explanation. It’s just not one I recall from Rashi or the Mishna/Talmud.
You noticed that did you, Elsie?
And in all of this, even when narrowed to only the Genesis 3:15 issue, one significant thing which is being ignored is that not only do no other translations to speak of from outside of RCC indicate that it would be a "her" which does the crushing of the serpents head -- BUT even the "New Vulgate" --- which must be the "official" bible of the Roman Catholic Church --- does not place "her" foot on the serpents head, either.
The "copy error" which changed ipsum (masculine, or "he") to ipsa has been reversed! (back to how Jerome originally translated it into Latin, in correction of the later error).
Yet in seemingly mindless assertion, alex says "the point remains".
What point? What points?
I've obliterated most any of those alleged "points". And I am not alone -- all this work has been done by others. All I have to do is [ahem] point to it.
No. It sounds to me like the Protestant/Evangelical story that there were no surviving apostolic churches after the first two centuries, and the world was effectively lost for at least thirteen hundred years, until a Catholic priest rebelled against the Catholic Church, ending up a notorious anti-Semite that re-formed the religion. One could at least join the Independent Fundamental Baptist churches and preach that they survived from the time of the apostles until now. That would be a claim of legitimacy. Three remain: those IFB fellowships (assuming their claim is historical for argument's sake), the Orthodox churches, and the Catholic churches. The rest are offshoots of one of these. There is a fourth alternative theory, which arguably leads to more cults, where anyone can read any Bible, and without any apostolic teaching to guide him, can found a new denomination, faith group, sect or cult.
I note the Messiah did not command the Apostles to compile a Bible and promulgate it throughout the world. He did command them to teach all nations, baptizing them (in water) in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He again promised to be with them until the end, or consummation, of the world.
Finally, I see Messiah's prayer for unity. He never failed in His prayers so I believe in the holy catholic apostolic Church, which by the grace of Almighty God, has a place, I trust, for separated, as well as, elder brethren.
Right; that was a bad translation. My statement is not about translations but about the original Genesis as Holy Moses wrote it.
and how you ended
about sums things up, as for your own refusal to acknowledge the simplest of things -- seemingly to me, when or if those things may be an embarrassment to Roman Catholicism, and/or diminish support for Marionism.
No, it can't be for the simple reason that Jerome did not "use feminine pronoun" as to the gender, or sex identity of who it was that shall crush the serpent's head.
Other people, from among those of the RCC -- who knows who -- at some point later, changed the gender in the Latin text. It really is as simple as that.
There was apparently some pressure to do so from time of Jerome's translation, going by the information at one one of the links which has already been provided to you --- TWICE.
Your "dogs" just don't hunt -- as that saying goes.
As for credibility --- there is another saying which could apply to the argumentation presented by yourself, here recently on this thread ---- "when in a hole, it is best to stop digging".
And --- the RCC "Magesterium" has now recently changed it back -- bringing the official Latin version into alignment with an overpowering majority of Greek and Hebrew texts, and various language translations derived from those, in all, or in part.
This is getting more bizarre by the moment.
What's the deal now?
Are you searching for some way to walk your comments back -- without having to admit to having been in error?
Phhfft.
Fat chance, mister.
Man up and own up to all the things which you have said here -- that again and again have been proved to be in error, or just stay home, and quite bothering people.
And you know that how?
What is it you find “bizarre”?
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.