Posted on 04/17/2015 12:12:16 PM PDT by RnMomof7
I’ve mentioned that Roman Catholicism is so onerous because it puts its hooks in you at various times in your life – from baptism as a child, to “first confession” and “first holy communion”, then Confirmation as an early teen, then marriage, baptism of your own children, etc. It’s a programmatic cycle.
There is another point at which Rome is prominent, and that is at death. As the “Baby Boom” generation continues to age and die, people will continue to be focused on this phase of life, either as people focused on the end of their own lives, or that of their aging parents.
Paul Moses, a journalism professor at Brooklyn College/CUNY”, has written a piece for the Wall Street Journal this morning entitled “A Liberal Catholic and Staying Put”, which puts this in view.
Beginning the article with some comments from the atheistic “Freedom From Religion Foundation”, which urged discontented, liberal-minded Catholics to “Summon your fortitude, and just go”, he rejects this notion with the following comments:
To me, these invitations reflect a shallow view of the Catholic Church that reduces its complex journey to the points where it intersects with the liberal social agenda. Pope Francis’ pastoral approach has shown a more merciful, less judgmental face of the church—one that always existed but needed to be more prominent in the public arena.
After my father died last year, I realized that my instinctive resistance to these “just go” arguments—from the atheists, the secularists, the orthodox, the heterodox or anyone else—runs deep. It began when I observed how impressively the church was there for me in a moment of need (emphasis added).
Early on the morning after he died, I went to my father's parish, St. Peter's in lower Manhattan, to find out what to do to bury him. I found one of the priests in the sacristy after the early Mass. The Rev. Alex Joseph took my hands in his, spoke a beautiful prayer, told me of his own father's death years earlier and added, "Our fathers are always with us." I was much moved.
We decided to have my father's funeral in the Staten Island parish where he had worshiped for 25 years … Bernard L. Moses, who died at 88, had loved Father Madigan’s homilies, and to hear [Father Madigan] speak at the funeral Mass was to understand why. My father had advanced up the ranks of the New York City Housing Authority to director of management. Citing his concern for tenants, Father Madigan used the traditional Catholic term “corporal work of mercy” to describe what my father did. It explained for me, in those difficult moments, why my father, who was well-schooled in Catholic social teachings, had passed up the opportunity for a more pleasant career in academia, or a more lucrative one managing private housing, to work in housing projects instead.
Few of us, I think, live daily on the edge of eternity in the conscious way that the Puritans did, and we lose out as a result. For the extraordinary vivacity, even hilarity (yes, hilarity; you will find it in the sources), with which the Puritans lived stemmed directly, I believe, from the unflinching, matter-of-fact realism with which they prepared themselves for death, so as always to be found, as it were, packed up and ready to go (emphasis added). Reckoning with death brought appreciation of each day’s continued life, and the knowledge that God would eventually decide, without consulting them, when their work on earth was done brought energy for the work itself while they were still being given time to get on with it (pg 14).
I have no doubt it's a cult.
CynicalBear:
The Hebrew word, but what was the Greek word used. For example, in Isiah 7:14, the Hebrew reads young maiden or woman. In the Greek it says A Virgin. Which one better reflects Christian Doctrine.
I have to see what Jerome went with in that translation and why, did he take something from the Greek text and then rather than use the Hebrew word, translated the meaning he found in the Greek text into Latin. I will just have to go and look more into it.
So yes, Jerome did change words, but he did it in the context of a Christian writing a translation to convey Orthodox Christian DOctrine. The example of ISiah 7:14 is an example similar to the one you are raising. The Hebrew word in Isiah is not Virgin, it is young woman [could be a virgin, but Hebrew has a word distinct from young woman to convey virginity]. The Greek Jews in the LXX translated the Hebrew word for young woman into virgin, and the same Greek word in Isiah 7:14 used for virgin was used in the Greek NT.
In Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, while he did rely on the Hebrew for most of his Translation, the word “Virgo” is used in Isiah 7:14 [Latin for Virgin] rather than the Hebrew almah [I think it is] for young woman.
So what Jerome did here in Isiah 7:14 may be what he did in the Genesis passage you are referring to.
ealgeone:
Ok, you tell me who as the greatest Biblical scholar of the early Church.
I have cited 2 Protestant Church Historians [Pelikan, Lutheran, who became Eastern Orthodox] and Schaff he said pretty much that in substance, maybe not exact form.
Of course.
But the Body of Christ and Christ's Church are not synonymous, which is why they are different terms.
The Church is a subset of the Body of Christ.
To return to the main point, Christ commands His followers to take their disputes "to the church."
Christ could have said "take it to ME." But He didn't. Proving that Christ's Church speaks with His Authority.
Christ could have said, "take it to the Body of Christ." But He didn't. We shouldn't put words in His mouth.
Christ said, "take it to the church."
Under your re-writing of Scripture, how could disputes be resolved by an invisible Church?
It's a logical impossibility, making Christ's words meaningless and His command void.
In reality, we see the effects of this re-writing of Scripture in the proliferation of countless Protestant sects.
You're missing the point. Your original assertion to CB was: "No, Jerome was a better translator of the Greek than you ,are. This appeal to “any student Greek, etc” is nonsense. Saint Jerome was fluent in Greek and understood the nuisances of the language better than anyone.
You said he was a better translator than CB. Maybe he is...maybe not. Do you know CB's qualifications in this area? No you don't. Yet CB has been able to show where Jerome's translation is in error which would seem to nullify your statement about Jerome understanding the nuisances better than anyone.
Now, you're having to issue more clarifications than the Clintons!
Again, with your original assertion being proven false, why should we believe anything you put forth going forward??
Guys:
In all honesty, I expected more from you two than retort to “cult claims”.
The differences in Genesis 3:15 can be traced to textual variants. The original Hebrew uses he, realizing the pronoun shift from the woman [her seed] will now crush the head of the serpent.
Some textual variants that the early Fathers used she, these could have been Greek variant texts or some early Latin manuscripts, etc. However, the verse, to the degree Mary is involved in crushing the serpent she does so only by the fact that Christ was incarnate of her and he [her seed] does the crushing of the serpent.
The rendering of the text does not change the underlying theology of the text.
And for the record, I am aware that here, Jerome chose to use He rather than she in his Vulgate translation in Genesis 3:15, whereas in Isiah 7:14 he went with the Latin Virgin [Virgo] for the Greek Parthenos rather than Hebrew Almah [young woman].
Thus, Jerome in his translation made distinctions to convey that clearest meaning possible.
ealgeone:
Ok, you have a problem with Saint Jerome. You have not dealt with Schaff’s introduction on him, and he [Reformed Church Historian] ranks him among the 4 Greatest thinkers in the West in the early Church.
And as I said in another post, In Saint Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, he translated Genesis 3:15 as he not she following the Hebrew text, not some the earlier Greek or Latin variant texts. So he did not make an error here, he taking all the texts at his disposal used the Hebrew word when he translated Genesis 3:15 but as I pointed out in another post, in Isiah 7:14 he went with the Greek word parthenos rather than the Hebrew word Almah and rendered it “Virgo in Latin” for Virgin.
The point of all this, Jerome was a serious biblical scholar and made distinctions in his translation where he thought necessary.
And if CynicalBear is among the greats of Greek biblical scholarship, he is free to provide his curriculum vitae [redacted of course, to protect his privacy]
Well, if Catholics are willing to accept all manner of doctrines that are not found specifically found by word in the Bible, then it completely undermines the main, really ONLY, argument they have against sola Scriptura.
OK
With something so basic being done, how does one trust ANYTHING that he then translated.
It's a distinction without a difference. The terms mean the same thing, which is why most Protestant Bibles use the word, "church."
Let's assume that this term refers to an invisible "assembly of those called out." How can an invisible body settle disputes?
Let's assume that this term refers to any local assembly of self-described Christians. What happens when one local assembly contradicts another?
In either case, the settlement of disputes becomes a logical impossibility, making Christ's words meaningless, and His command void.
In reality, we see the effects of this re-writing of Scripture in the proliferation of countless Protestant sects.
+ + +
Let's look at how this term is used in the context of Christ's statements.
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed[d] in heaven.”...The phrase, "binding and loosing" was a rabbinic term, referring to indisputable ecclesiastical authority, not the authority of an invisible body of believers.15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’[b] 17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
From the Jewish Encyclopedia"
The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus ("B J." i, 5, § 2), "became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind." This does not mean that, as the learned men, they merely decided what, according to the Law, was forbidden or allowed, but that they possessed and exercised the power of tying or untying a thing by the spell of their divine authority, just as they could, by the power vested in them, pronounce and revoke an anathema upon a person. The various schools had the power "to bind and to loose"; that is, to forbid and to permit (Ḥag. 3b); and they could bind any day by declaring it a fast-day (Meg. Ta'an. xxii.; Ta'an. 12a; Yer. Ned. i. 36c, d). This power and authority, vested in the rabbinical body of each age or in the Sanhedrin (see Authority), received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of justice (Sifra, Emor, ix.; Mak. 23b).From Jesus:
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you.From Wikipedia:
Binding and loosing is an originally Jewish phrase which appears in the New Testament, as well as in the Targum. In usage to bind and to loose mean simply to forbid by an indisputable authority, and to permit by an indisputable authority.[1] The Targum to a particular Psalm[2] implies that these actions were considered to be as effectual as the spell of an enchanter.[1]No, the "ekklesia" is not an invisible body of believers, but a visible Body, instituted by Christ, with the Authority to teach and discipline in His name.
CynicalBear and Ealgeone:
Here is a summary of where the differences come from, some early Latin Versions, although it seems the Greek and Hebrew have some differences here as well
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/gen003.htm
They keep defending the indefensible....
No human can crush the head of the enemy.
Only God has that power, so there’s no way it could be Mary.
Changed God's words to fit a "doctrine" rather than form the doctrine to fit God's word!!! Do you even realize what you just said there? What is striking is that seems to be ok with you.
>>So what Jerome did here in Isiah 7:14 may be what he did in the Genesis passage you are referring to.<<
Not even close. The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 is הָעַלְמָ֗ה (hā·‘al·māh) which means "maiden" which is in fact a virgin. In any way does it change the meaning of the text like Jerome does in Genesis.
No, he didn't. He outright changed the words of scripture. Done so to fit the made up belief of the Catholic Church.
AKA made changes to God's word.
>>And if CynicalBear is among the greats of Greek biblical scholarship, he is free to provide his curriculum vitae [redacted of course, to protect his privacy]<<
The Catholic Church itself admits the change of Gods' word in Genesis.
cynicalBear:
No a maiden does not mean virgin, it only means young woman [who may or may not be a virgin]. Hebrew has a clear separate word for virgin that was not in the Hebrew text.
Exactly, and the fact that Catholics would attempt to defend changing God's word says all I need to know about their beliefs.
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.