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 ...
Scripture is silent on the subject. So speculation is all that's left. And that would be that they weren't there for Jesus to discharge His responsibility to His mother to so He picked the APOSTLE John because He knew He could trust him.
John the Baptist, Christ’s cousin, was at the Cross with the Blessed Mother.
Words fail me. Are you kidding????????
John the BAPTIST?!?! His COUSIN? You mean the one who was beheaded by Herod early in Jesus' ministry? What? Did he come back to life?
And why did Christ entrust His Mother to His cousin and not a sibling?
He didn't because John the Baptist was long dead. The John He entrusted Mary to was the APOSTLE John.
For all the mockery and derision thrown the way of non-Catholics over sola Scriptura, and all the bragging on how much Bible Catholics are exposed to by attending mass over the course of three years, the knowledge Catholics display concerning Scripture is downright abysmal.
And God tells us that just where in Scripture?
Or did He forget to include that as well so the Catholic church had to (oh so conveniently) fill in the blanks for God with their conjured up *sacred tradition*?
Check your facts ...
You mean the John the Baptist that got beheaded by King Herod shortly after Jesus began His ministry? The "John" who was the ONLY Apostle brave enough to be there at the cross was the John who wrote the Gospel Of John, the epistles of John and Revelation. If even the Apostles were so cowardly to hide while the Lord was being crucified, what makes anyone think Jesus' brothers (who didn't even believe in who He was) would show up? Jesus gave His mother's care to John because he was there.
This is wearying...trying to get someone who simply refuses to understand...to understand. Brainwashed...
GMTA! :o)
Notice how conflation plays such a vital role in the doctrines and dogmas? ALL ‘Church’ references from Catholic apologists refer to the institution, not the Ekklesia Jesus is still building.
I would expect the Catholic church, just like any religion or religious system to consider opposition to it a *grave sin*. It's a great tool for controlling the masses.
But heresy against CATHOLICISM is no sin at all. God doesn't mention it at all in Scripture.
And the Catholic church cannot just make sins up to slap on people and condemn them over.
Anyone who follows the word of mere men over the Word of God is in a bad way and will live to regret it.
My mistake.
But I’ll ask again, where were Jesus’ siblings at the foot of the Cross? And why did Christ not entrust His Mother to a sibling?
I’m honored.....
My guess is that they WEREN’T there, probably having no wish to be associated with Him and risk crucifixion themselves.
And that is probably why Jesus picked John, someone who demonstrated love and faithfulness and courage regardless, willing to risk life and limb to display his loyalty.
Why not pick someone of John’s integrity if that were the case?
When my kids were little and we were thinking of who we would want to raise them should something happen to both of us, there were friends we would easily have picked over some of our own family members. We trusted them better.
Do you have any better answer?
Yes, I have a better answer: The Blessed Virgin Mary never bore any other children than the Christ Child, and that is why only She and John were at the foot of the Cross.
Christ entrusted His Church to St. Peter. Yet Peter denied Christ three times and also was not present at the foot of the Cross.
Why did Christ entrust His Mother to St. John, but His Church to St. Peter? And where were all these so-called "siblings" at the Pentecost or the Ascension?
14These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers. Acts 1:14 NASB
Most likely friends and relatives (remember Elizabeth?) kept an eye on the children, so that Mary and Joseph could hurry back and search.
The fact that they went so far, before noticing that Jesus was not with them, would seem to indicate that they were quite occupied with small children.
Mark’s account, of the Lord preaching to his home town, shows that the locals were stunned to see how different Jesus was from the rest of his family. They had known the whole family for years.
So you think the whole family forgot about Jesus until they got home? This sounds like an episode from Everybody Loves Raymond.
It sounds like an error from cultural bias to me; why would a mother with young children leave them when her husband could search for the young man with other male relatives ? He was no longer a baby and it was a patriarchal society. And there is that word syngeneusin ... translated as relatives in this case, while sometimes as cousins; cousins = relatives ...
Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance. And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him.
Luke, Catholic chapter two, Protestant verses forty one to forty five,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James,
boldness mine
The above is the full quote from Douay-Rheims. Was Peter Christ's sibling? Or are you cherry-picking again?
It sounds like an error from cultural bias to me; why would a mother with young children leave them when her husband could search for the young man with other male relatives ? He was no longer a baby and it was a patriarchal society. And there is that word syngeneusin ... translated as relatives in this case, while sometimes as cousins; cousins = relatives ...
Yes...and in this context it tells us these were relatives. They were traveling with extended families. Every commentary I read found no alarm with this.
You're looking for something in the text that isn't there to help prove the catholic talking point of Mary being ever virgin. It's called eisegesis....the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text. The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis
Have you not learned yet that context is key to understanding a passage?
Remember, Luke is a doctor. He knows the difference between the brothers of Christ and the believers who are referred to as brethren in various places.
Does the text say they were home?
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.