I tried to Google this and couldn't find the answer. I recently learned that Catholics believe Mary was divine after she became pregnant with the Lord Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit. My question is this... do Catholics believe that once the Pope is appointed to that position HE becomes divine? If this is a stupid question then I apologize. I really am curious because I was reading an article where he is called The Holy Father. Not being raise catholic, I was stunned by that title.

May I humbly suggest you read:-

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm)

I will read it. I did scan it... not sure it gives me the direct answer I was looking for. Thanks though

Please do not be stunned!

In all countries the key is the symbol of authority. Thus, Christ's words are a promise that He will confer on Peter supreme power to govern the Church. Peter is to be His vicegerent, to rule in His place.

What do you mean by "divine" They believe in what the bible says that she is blessed above all women.

The church does not teach that she has any saving powers, and the pope is not "divine" and is not infalliable in his everyday life.

Where are you "hearing" or learning about Catholics

what do you mean by "divine" They beleive in what the bible says that she is blessed above all women.



[snip]

I hope it's not too far from the topic, but if I may quasi-deflect for a moment, I'm interested to know: what exactly does your church mean by "blessed" in this context?

I tried to google this and couldn't find the answer. I recently learned that Catholics believe Mary was divine after she became pregnant with the Lord Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit. My question is this...do Catholics believe that once the Pope is appointed to that positon HE becomes divine? If this is a stupid question then I apologize. I really am curious because I was reading an article where he is called The Holy Father. Not being raise catholic, I was stunned by that title.

Mary is NOT divine, period. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

The Pope is NOT divine, period. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Beware of what you read from other than the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Anything else may or may not be correct.

If you have questions about what the Catholic church REALLY teaches, refer to the Catechism: See the 2nd, 3rd and 4th links here: Catholic Truths: Ecumenical Apolgetics. Links (http://catholictruths.com/library/index.html)

what do you mean by "divine" They beleive in what the bible says that she is blessed above all women.

The church does not teach that she has any saving powers, and the pope is not "divine" and is not infalliable in his everyday life.

Where are you "hearing" or learning about Catholics

Fr_Chuck,

I guess I thought I read it on this site. Maybe divine is the wrong word.. but what I meant was that she became sinless.. or unable to sin after she became pregnant. Did I get that wrong? I don't know, it is what I thought I read. So then Catholics believe that both the Pope and Mary could/can sin?

[snip]

I hope it's not too far from the topic, but if I may quasi-deflect for a moment, I'm interested to know: what exactly does your church mean by "blessed" in this context?

When referring to the Virgin Mary as 'blessed' the saying looks to the 'actual graces' conferred by God, i.e. being made immaculate. Calling her blessed indicates the sanctification bestowed on her; “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you: blessed are you among women.” (Luke 1:28)

JoeT

When referring to the Virgin Mary as ‘blessed’ the saying looks to the 'actual graces' conferred by God, i.e., being made immaculate. Calling her blessed indicates the sanctification bestowed on her; “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you: blessed are you among women.” (Luke 1:28)

JoeT

Do you know what the basis of that translation/interpretation is? And Fr. Chuck and others, do you agree?

Fr_Chuck,

I guess i thought i read it on this site. Maybe divine is the wrong word..but what i meant was that she became sinless..or unable to sin after she became pregnant. Did I get that wrong? I don't know, it is what i thought i read. So then Catholics believe that both the Pope and Mary could/can sin?

Mary did not sin. This is an issue of tradition: A belief that we Catholics have.

As for the Pope: Yes he does sin. He would be the first to admit it.

Do you know what the basis of that translation/interpretation is? And Fr. Chuck and others, do you agree?

Check out the instances of the word used in the Bible:
Blessed (338 Occurrences) (http://refbible.com/b/blessed.htm)

"Favored" is the meaning when referring to other than God.

And compare those uses to that which was used about Mary.

Do you know what the basis of that translation/interpretation is? And Fr. Chuck and others, do you agree?

The version I used is the one authorized by the Council of Trent, the Latin Vulgate. The English translation is 16th century (I think – maybe 17th century) Douay-Rheims Bible. Along with the DR version, the Latin and Greek can be found at the following site: NEW ADVENT BIBLE: Luke 1 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/luk001.htm).

JoeT

For the sake of argument, we can use almost any version: to compare the greek (Koine) word that was used about Mary with the other uses of the word when the reference is to a person (as opposed to uses of the word about God).

Check out the instances of the word used in the Bible:
Blessed (338 Occurrences) (http://refbible.com/b/blessed.htm)

"Favored" is the meaning when referring to other than God.

And compare those uses to that which was used about Mary.

Unfortunately, that list doesn't make any distinction among the different Greek terms that are rendered by "blessed." There are actually three: the most common one just means "happy." Another means "well spoken-of," basically having a good reputation. This one is actually used in reference to God several times by Paul. And the one used of Mary in Luke 1:28 means "giving favor to." in Ephesians 1:6, Paul uses the same term to describe how God has "favored" all of us. So I don't see how you can get any special "favor" given to Mary out of this word; it sure doesn't have anything to do with being immaculate or sinless, because if it did, it would describe all of us.

Unfortunately, that list doesn't make any distinction among the different Greek terms that are rendered by "blessed." There are actually three: the most common one just means "happy." Another means "well spoken-of," basically having a good reputation. This one is actually used in reference to God several times by Paul. And the one used of Mary in Luke 1:28 means "giving favor to." in Ephesians 1:6, Paul uses the same term to describe how God has "favored" all of us. So I don't see how you can get any special "favor" given to Mary out of this word; it sure doesn't have anything to do with being immaculate or sinless, because if it did, it would describe all of us.

All we can do (since the Koine is no longer used) is compare the uses. "Favored", as I suggested, is not so different than the definitions (given by current fold for that old language) that you gave, is it?

The bottom line: Mary is NOT divine. She clearly (according to the Biblical texts) has a "special" status (otherwise St. Gabriel would have picked someone else) but beyond that, it up to debate.

We Catholics (which is who the question was asked of) have our own opinion and that is what we have given here to answer the question that was directed to us.

All we can do (since the Koine is no longer used) is compare the uses. "Favored", as I suggested, is not so different than the definitions (given by current fold for that old language) that you gave, is it?

The problem isn't the word "favored," it's what you read into the meaning of "favored."


The bottom line: Mary is NOT divine. She clearly (according to the Biblical texts) has a "special" status (otherwise St. Gabriel would have picked someone else) but beyond that, it up to debate.

I agree she's not divine. But the question then becomes what that "special status" is. If we look at the actual biblical text, the status seems to be based on her lineage as much as anything else. But after Jesus' birth and growth to adulthood, there doesn't seem to be anything special about her. And there was no need for her to be immaculate in order to give birth to Jesus.


We Catholics (which is who the question was asked of) have our own opinion and that is what we have given here to answer the question that was directed to us.

Agreed, and we do agree that she's not, nor was she ever, "divine." Chosen, unbelievable privileged, definitely. But still human.

The version I used is the one authorized by the Council of Trent, the Latin Vulgate. The English translation is 16th century (I think – maybe 17th century) Douay-Rheims Bible. Along with the DR version, the Latin and Greek can be found at the following site: NEW ADVENT BIBLE: Luke 1 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/luk001.htm).

JoeT

There are some problems with the DR version. In this case, "full of grace" is misleading and is actually based on the Latin rather than on the original Greek text, which just says "favored."

I noticed another problem in an earlier thread on this topic, where you quoted Romans 5:14:


“But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned, after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come.” Who are those that "have not sinned"?

There is no justification at all for putting the comma after "sinned," because the sentence clearly says, even in the Latin text, "those who did not sin after the manner of Adam," i.e. those who didn't commit the same sin that Adam did. I'm not sure who put that comma there or why, but it's wrong.

So there are some big problems with the translation you're using. "I'm not judging, I'm just saying..." :D

There are some problems with the DR version. In this case, "full of grace" is misleading and is actually based on the Latin rather than on the original Greek text, which just says "favored."

I noticed another problem in an earlier thread on this topic, where you quoted Romans 5:14:


“But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned, after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come.” Who are those that "have not sinned"?

There is no justification at all for putting the comma after "sinned," because the sentence clearly says, even in the Latin text, "those who did not sin after the manner of Adam," i.e. those who didn't commit the same sin that Adam did. I'm not sure who put that comma there or why, but it's wrong.

So there are some big problems with the translation you're using. "I'm not judging, I'm just saying..." :D

No problem with me. I don't intend to argue Greek translation. I don't know enough to make it worth my while. Besides, my faith is built on the Magisterium of the Church which includes both the Traditions of the Apostles and Holy Scripture, not a book.

Nevertheless, I suppose you could argue that 'full of grace' (κεχαριτωμένη [translieteration: kecharitomene])in Luke 1:28 could be translated 'full of favor' or 'highly favored.' It's certainly the argument that the infamous Catholic hater James White uses. He says that Mary is only full of God's favor. (frankly, I don't see much difference.) I'm told that the error is that the apparent use of the word infers a title since it follows a greeting, 'hail,' Thus, as Catholic Tradition teaches that 'kecharitomene' is a proper title for her, i.e. 'full of grace' and it would be just as right to call her the 'most favored' or 'full of favor'.

However, putting this with 'the Lord is with you' adds a bit of scale (more weight) doesn't it. Being full of the boss's favor is one thing, you might get a small raise, and you might get to take his tee on Friday and Monday; but when you are FULL OF GOD's FAVOR, now think of the number of times you can tee off. We aren't finished though, Mary is 'blessed among women;' so three special honors given to very few in the bible.

The reason we say Mary is full of Grace isn't so much because of the way we translate the Scripture, it's has more to do with what filled her belly, A LIVING GRACE. Thus, Mary was figuratively and literally 'full of grace.' St. Ambrose wrote:


But of what creature can it be said that it fills all things, as is written of the Holy Spirit: I will pour My Spirit upon all flesh. Joel 2:28 This cannot be said of an Angel. Lastly, Gabriel himself, when sent to Mary, said: Hail, full of grace, Luke 1:28 plainly declaring the grace of the Spirit which was in her, because the Holy Spirit had come upon her, and she was about to have her womb full of grace with the heavenly Word. St. Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit, Bk I, 85

You probably know that the Vulgate version was essentially the work of St. Jerome in the 4th century. You might say this translation has been around since people actually spoke ancient Greek. Thus, 'full of grace' has been the accepted Latin translation. St. Jerome taught Mary's perpetual virginity and her immaculate soul. (Cf. CHURCH FATHERS: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary (Jerome) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm))

JoeT

disagrees : If you believe the Bible then you know Mary had to have sinned. According to God's word, Jesus was the only one without sin.

I DO believe the Bible. That's why I posted what I did.

The question is for Catholics (Read the question). Users should stick to threads that they believe they can help in, not go to areas where they cannot help - to negatively rate people in areas that they are not familiar with.

How'd you like it if people went into threads that you answer in - and rate you negatively just because they do not believe in your opinion?

No, I won't "retaliate" by giving you negative ratings (even though I'm sure I could find something that you've said that I disagree with). That would not be the Christian thing to do ;)

I DO believe the Bible. That's why I posted what I did.

The question is for Catholics (Read the question). Users should stick to threads that they believe they can help in, not go to areas where they cannot help - to negatively rate people in areas that they are not familiar with.

How'd you like it if people went into threads that you answer in - and rate you negatively just because they do not believe in your opinion?

No, I won't "retaliate" by giving you negative ratings (even though I'm sure I could find something that you've said that I disagree with). That would not be the Christian thing to do ;)

I tried to give you a balancer but apparently I'm overbalanced or something... while I don't believe Mary was sinless, that was a definite abuse of the rating system. Thank you for being more gracious than she was.

I tried to give you a balancer but apparently I'm overbalanced or something...while I don't believe Mary was sinless, that was a definite abuse of the rating system. Thank you for being more gracious than she was.

Thank you. I respect your opinion about Mary: it is a difficult thing to imagine/grasp. Regardless (and this is for all Christians), Catholics believe in Salvation by Grace through Faith (but be sure to see what James 2:14 says ;) See #2 here (http://catholictruths.com/articles/shorts.html)) .

... so we don't have to sweat the other stuff :)

I am sorry, I guess I don't quite understand the rating system yet. I will give you an agree, because yes you are right, I am not Catholic. Hopefully the 'agree' will help.

My problem is that since this is a Christian forum I would think I wouldn't have to get permission to comment on something that is leading others to believe is in the Bible, when it is not.

God never said that Mary was without sin, that comment was about Christ only. As far as the pope--Jesus said, "Do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and He is in heaven." (Matthew 23:9)

Other people; who don't know the Bible; are on this site searching for help in understanding our Lord. I believe they should hear both sides since there are a lot of "so-called facts" being tossed out to them, and I believe I have as much right as anyone, to tell them what God has to say about these subjects. My proofs will only come from the Bible, because that is the truth and no other book is needed.

Hope this doesn't offend anyone, but my responsibility is to God and the lost. Christians are told to go into the world and teach the word.
I'm trying.

Donna,

I agree with you. And when I was a newbie I gave out reddies because I didn't know any better. But I quickly learned People got ticked OFF! I am really careful not to give them in the Christian forum because so many people believe differently from me. Do I think there are many ways to believe and many paths to God ? NO. I don't. I think there is one way to heaven and a proper way to rightly divide the word of truth. I doubt I have it all right but I'm not near as bad off as some on this site. Ha ha ( teasing)

Anyway, I agreed with what you said. :)

I was just curious about what Catholics believe about the Pope.

I tried to give you an agree comment, but it won't let me.

Donna,

If you were trying to give Rick J a greenie, you have to rate different people before you can rate HIM again. Understand?

Back to the subject of Mary.

If I remember back to Catholic High School, we were taught by the Irish Christian Brothers that the subject of Mary was a constant thorn in the side of the early church. I do not believe that Divinity was the issue. The issue was the "Virginity" and "Sinless" tags that had been appended to her name.

I believe that the Council of Trent settled the debate by stating her virginity and her sinless status. Part of the statement was formed because of "Sinless" state of life prior to her committing to the Angel of God.

"... If we are to conclude, that God chose Mary apart from all other women to bare and rear His child.." "...Then we must conclude that Mary was sinless and had been set apart from all others at her birth."

Now we are going back almost 46 years to my high school days but the reason this is still memorable to me is the debate or classroom warfare that followed over predestination.

I'm intriqued so I toddle off and do some research.

Back to the subject of Mary.

If I remember back to Catholic High School, we were taught by the Irish Christian Brothers that the subject of Mary was a constant thorn in the side of the early church. I do not believe that Divinity was the issue. The issue was the "Virginity" and "Sinless" tags that had been appended to her name.

I believe that the Council of Trent settled the debate by stating her virginity and her sinless status. Part of the statement was formed because of "Sinless" state of life prior to her committing to the Angel of God.

"... If we are to conclude, that God chose Mary apart from all other women to bare and rear His child.." "...Then we must conclude that Mary was sinless and had been set apart from all others at her birth."

Now we are going back almost 46 years to my high school days but the reason this is still memorable to me is the debate or classroom warfare that followed over predestination.

I'm intriqued so I toddle off and do some research.

Hi Don,
I think the question that several people, myself included, would have to ask is, how did it happen? If we conclude that Mary had to be sinless in order to bear the sinless Son of God, didn't her mother have to be sinless in order to bear the sinless mother of the Son of God, and her grandmother, and so on and so on and so on? I know someone else asked this question, but I haven't actually seen an answer. If your research turns up an answer to this, I'd be excited to see it.

Hi Don,
I think the question that several people, myself included, would have to ask is, how did it happen? If we conclude that Mary had to be sinless in order to bear the sinless Son of God, didn't her mother have to be sinless in order to bear the sinless mother of the Son of God, and her grandmother, and so on and so on and so on? I know someone else asked this question, but I haven't actually seen an answer. If your research turns up an answer to this, I'd be excited to see it.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

I don't know how anyone gets around that three little word ALL.

to quote a familiar source...
"and the beat goes on"

Please, throwing scripture at me is pointless.

For us Catholics it is far simpler. It is a Dogma of our faith. And we know that Faith tells to believe without understanding.

You point to the literal familial line of Mary and state if Mary was sinless, then her mother have been and so her grandmother. I say, why? I say God can do whatever He/She wants to. How can I put God's wishes and plans in a bottle and say God you must do things my way in order for me to understand your ways.

Do you believe in the Father - Son - Holy Spirit as one entity. Three in one. Explain that to me, please without bringing faith to the table.

I believe in the Bible and in Bible Scholarship. However, I do not believe that Gods begins and ends within the covers of the bible. There is 2000 years of history since the bible we have to learn from.

We as Catholics are called upon to believe and have faith in both the Bible and the Churches Magisterimum (Teachings).

Hi Don,
I think the question that several people, myself included, would have to ask is, how did it happen? If we conclude that Mary had to be sinless in order to bear the sinless Son of God, didn't her mother have to be sinless in order to bear the sinless mother of the Son of God, and her grandmother, and so on and so on and so on? I know someone else asked this question, but I haven't actually seen an answer. If your research turns up an answer to this, I'd be excited to see it.

This question came up before, you must have missed it last month when I wrote:

For the Catholic the question has been settled by a pronouncement:


"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance 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." Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854

This is one of only two such pronouncements made with the authority of the ‘Key to heaven’. This is significant to Catholics.

As a matter of faith, Catholics hold that Mary was born Immaculate. She cannot be perceived as a ‘mere’ woman. It would be a misconception to regard Mary as insignificant in the formation of our faith in Christ. The Roman Catholic Church’s declaration of the Immaculate Conception isn’t made lightly. An obvious misconception is that Catholics claim that a sinless Christ HAD to be borne by a sinless woman. It isn’t that Christ HAD to be borne of a sinless woman but that he WAS borne of a sinless woman. This is foretold by prophesy and becomes an identifiable mark of who Christ is, i.e. the Son of God. God preserves Mary from original sin so that Divine Justice will prevail. “I will put enmities between you and the woman, and your seed and her seed: she shall crush your head, and you shall lie in wait for her heel.” (Gen 3:15 DRV). In His infinite mercy God overthrows the damnable serpent through the Blessed Virgin. Those who would eviscerate the Blessed Virgin Mary would instead stain and subjugate Mary to Satan. The Catholic faith holds Blessed Virgin singularly preserved, that is exempt from ALL stain of sin original sin or private (actual) sin through God’s grace.

Paul tells us why this is; “For as by the disobedience of one man [the original sin of Adam], many were made sinners” (Rom 5:19), consequently any man born has this original sin. Christ being man and God was the perfect sacrifice. "Behold the Lamb of God. Behold him who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29), the Paschal Lamb, the perfect sacrifice. These are two seeming diametrically opposed absolutes; one that all men are born with original sin, the stain of sin, the other that Christ was perfect without sin. But Christ is both man and God perfect on both accounts. As a result, there can only be one solution to this apparent dichotomy, Christ was born of a women whose original sin had been removed; this is what is meant when we say that Mary is preserved from original sin. Furthermore, He would be born of a woman that hadn’t known sin because of His residence within her womb. St. Jerome ventures still further;


…that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin. St. Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Actually, whether Joseph was virgin is really immaterial here. However what is material is the verse, Jeremiah 31:22 “How long wilt thou be dissolute in deliciousness, O wandering daughter? For the Lord hath created a new thing upon the earth: A WOMAN SHALL COMPASS A MAN.” In this verse we see God’s mystical solution; rightly we conclude that Mary was Immaculate, protected from knowing the sins of Adam, protected from knowing the sins of men (or woman). But, how does one COMPASS Christ the man without ENCOMPASSING the God that is Christ? At the moment Christ was conceived God was infused; at that moment Mary’s womb must be spiritually clean; as clean as any ritually cleaned Tabernacle of Moses. Remember, Christ first ministry was the Hebrew and thus must be identifiable by the Jew – a Jew would not recognize a God that didn’t live in a ritually purified Tabernacle.

It’s important that Christ be perceived as ‘infused,’ as opposed to conjoin or thought of as an injection of God into man. Thus we hold the Blessed Virgin Mary’s womb as the dwelling place of God, a Holy of Holies, the Ark of the Covenant. This Tabernacle would (and must) remain pure even after the Ark has been removed, thus did the Virgin Mary remain celibate in her life. This is because, she is literally full of grace, full of God; would we, (or could we), expect less. Would the Jewish Nation accept a Paschal Lamb any less than spotless, less flawless?

The Tabernacle contained an outer court and inner court. See Ex 25-31 and Ex 39-40. Moses “commissioned” Beseleel, called by God to be the architect of the tabernacle and its furnishings; he was the son of Uri and the grandson of Hur along with Ooliab to build the tabernacle. In viewing the Tabernacle we move from outside inward we to a structure surrounded by a wall. Only one gate faces the east, a narrow gate; prefiguring Christ’s warning, “narrow is the gate of righteousness.” The gate opens into the outer court in which we find the sacrificial altar and the bronze laver. On this altar is where the perfect Lamb is sacrificed.

The inner court has a antechamber containing the Menorah, the Altar of Incense, the Table of Shewbread (otherwise known as The Proposition Loaves), behind the veil was the Holy of Holies. In this most Holy place was the Ark of the Covenant.

God resided in a place made holy by his commands. Therefore, Moses was ordered to keep the Tabernacle spiritually and ritually clean. The Ark of the Testimony (Exodus 25:16, 22; 26:33, etc.), the Ark of the Testament (Exodus 30:26), the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord (Numbers 10:33; Deuteronomy 10:8, etc.), the Ark of the Covenant (Joshua 3:6, etc.), the Ark of God (1 Samuel 3:3, etc.), the Ark of the Lord (1 Samuel 4:6, etc.) was the Incarnate Word of God; all of which resided in the womb of Mary in the Person of Jesus. Judaism or Catholicism certainly wouldn’t suggest that God reside in an unholy place.

The Tabernacle was the birthplace of the Jewish religion. Mary was a living Tabernacle and the birthplace of our Catholic faith as well. Christ said “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” He came to live, with perfection, to consummate the Old Covenant and to establish the New Covenant. But Matthew doesn’t stop quoting Christ with simply “filling”, “For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.” And too, we shouldn’t forget that with Christ’s birth, another wondrous birth occurs; the birth of God’s Kingdom on earth.

Where did the Holy Spirit put the New Covenant word? Christ, the New Covenant, was placed in the Ark of the New Covenant, the womb of Mary. (Cf. Luke 1, Rev 11:19, Rev 12:1) God was infused into man to become Christ. At the very moment of conception, within the womb of Mary, Christ, became man and God. Christ was one person with two natures, one of God, the other of man. Thus after the proper time, Christ was born of Mary as foretold by the angel; “Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father: and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end.” (Luke 1: 31-33) Eventually, He passes through the veil; it’s not rent, but He passes like light passes through a window. Christ now becomes the Menorah (light) of the world, whose Word fell on the Altar of Incense to rise pleasingly to God, whose light fell on the loaves of proposition (The Twelve Apostles). These loaves were consumed by the high Priests who were said to receive Divine knowledge. As you probably know, a Divine Hope is born out of knowledge giving the expectation of obtaining the Vision of the Divine. This is Christ’s birth, the Divine Hope.

And just as the Jewish Kingdom of faith was born in the Ark of the Covenant, so was the Church of Jesus Christ (the Catholic Church) infused in a human Ark, an ark like Noah’s carrying the future of man across the waters of death, i.e. sin, within the womb of Mary. The Blessed Virgin Mary carries the spotless sacrificial lamb across the waters of death in sin to a landfall - our salvation. And when He hung on the Cross, he gave up the ghost with a loud cry; and it was then “the veil of the temple was rent in two, from the top to the bottom.” His death was the beginning; it was then that the veil was rent with the birth of the newly commissioned Church, built on Peter’s commission to minister our salvation. Christ is truly present in any sense you want to consider; being a continuation of sacrifice of both the Old Testament and the New, body, soul and Divinity contained within Holy Eucharist. The Holy Spirit conceived the Church of Jesus Christ. In Matthew 16 we see sacrificial exposure of the bread (Apostles) to the Face of God.

Therefore we can only conclude that Mary is Ever Virgin and immaculate. Any less immaculate and Christ could not be considered a spotless, sinless, the Paschal Lamb. As in the time of Moses, whenever the Tabernacle was moved, the site became holy, and remained spiritually and ritually clean. As when Christ was born, so too was Mary. Mary being literally full of Grace, we hold that this Tabernacle could never be desecrated.

Mary had to be sinless for the Messiah to be born of her. More important still, failing to recognize the Blessed Virgin Mary as immaculate, as Ever Virgin, as the Mother of God wounds the Creed in which we profess One God, with three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To say that Mary was born with sin means that the ‘Perfect Sacrificial Lamb’ resided in filth and thus having contact with sin couldn’t be ‘perfect’ preventing every Jew of the day from seeing Christ as God – in fact it would make Christ a false god. To dismiss Mary’s virginity is to say that God came from the seed of man – and in order to be the God He is, would require for Christ to be ‘created’. It would be necessary for God to ‘make’ Christ. How can the uncreated be created? To dismiss that Mary was Ever Virgin is to say that one can be in physical contact with a Living Grace Personified and still turn away – once again making God back into man. Either way, renouncing Mary’s immaculate nature places Christ (an ‘un-created’ God), on the same plane as a ‘created’, man, a contradiction most Catholics are unwilling to make.

JoeT

Please, throwing scripture at me is pointless.

For us Catholics it is far simpler. It is a Dogma of our faith. And we know that Faith tells to believe without understanding.

You point to the literal familial line of Mary and state if Mary was sinless, then her mother have been and so her grandmother. I say, why? I say God can do whatever He/She wants to. How can I put God's wishes and plans in a bottle and say God you must do things my way in order for me to understand your ways.

Do you believe in the Father - Son - Holy Spirit as one entity. Three in one. Explain that to me, please without bringing faith to the table.

I believe in the Bible and in Bible Scholarship. However, I do not believe that Gods begins and ends within the covers of the bible. There is 2000 years of history since the bible we have to learn from.

We as Catholics are called upon to believe and have faith in both the Bible and the Churches Magisterimum (Teachings).

Don,

Well scripture is all I have to throw at you. ( wasn't really throwing it at you though :) )

Yes I believe that God is one God in three persons. I believe it because the Bible teaches it. I believe God, I believe his written word.

One thing the Bible says that God cannot do is lie. He would not tell us in His word that all have sinned if He didn't mean it. He isn't the author of confusion.

Having said that, when I asked the question I was sincere in wanting the answer. It wasn't my intend to throw scripture at anyone as if I KNOW it all. I wanted the Catholic belief and I got it. :)

You point to the literal familial line of Mary and state if Mary was sinless, then her mother have been and so her grandmother. I say, why? I say God can do whatever He/She wants to. How can I put God's wishes and plans in a bottle and say God you must do things my way in order for me to understand your ways.

But isn't that what your church does when they insist that Mary had to be sinless in order to give birth to Jesus? We've already read that

"... If we are to conclude, that God chose Mary apart from all other women to bare and rear His child.." "...Then we must conclude that Mary was sinless and had been set apart from all others at her birth."

So the whole idea is built on somebody's notion of logic, something that has to be in order for X to happen. But that's not the case, as you just admitted. If God can do whatever he wants to, then none of it is necessary.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

I don't know how anyone gets around that three little word ALL.


Three points to make.

1. The above verse is clearly talking about "men", Mary is a "woman" so this verse does not have to apply to her!

2. Jesus was fully "man" as much as he was fully "God", therefore doesn't the above verse apply to him also?

3.
Heb 11:5 KJV
By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death;

But the verse states "so death passed upon all men." How do you reconcile this contradiction?

ClassyT,
Mary is not considered to be divine nor is the pope
Mary is the most blessed among women by God, according to the bible.
The pope is the holy father of The Church on earth appointed as such by Jesus as his vicar, or prime minister here.
The most holy of holy persons is God that does not mean that others can not be holy such as the holy saints and angels. Being blessed with god's grace is to be placed in a holy state of being.
It is believed that when a person is sinless that person is then holy, such as a newly baptized person.
Falling into sin wipes that away.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Three points to make.

I'm only going to comment on one of them because it falls within my area of expertise.


1. The above verse is clearly talking about "men", Mary is a "woman" so this verse does not have to apply to her!

Sorry, but Greek didn't work that way. The expression "all men" meant "all people." That's clear from the rest of the verse which says "all sinned." 3:23 also makes this clear because it likewise doesn't include the word "men."

Nice try, though.

Three points to make.

1. The above verse is clearly talking about "men", Mary is a "woman" so this verse does not have to apply to her!

2. Jesus was fully "man" as much as he was fully "God", therefore doesn't the above verse apply to him also?

3.
Heb 11:5 KJV
By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death;

But the verse states "so death passed upon all men." How do you reconcile this contradiction?

The death that passed upon all men is obviously spiritual death. Not every man will physically die. I believe in the rapture... whether it is pretrib, midtrib or posttrib... those believers won't die either.

My point was ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Which puts Mary in the mix of that three little word.

Incidentally and this is a personal thought... God didn't need to use someone sinless in order to have his son born into the world. Jesus was fully human and fully God. Pretty COOL all the way around if you ask me.

Another thought... God won't ever go outside of his written word to accomplish his purposes. He doesn't need to. He IS GOD and he can do anything but He can't lie. Therefore Mary was born just like all of us were born, with a sin nature. You can't beat the odds... sinful natures begats sinful natures. Having said that, the Lord saw something mighty special about her and what a privilege she had. Pretty awesome!

ClassyT,

Two of the Greek words which translate as "ALL" are

"holos"
Strong's G3650 - holos means
1) all, whole, completely

And

"pas"
Strong's G3956 - pas means
1) individually
a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
2) collectively
a) some of all types

Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12 use the word "pas" whose meaning certainly has room for exceptions, after all, as I said in my previous post, Jesus was fully man and yet he is an exception to "all men" in Romans 5:12.

Also here is another place in the Bible where "ALL" is used and yet there are exceptions.

Genesis 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Yet Noah, his family and all animals in the ark survived and were not destroyed!

Here is a quote that I found while searching for the meaning of the word "All" in the Bible:

www.blueletterbible.org (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G3956&t=KJV&page=8)
"... 'The whole world is gone after him.' Did all the world go after Christ? 'Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.' Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? 'Ye are of God, little children', and 'the whole world lieth in the wicked one.' Does 'the whole world' there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were 'of God?' The words 'whole' and 'all' are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that 'all' means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts—some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted his redemption to either Jew or Gentile." (Charles H. Spurgeon, Particular Redemption, A Sermon, 28 Feb 1858).

ClassyT,

does all of the above help "get around that three letter word ALL"?

The death that passed upon all men is obviously spiritual death.

Spiritual death doesn't work either as spiritual death means separated from God but Genesis 5:24 states that "Enoch walked with God" so he wasn't spiritually dead!

Also you haven't addressed my second point! Jesus was fully man and therefore part of the ALL that is referred to in the verse and yet you don't include Him in the ALL.

ClassyT,

Two of the Greek words which translate as "ALL" are

"holos"
Strong's G3650 - holos means
1) all, whole, completely

And

"pas"
Strong's G3956 - pas means
1) individually
a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
2) collectively
a) some of all types

Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12 use the word "pas" whose meaning certainly has room for exceptions, after all, as I said in my previous post, Jesus was fully man and yet he is an exception to "all men" in Romans 5:12.

You keep trying to use this, and it's lame. Most Christians agree that Jesus was also "fully God" so it would seem obvious that someone with such a nature would be something different from the "all" mentioned in Romans 3:23. Give it up.


Also here is another place in the Bible where "ALL" is used and yet there are exceptions.

Genesis 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Yet Noah, his family and all animals in the ark survived and were not destroyed!

Yes, they survived. And that exception is given explicitly in the rest of the chapter and those that follow. We don't have anything remotely like that in Romans. You're grasping at straws, and you're not catching them.


Here is a quote that I found while searching for the meaning of the word "All" in the Bible:

www.blueletterbible.org (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G3956&t=KJV&page=8)
"... 'The whole world is gone after him.' Did all the world go after Christ? 'Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.' Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? 'Ye are of God, little children', and 'the whole world lieth in the wicked one.' Does 'the whole world' there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were 'of God?' The words 'whole' and 'all' are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that 'all' means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts—some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted his redemption to either Jew or Gentile." (Charles H. Spurgeon, Particular Redemption, A Sermon, 28 Feb 1858).

ClassyT,

does all of the above help "get around that three letter word ALL"?

You really need to take a course in Bible interpretation from someplace reputable, because this is, pardon me, ridiculous. As for the first one, ever hear of hyperbole? It's a good idea to notice WHO made the statement, and WHY. As for "the whole world" in your second "example," yes, it means everyone. Why are some "of God?" Because they've been redeemed.

You also need to depend a LOT less on Strong's, because it's so badly outdated it's virtually useless for definitions etc. The only reason so many sites and such continue to use it is because it's public domain and they don't have to pay royalties for it.

The Bible makes it clear when and where "all" means "every single one," and the Romans passages are in that category. Get used to it.

Wow! I'm truly impressed! You folks are way out of my league!

I just sent a PM to a person suggesting that they research the, "Divine Mysteries" of the Catholic Church. If my memories are close, the Her status is within that section of the Church's teachings.

By the way, if the Bible is to be the one and only source for God's Words, and we know that the Bible is a collection of books, why are there so may Narratives and Study Guides. In a simplistic view His words are His words, why change them. Why do some study guides twist their meanings in some places and some other sections.

I certainly am not a Religious Scholar, I have up to a 2nd. Year HS Catholic Education and some studies, 3 yrs, of training to become a Catholic Deacon. I am not certified to pontificate the Catholic Church's positions on matters of Faith.

But I do know that I cannot for a minute believe that the Bible written some 2000 years ago is the entire summary of God. Did God inspire the writing of the Bible and then throw up His/Her hands, walk away and, "You guys figure it out."

Don,

You raise some excellent points about the Bible. I would answer that the main reason there are so many study guides etc. is because it was written so long ago, and it refers to customs, practices and world situations that are foreign to us in the 21st century. If we're going to try to understand it, we need to do so on its own terms. The problem is, a lot of the time we really don't know what those terms are.

My constant hammering away at the nature of apocalyptic literature is a good example. Too many well-meaning people look at a book like Revelation and think it's to be interpreted literally, like one of St. Paul's epistles or the books of Kings or something, and they get themselves into a ridiculous mess because they don't understand the nature of what John was writing.

As for whether the Bible is the total of God's revelation, what else is needed? The Mormons claim that we need Joseph Smith's "revelation" because things are so different now than they were in Bible times. But the important things are exactly the same: the human heart is corrupt and in need of redemption. That's the core of what the Bible is all about, and I haven't see anything, whether in any church's tradition or in somebody's purported "new revelation" that adds anything useful to that.

As always, Your Mileage May Vary, and that's fine. I'm not trying to convert you to or away from anything, just hoping to give an answer to your question. How'd I do?

Dave,

You did fine.

For me, to assist in understanding the Bible messages, you need to understand the full history of the peoples and times, cultures, events surrounding the writings, then you would need to adapt those writings to apply to our time and cultures. The same can be said for the writings of Shakespeare or J.F. Cooper.

The nuances are lost upon the reader unless he/she fully understands what is behind the words.

Let me ask several questions. I do request your generosity in bearing with me as I am certainly not a Bibilical Scholar but here goes.

I am Roman Catholic.

Were the abuses within the Catholic Church that spawned the Protestant Reformation real?

History tells us that they were.

Are those abuses still present with the Doctrines and Teachings of the Catholic Church?

Are there not enough new abuses to keep everyone busy now?

Is the Catholic Church perfect? Absolutely not. It is made up of mankind. Male and Female. People, some of which are flawed seriously and some who are mildly flawed. Some are normal (loosely used term).

However, with all that out of the way, has the stated documents of Faith and Practices deviated from a true and diligent study and devotion to its core belief system.

I'd like to posit one more question, please. If the Roman Catholic Church has changed or answered the valid issues raised the various Schisms, then why is there still a war (albeit of words) still raging now?

dwashbur,
There is still the problem of Enoch. He walked with God and then was taken away so as not to see death. This "exception" to Romans 5:12 needs explaining if you are to insist that Romans 5:12 applies to everyone singularly.

In regards to the following quote:

"... 'The whole world is gone after him.' Did all the world go after Christ? 'Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.' Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? 'Ye are of God, little children', and 'the whole world lieth in the wicked one.' Does 'the whole world' there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were 'of God?' The words 'whole' and 'all' are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that 'all' means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts—some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted his redemption to either Jew or Gentile." (Charles H. Spurgeon, Particular Redemption, A Sermon, 28 Feb 1858).

You wrote:



You really need to take a course in Bible interpretation from someplace reputable, because this is, pardon me, ridiculous.

So I looked up Charles Spurgeon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Spurgeon) to see who he was and found out that:

"Charles Haddon (C.H.) Spurgeon (June 19, 1834 – January 31, 1892) was a British Particular Baptist preacher who remains highly influential among Christians of different denominations, among whom he is still known as the 'Prince of Preachers.'..."

You would rather I listen to your explanation of Scripture over the 'Prince of Preachers'?




You also need to depend a LOT less on Strong's, because it's so badly outdated it's virtually useless for definitions etc. The only reason so many sites and such continue to use it is because it's public domain and they don't have to pay royalties for it.

This is the first time that I have used Strong's so I can't depend a LOT less on it!

Also I find it very intriguing that you think that Strong's is badly outdated, considering that Scripture was originally written in Greek and Hebrew and those written words are still the same today as they were when they first were written.



The Bible makes it clear when and where "all" means "every single one," and the Romans passages are in that category. Get used to it.

Obviously not clear enough as I, and many others, disagree with this meaning for "all" as used in Romans. This highlights the problem with the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura". You have your interpretation of what Romans means and I have mine. They disagree so which is the correct interpretation? "Sola Scriptura" provides no way in which to resolve this impasse!

Dave,

You did fine.

For me, to assist in understanding the Bible messages, you need to understand the full history of the peoples and times, cultures, events surrounding the writings, then you would need to adapt those writings to apply to our time and cultures. The same can be said for the writings of Shakespeare or J.F. Cooper.

The nuances are lost upon the reader unless he/she fully understands what is behind the words.

I couldn't agree more.


Let me ask several questions. I do request your generosity in bearing with me as I am certainly not a Bibilical Scholar but here goes.

No problem.


I am Roman Catholic.

I sort of got that impression ;)


Were the abuses within the Catholic Church that spawned the Protestant Reformation real?

History tells us that they were.

Agreed.


Are those abuses still present with the Doctrines and Teachings of the Catholic Church?

That, I don't know. You're in a better position to answer than I am, but as far as I know things like the sale of indulgences are no longer there.


Are there not enough new abuses to keep everyone busy now?

Is the Catholic Church perfect? Absolutely not. It is made up of mankind. Male and Female. People, some of which are flawed seriously and some who are mildly flawed. Some are normal (loosely used term).


Like every other church. Jesus could have a pretty good church on earth if it wasn't for all those darn people...


However, with all that out of the way, has the stated documents of Faith and Practices deviated from a true and diligent study and devotion to its core belief system.

I'm not sure I follow you here. By "its" do you mean the Roman Catholic Church? Once again, I don't really have the answer. I served as a musician in a Catholic church in Idaho for about a year, playing keyboard and singing for a Life Teen Mass, but that's as close as I've been to it. I've read some of the documents of Vatican II and that's about it.


I'd like to posit one more question, please. If the Roman Catholic Church has changed or answered the valid issues raised the various Schisms, then why is there still a war (albeit of words) still raging now?

I quite agree. I would rather focus on the things we agree about, but I seem to be in the minority. There are a few things that I can sort of point to, such as those who say "Your tradition is different from mine so it's gotta be wrong!" and similar stuff. There's the fact that the RCC is high-visibility, easily the most well-known denomination, and hence an easy target. Some protestant groups have a long history of Catholic-hating that they don't want to give up.

But ultimately, I think the real issue comes down to authority. Most protestants are adamant about the "sola scriptura" authority and the individual Christian's right to interpret it, whereas the RCC sees authority in both scripture and the established, institutional church. When everything is reduced to its essence, I believe that's the bottom line. And I don't see any resolution on the horizon.

Whaddaya think?

I suppose it is interesting how we are told not to call any religious teacher "Father" and yet Catholic openly do so

Ya got me there. Who told me that?

The only person we call Father is an anointed Priest. Yes Priests can be teachers. But they are Priests first.

However, teachers can also be Irish Christian Brothers who are addressed as Brother. They can be Nuns, who are addressed as Sister, they can also be lay people who are addressed as Mr. or Miss/Mrs.

Dave,

While you served as a musician, did you listen to the prayers that were spoken during the Mass? Did you find meaning and reverence in them?

As to your comment, Jesus would have... if not for the people", all I can say is Amen!

As to "sola scriptura", I disagree with the concept. Not because of RCC rules, but because I think it becomes a "Tower of Babel" situation. If everyone one interprets the bible to suit there understanding then proclaims there understanding of the Bible to others who don't see it the same way, you get discord, not unity of Faith. You lose the message in the fight to get your point over on the disagreeing people.

That's is just my opinion, I don't offer that as a Catholic position.

Wondergirl: Sneaky way to get the last word. :)

You are correct, however, I will add to your thought.

Just as it follows that God could have created a Sinless Mother to bear His/Her Son.

If you were God (I know its not a fair form of question because neither of us can be God) and you had the power to create the Mother of your child. What would you do?

Would you place Your child in a corrupted human or would you choose to create a pristine human being to hold your child?

Please forgive the simplistic questions.

dwashbur,
there is still the problem of Enoch. He walked with God and then was taken away so as not to see death.

Got a questin for you Elscarta. Why is Enoch the only one you mention that didn't see death. Elijah too was taken up. Is there a reason you only mention Enoch? Just curious.

Dave,

While you served as a musician, did you listen to the prayers that were spoken during the Mass? Did you find meaning and reverence in them?


Don,
Most definitely I did. I'm not sure what you're getting at (it's still early and I've only had one cup of coffee), but if you mean, was I genuinely able to worship during the Mass, oh yeah. I had to "filter" some things out as I prayed along, especially stuff about Mary and that sort of thing, but the Ordinary of the Mass itself is something I can always get behind. I even wrote a setting of the Gloria for our Mass, because at the time we didn't have one and the priest just recited it with the congregation. (They wound up not using it, but just writing it was an act of worship for me.) I joined in the prayers, played from the heart, and otherwise "gave it up to God" every Mass. That's what I was there for, and it was a privilege to do so. Every so often as the team was praying before Mass, they would end with the Hail Mary. I would recite it out of respect for them and as a show of unity. I seem to be able to do that; I know there are others who can't, and I respect that as well.

Did I take communion? No. Not because I didn't want to; I would have loved to, because I love Communion of any kind, any denomination, any material, any rite. But my fellow band members knew I wasn't Catholic, and to receive it in front of them would have been disrespectful at best, blasphemous at worst. These people had welcomed me into their number as a fellow worshiper even though they knew I wasn't Catholic, and the Christian love evident in that group was something I'd love to have back. I couldn't spit in their faces like that. But I always made sure to fold my arms the proper way to receive a blessing from the priest, and those blessings are also something I'd love to have back (especially these days - long story). 3 years down the road I still correspond with some of those folks and remember the love and acceptance I got from them, and the unity of heart we had when we lifted our voices in praise. They were Catholic, I was who-knows-what, but we were all Christians and we all worshiped Jesus from the heart. It would be nice if everybody could have that.

Sheesh. Talk about rambling! Anyway, I hope I answered your question.

Incidentally, I understand your point about sola scriptura. It's not a problem for me, but I get why it is for a lot of people.

Would you place Your child in a corrupted human or would you choose to create a pristine human being to hold your child?
That God placed His Child in a corrupted human vessel says tons about the power and love and grace of this God in giving this unmerited gift of Jesus to her and to us.

Mary was descended from Adam; therefore, Jesus was descended from Adam (Jesus = new Adam) and had inheritance in Adam (Luke 3). Jesus was fully divine ("God the Son," "the Word") and fully human ("Son of Man"). These two natures existed together, and neither overrode the other. Jesus was not half-God and half-human or both mixed into a third nature. Although the two natures were independent of each other, they acted in accord with each other.

Jesus therefore had the potential for sin--otherwise the devil would not have done his best to tempt Him in the wilderness, on the pinnacle of the temple, and on the mountain. Jesus did not succumb any of those times -- yet, He could have, but then there would have been no salvation through Him.

That Mary was human like each of us makes her the perfect example for us. Sinful just like we are, she was justified by faith when God called her to be the physical mother of His Son of God; she was sanctified when the Holy Spirit caused her to conceive Jesus in her womb. We too are justified by faith when the Holy Spirit calls us to receive Jesus; we are sanctified when the Holy Spirit creates a new nature inside of us.

WG,
Couldn't have said it better myself. The condition of the "vessel" (Mary) was irrelevant. Her willingness to trust that God knew what he was doing was all that was needed.

WG -

Okay, the point I was going after was that your point is valid about God working with a sinful vessel then my point about God working with a sinless vessel is equally valid because God pretty much does as He/She sees fit.

I know that for me God often moves in my world but rarely in the way I tell Him/Her.

I know that for me God often moves in my world but rarely in the way I tell Him/Her.
So doesn't it make sense that a loving God would move around in our world in a way we could understand and appreciate? I can relate to Mary much easier if I think she's just like me, rather than if she was on a plane above me.

WG -

Okay, the point I was going after was that your point is valid about God working with a sinful vessel then my point about God working with a sinless vessel is equally valid because God pretty much does as He/She sees fit.
So He made Mary sinless just because He could? And how did He think we could/would relate to that?

WG -

Okay, the point I was going after was that your point is valid about God working with a sinful vessel then my point about God working with a sinless vessel is equally valid because God pretty much does as He/She sees fit.

I know that for me God often moves in my world but rarely in the way I tell Him/Her.

Good point. I guess the question is, considering what we know of how God worked with people in biblical times, which is more likely? That he worked through a sinful, though submissive, vessel, or brought about a needless immaculate conception? All through the Bible we have God working through flawed people who are trying to do his will. I honestly don't see any reason why Mary shouldn't be in that category.

Just my viewpoint; you know I respect yours as well.

First, allow me the same principle that you are claiming. If your position is that God was limited what he had here on Earth, then my position that He/She could change something to fit His/Her will is equally valid. I am certainly not saying you need to agree to my position, I am saying that my position is as valid as yours.

If God chose to make Mary sinless it is and was within His/Her power to do so.

"...we relate to it" Oh, I don't know, maybe because that's the way He/She wanted it to be. I have so little power to tell God to make things clearer and easier for me to understand. Maybe God does not care that I don't understand His/Her reason for making Mary sinless. It's not a decision I get to make. Nor is it a decision I need to make. For me it is a Dogma of my Faith that I accept and believe it to be true, and I do.

Just like the Holy Trinity, it is not easy to understand but it is fact, shall we tell God to clean up your act and make things easy for us to understand?

Why is this such a hot button for you? My Faith calls me to believe and yours does not. But it is a fact that because of this issue more than likely Protestant will not easily rejoin Catholic. Not something I like, but also something I must accept.

Edited because the post was incomplete

First, allow me the same principle that you are claiming. If your position is that God was limited what he had here on Earth, then my position that He/She could change someting to fit His/Her will is equally valid. I am certqainly not saying you need to agree to my position, I am saying that my position is as valid as yours.

If God chose to make Mary sinless it is and was within His/Her power to do so.
I wouldn't say God was "limited" as much as that God wanted us to be able to identify with Mary, that He could take a flawed human being and do such a wondrous thing through her -- just as He did with Moses and King David and Paul and so many others in the Bible. Sure, He could have made ALL of them sinless and then had them do what they did, but why? Would that tell us anything? Would that give me any hope and confidence regarding God's working in MY life?

WG,

Please reread my last post. I managed to post it before I was finished writing it. Oh, well I am but mortal.

Again I say, If God could chose a sinful person God could also have chosen to create a sinless person. God's will, God's decision.

I ask you, what would set Mary apart from all the other sinful females at that particular time and space to hold His/Her Son within her and nature the new born babe.

Why would she be chosen so dramatically and within that still be given the opportunity to say no. if she was not different from the norm. I mean why didn't God pick Jane or Barbara or even Alice?

As JoeT has already pointed out in a previous post, see below for the relevant extract, Mary was sinless because according to the Law of Moses, given to him by God, God can only reside in a ritually purified Tabernacle. In a way God had no choice in the matter, He had to work within the very Laws that He gave to the Jewish people.



At the moment Christ was conceived God was infused; at that moment Mary’s womb must be spiritually clean; as clean as any ritually cleaned Tabernacle of Moses. Remember, Christ first ministry was the Hebrew and thus must be identifiable by the Jew – a Jew would not recognize a God that didn’t live in a ritually purified Tabernacle.

It’s important that Christ be perceived as ‘infused,’ as opposed to conjoin or thought of as an injection of God into man. Thus we hold the Blessed Virgin Mary’s womb as the dwelling place of God, a Holy of Holies, the Ark of the Covenant. This Tabernacle would (and must) remain pure even after the Ark has been removed, thus did the Virgin Mary remain celibate in her life. This is because, she is literally full of grace, full of God; would we, (or could we), expect less. Would the Jewish Nation accept a Paschal Lamb any less than spotless, less flawless?

Got a questin for you Elscarta. Why is Enoch the only one you mention that didn't see death. Elijah too was taken up. Is there a reason you only mention Enoch? Just curious.

No. Can you know answer my question regarding Enoch, you mentioned spiritual death, but as I have stated before Enoch was not separated from God as he walked with God, so I don't see him as being spiritually dead.

WG,

Please reread my last post. I managed to post it before I was finished writing it. Oh, well I am but mortal.
Doesn't that just drive you nuts? It does me. I write something and post, read it in its posted form and then think, "Oh, I should have said this" or "I have to add that" or "Uh oh, three typos." By then, someone has quoted my original post before all my glorious additions and improvements and correction of typos. *sigh*

Again I say, If God could chose a sinful person God could also have chosen to create a sinless person. God's will, God's decision.
And that's one of the bones of contention between Catholic and Protestant (as you have said).

I ask you, what would set Mary apart from all the other sinful females at that particular time and space to hold His/Her Son within her and nature the new born babe.
Why didn't God create a sinless King David or Apostle Paul?

Why would she be chosen so dramatically and within that still be given the opportunity to say no. if she was not different from the norm. I mean why didn't God pick Jane or Barbara or even Alice?
There was something about Mary. The Gospel writers don't really explain in detail or say much about what it was. She obviously had caught God's eye with her attitude and behavior -- something we all can attempt to emulate.

I am saying that my position is as valid as yours.
But my position makes a lot of sense, don't you agree?

Why would she be chosen so dramatically and within that still be given the opportunity to say no. if she was not different from the norm. I mean why didn't God pick Jane or Barbara or even Alice?
What if she would have told God no? She was sinless, might have said "No thanks, God -- I do not want to drink from that cup," and then what? If she had been born sinless, was she obliged to say yes to God?

WG -

Okay, the point I was going after was that your point is valid about God working with a sinful vessel then my point about God working with a sinless vessel is equally valid because God pretty much does as He/She sees fit.

I know that for me God often moves in my world but rarely in the way I tell Him/Her.

?? Am I the only one here that believes that God will NEVER go against His word? He is never going to do anything contrary to his word. The Bible says man was doomed and without hope after the fall of Adam. He can't make an exception. It is what it IS. If the sin issue could have been fixed and he could make Mary sinless then why didn't he just make us ALL sinless. Why did Jesus have to die? I don't GET THIS. The reasoning here baffles me. Sinful natures begat sinful natures, begats sinful natures. If MARY was sinless why didn't he just use HER redeem mankind.

Romans 3:10 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

There just is NOTHING in the word of God that even implies Mary was sinless. Quite the contrary.

No. Can you know answer my question regarding Enoch, you mentioned spiritual death, but as I have stated before Enoch was not separated from God as he walked with God, so I don't see him as being spiritually dead.

Hebrews says his faith was counted to him as righteousness.. he pleased God. It was his faith in God. But it doesn't mean he wasn't born spirtually dead.

If the sin issue could have been fixed and he could make Mary sinless then why didn't he just make us ALL sinless.
Interesting train of thought... God is omnipotent. Why didn't He?

As JoeT has already pointed out in a previous post, see below for the relevant extract, Mary was sinless because according to the Law of Moses, given to him by God, God can only reside in a ritually purified Tabernacle. In a way God had no choice in the matter, He had to work within the very Laws that He gave to the Jewish people.

In Ephesians Paul says we were sealed with the Holy Spirit when we believed. I was a sinner, I am a sinner and until the Lord Jesus comes and raptures me (pretrib.. ha ha) I will BE a sinner. He LIVES IN ME.

Then consider this verses to:

Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?” (1 Corinthians 3:16)

and there are many many more so that line of thinking ain't cutting it.

God couldn't fix the sin problem by making anyone sinless. Adam messed that up already. Good grief, good gravy and good golly girdy... God is no respecter of persons, if he could have made Mary sinless he would have made ALL of us that way (after the fall of Adam. Why would he send His son to the cross?

Interesting train of thought.... God is omnipotent. Why didn't He?

Because he already told Adam if he ate of the tree what was going to be set into motion - what would happen. He won't go back on his word. He can't.

classyT,
You are very right about that. God's word is perfect and he will not change it
Keep in mind that the WORD of God became flesh in the name of Jesus Christ.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

In Ephesians Paul says we were sealed with the Holy Spirit when we believed. I was a sinner, I am a sinner and until the Lord Jesus comes and raptures me (pretrib..ha ha) I will BE a sinner. He LIVES IN ME.

Then consider this verses to:

Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?” (1 Corinthians 3:16)

and there are many many more so that line of thinking ain't cuttin it.

God couldn't fix the sin problem by making anyone sinless. Adam messed that up already. Good grief, good gravy and good golly girdy.... God is no respecter of persons, if he could have made Mary sinless he would have made ALL of us that way (after the fall of Adam. Why would he send His son to the cross?

ClassyT,
What you have quoted deals with the New Covenant, you cannot use what happens under the New Covenant to discuss what should have happened under the Old Covenant!

When Mary was conceived, only the Old Covenant, The Law of Moses, was in place and "God will NEVER go against His word", Mary had to be made sinless otherwise God would be contradiciting the Laws that He gave to Moses.

Also note that when the RCC says that Mary was made sinless, it means that Mary was made free from the stain of "original sin" not that she was made without the ability to sin. God did not take away Mary's free will.

What if she would have told God no? She was sinless, might have said "No thanks, God -- I do not want to drink from that cup," and then what? If she had been born sinless, was she obliged to say yes to God?

No she wasn't obliged to say yes, God did not take away her free will when He made her sinless, He simply did not let the stain of "original sin" touch her. She was capable of sinning but never did!

We do not need to concern ourselves with the "what if" since it did not happen. Also God knew that Mary would say yes in the same way as He knew that Judas would betray Jesus and that Peter would deny Him three times. In those cases, even though they, Judas and Peter, were foretold of their transgressions, they still freely chose to do them.

How do we know that? Judas committed suicide, i.e. blamed himself, rather than claiming that he did not have a choice. Peter wept bitterly, again showing that he blamed himself rather than claiming that he had no choice.

elscarta,
You are very right on that.
Well said and to the point.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I tried to google this and couldn't find the answer. I recently learned that Catholics believe Mary was divine after she became pregnant with the Lord Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit. My question is this...do Catholics believe that once the Pope is appointed to that positon HE becomes divine? If this is a stupid question then I apologize. I really am curious because I was reading an article where he is called The Holy Father. Not being raise catholic, I was stunned by that title.

No, it's not a stupid question, but it perfectly illustrates the bizarre notions that non-Catholics have about Catholics and the Catholic faith.

More stunning to me is the fact that you could grow to adulthood in this country without ever hearing "The Holy Father" employed as a reference to the pope.

ClassyT,
what you have quoted deals with the New Covenant, you cannot use what happens under the New Covenant to discuss what should have happened under the Old Covenant!

When Mary was conceived, only the Old Covenant, The Law of Moses, was in place and "God will NEVER go against His word", Mary had to be made sinless otherwise God would be contradiciting the Laws that He gave to Moses.

Also note that when the RCC says that Mary was made sinless, it means that Mary was made free from the stain of "original sin" not that she was made without the ability to sin. God did not take away Mary's free will.

God will NEVER go against his word. He is no respector of persons. If he can make Mary without original sin.. he could make us ALL that way. He could not because once Adam sinned... ALL of mankind and Womankind were doomed. It isn't our fault we are born sinners but we are AND if GOD could have fixed the problem by simply making us without original sin.. well THEN he would have. Why send Jesus to the cross... to take care of sin, when all he had to do is reverse it like he did with Mary? He is NO respecter of persons. THAT idea goes against what God has said.

So if you don't like my NT quotes of the Holy Spirit dwelling in believers how's about this one:


Luke 1:41
When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby jumped in her womb. Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit ( note that was ELIZABETH filled with the Holy Spirit right then... not Mary.) Is God going against his laws here.. this is OT covenant. Or maybe Elizabeth too was sinless.

Also consider what Mary has to say: Luke 1:47

and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior

If Mary was sinles... why did she need a savior?? Interesting huh?


Give me ONE verse in Genesis through Revelation that says Mary was without original sin. It is a PRETTY BIG deal... the bible should at LEAST mention it.

The scriptures repeat over and over that there is NONE righteous NO NOT ONE. For ALL have sinned and come short of the Glory of God.

Only the Lord Jesus who is GOD... He and ONLY He is without sin. He ( Jesus) who knew no sin was made sin for us. The Bible is CLEAR as crystal. He is the ONLY one.

No, it's not a stupid question, but it perfectly illustrates the bizarre notions that non-Catholics have about Catholics and the Catholic faith.
... as do Catholics about Protestants.

That's why this board is so important. Here we all have the opportunity to discuss both our similarities and our differences, and be able to ask questions.

No, it's not a stupid question, but it perfectly illustrates the bizarre notions that non-Catholics have about Catholics and the Catholic faith.

More stunning to me is the fact that you could grow to adulthood in this country without ever hearing "The Holy Father" employed as a reference to the pope.



I wasn't raised in a catholic church and what I have learned about the Catholic church I've learned mostly right here on askmehelpdesk.

Most of the catholics I have encountered in my life have been by name ONLY. Some have actually believed there are many paths to God and that Jesus is just one of them. So I think it is COOL to talk with true Catholics who know what they believe and why they believe it. I respect it.

More importantly there are many people in this country who haven't heard the gospel, and if they have heard it didn't understand it. And even more STUNNING is the millions that still haven't heard the name of Jesus all over this world. So...

Heck, I stun my husband everyday with my lack of knowledge just ask him. I couldn't help my boys in elementary math... because I can't add fractions. Baffles me?. does not compute. Stuns my boys. So you see, stunning people "in my adulthood" is what I do best. Go figure. Incidentally being a tiny bit unkind and slightly put out by NON Catholics questions is what YOU do best. But HEY.. we all have our gifts. :D

Wondergirl,
I fully agree with you that being able to discus, question and answer about Catholics and other faiths is one of the most important aspects of this board.
We can thus learn from each other and reach a much better understanding of each other.
Doing that helps unit us against the anti-Christian and anti-God worlds.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Wondergirl,
I fully agree with you that being able to discus, question and answer about Catholics and other faiths is one of the most important aspects of this board.
We can thus learn from each other and reach a much better understanding of each other.
Doing that helps unit us against the anti-Christian and anti-God worlds.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Finding this board is one of the best things that's happened to me in the past year or so, and for precisely that reason.

dwashbur,
I'm sure that we are all glad and happy that you are here.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

ClassyT,
People can be filled with God's Spirit but there is a big difference between God being spiritually with someone and God being physically with someone.

The main place in the Old Testament where we see God being physically present is with Moses in Exodus where he built the Tabernacle in which God dwelt amongst His people.

The following link describes the Holy of Holies (http://www.the-tabernacle-place.com/tabernacle_articles/tabernacle_holy_of_holies.aspx), God's dwelling place in the Tabernacle. God only came down and physically dwelt with His people after a very special place was built and sanctified.

Sixteen chapters in Exodus (25 - 40) are written about the preparation of the Tabernacle so God could come down and dwell amongst His people and yet you think that no preparation was necessary for where Jesus was to come into this world, Mary's womb!

The scriptures repeat over and over that there is NONE righteous NO NOT ONE.

Actually you are wrong. Scripture does NOT repeat over and over the above. It only occurs once in Romans 3:10 and you have isolated it from the rest of the passage with which it clearly belongs.

Romans 3:10-12
As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."

If you insist that NONE are righteous then you must also insist that NONE understand, NONE seek God, ALL have turned away and NONE do good NO NOT ONE!
Is this really what you believe?

This is obviously an example of where Paul uses hyperbole, exaggeration for emphasis or effect!

If you insist that NONE are righteous then you must also insist that NONE understand, NONE seek God, ALL have turned away and NONE do good NO NOT ONE!
Is this really what you believe?
That's what I believe too. No hyperbole here. (Some of your verbs are incorrect in number though.)

That's what I believe too. No hyperbole here. (Some of your verbs are incorrect in number though)

And Paul is quoting Isaiah, so Scripture does in fact declare it more than once.

elscarta,
Notice Soloman's Temple and it's holy of holies.
It was specially built for God to be with His people there.
Only a selected priest could go in and he had a rope tied to his foot so that if he dies in there he could be pulled out. On one could go in to get him.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

That's what I believe too. No hyperbole here.
Genesis 6:9
This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God.
Job 12:4
"I have become a laughingstock to my friends, though I called upon God and he answered— a mere laughingstock, though righteous and blameless!
Matthew 1:19
Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
Mark 6:20
Because Herod feared John and protected him, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard John, he was greatly puzzled ; yet he liked to listen to him.
Luke 2:25
Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him.
Acts 10:22
The men replied, "We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people. A holy angel told him to have you come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say."
Hebrews 11:4
By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.
2 Peter 2:7
And if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men

As you can see from the above quotes, there are a number of people who Scripture states as being righteous:
Noah, Job, Joseph, John, Simeon, Cornelius, Abel and Lot.

Furthermore there are many more references to "the righteous" without referring to a particular individual. So to continually insist that "NONE are righteous" is not a hyperbole is contrary to Scripture!

elscarta,
You have made a very good point.
Now since many believe that there are no conflicts in Holy Scripture how does one explain the difficulty between NO righteous and righteous persons?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

And Paul is quoting Isaiah, so Scripture does in fact declare it more than once.

Dwasbur,
I cannot find any reference in Isaiah to the above. My NIV Bible cross references Romans 3:10 with Ecclesiastes 7:20

Ecclesiastes 7:20
There is not a righteous man on earth
Who does what is right and never sins.

Romans 3:10

As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;

Paul did not quote scripture, he paraphrased what was written and clearly exaggerated what was written by adding "not even one" and dropping the "does what is right and never sins".



The scriptures repeat over and over that there is NONE righteous NO NOT ONE.

Even if you believe that Ecclesiastes 7:20 says the same thing as Romans 3:10 this is only two times NOT "repeated over and over".
I find it quite ironic that classyT uses hyperbole to get her point across about what Paul meant in Romans 3:10 and yet people deny that Paul used hyperbole when he clearly did!

dwasbur,
I cannot find any reference in Isaiah to the above. My NIV Bible cross references Romans 3:10 with Ecclesiastes 7:20

Ecclesiastes 7:20
There is not a righteous man on earth
who does what is right and never sins.

Romans 3:10

As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;

Paul did not quote scripture, he paraphrased what was written and clearly exaggerated what was written by adding "not even one" and dropping the "does what is right and never sins".



Even if you believe that Ecclesiastes 7:20 says the same thing as Romans 3:10 this is only two times NOT "repeated over and over".
I find it quite ironic that classyT uses hyperbole to get her point across about what Paul meant in Romans 3:10 and yet people deny that Paul used hyperbole when he clearly did!

My mistake; it's actually Psalm 14, which is repeated in Psalm 53. He quotes Isaiah a little further down in the development part. So it is in fact repeated over and over; with the Ecclesiastes reference that's at least four. And Psalm 53:3 does say "not even one."

That's what I get for using the LTMLV.

Furthermore there are many more references to "the righteous" without referring to a particular individual. So to continually insist that "NONE are righteous" is not a hyperbole is contrary to Scripture!
That has nothing to do with the "none is righteous" statement. You are comparing apples and oranges.

That has nothing to do with the "none is righteous" statement. You are comparing apples and oranges.

I disagree. elscarta's point is precisely on target.

That has nothing to do with the "none is righteous" statement. You are comparing apples and oranges.

It's playing with words, nothing more. It should be obvious that the word "righteous" has more than one meaning in the Bible, but there are those who can't acknowledge that.

And Paul is quoting Isaiah, so Scripture does in fact declare it more than once.

:) :) and a great big hug... I was going to say it but you did first. Sciprture is just so clear on this topic it hard to believe it could be agrued. I would have given you a great big greenie but I must spread the love first. People could start to talk though... imagine a dispensationalist, pretribber, fundy like me agreeing so much with you a guy with a screwed up theology. Go FiGer... :D

Genesis 6:9
This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God.
Job 12:4
"I have become a laughingstock to my friends, though I called upon God and he answered— a mere laughingstock, though righteous and blameless!
Matthew 1:19
Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
Mark 6:20
because Herod feared John and protected him, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard John, he was greatly puzzled ; yet he liked to listen to him.
Luke 2:25
Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him.
Acts 10:22
The men replied, "We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people. A holy angel told him to have you come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say."
Hebrews 11:4
By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.
2 Peter 2:7
and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men

As you can see from the above quotes, there are a number of people who Scripture states as being righteous:
Noah, Job, Joseph, John, Simeon, Cornelius, Abel and Lot.

Furthermore there are many more references to "the righteous" without referring to a particular individual. So to continually insist that "NONE are righteous" is not a hyperbole is contrary to Scripture!


Faith was why the Lord looked on these guys as righteous they were good men who loved and feard God. Not the same kind of righteous as the Lord Jesus. I am the righteousness of Christ. And trust me, I have sinned... I was born that way... can't help it. Just like all the rest.

Incidentally I was thinking about Mary being sinless ( born without a sin nature) why did she die? We know why the Lord Jesus did. He was crucified. And even THEN HE gave up the ghost on account of him being GOD. He was in total control of His spirit leaving Him.

But if Mary was without sin, she should be alive and well... and what? About 2000 plus years old. It is being born a sinner that causes us to physically die... part of the curse on mankind after Adam's sin. So where is she?? I'm just saying...

I disagree. elscarta's point is precisely on target.
I disagree. The lack of righteousness in "none is righteous" is the umbrella type. This is the lack of righteousness (the human condition, Christianity calls it original sin) that will, without a Savior, consign all of us to everlasting oblivion or hell or whatever Extreme Negative Destiny there will be after death.

The other kind of righteousness of Noah et al. is a personal goodness that rose above the human condition, a righteousness that God noticed and acknowledged.

As dwashbur said, it's playing with words -- one word with shades of meaning, like the word "love": "I love pizza" and "I love my mother."

But if Mary was without sin, she should be alive and well.... and what? about 2000 plus years old. It is being born a sinner that causes us to physically die...part of the curse on mankind after Adam's sin. So where is she???? I'm just sayin......
The Assumption of Mary, the bodily taking up of the Virgin Mary into Heaven at the end of her life, was an instance of papal infallibility by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950.

WG,

Good to know. I was wondering what the heck happened to her.. ;)

WG,

Good to know. I was wonderin what the heck happened to her..;)
I'm surprised it took that long after Pope Pius IX's 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary (that she was conceived as sinless). Where was she until 1950?

I'm surprised it took that long after Pope Pius IX's 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary (that she was conceived as sinless). Where was she until 1950?

She was hangin' out with the Lutherans trying to shape 'em up.

(Actually, her Assumption took place a long time ago when she shook off this mortal coil back in Palestine or wherever. Btw, she was assumed body and SOUL, so she did not pass through purgatory).

I'm surprised it took that long after Pope Pius IX's 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary (that she was conceived as sinless). Where was she until 1950?

On the Assumption of Mary, knowing you have an aversion to Catholic web sites (the truth might jump out and get you – Boo), so I decided to bring it to you:


Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ's Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.

The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P.G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:


St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West; according to Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Assumption of Mary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm)

JoeT

... knowing you have an aversion to Catholic web sites (the truth might jump out and get you – Boo), so I decided to bring it to you:

JoeT

Bingo!

So many Catholic questions (and answers) are easily found by a little bit of research on the Internet.

On the Assumption of Mary, knowing you have an aversion to Catholic web sites
Actually, I was teasing classyT.

Sweetie, I'm a LIBRARIAN. Research is my middle name. I KNEW where Mary was before 1950, but classyT's question begged for a similar response.

Bingo!

So many Catholic questions (and answers) are easily found by a little bit of research on the Internet.
Um, that's why I ask questions here -- and ask them of YOU and others I trust.

Um, that's why I ask questions here -- and ask them of YOU and others I trust.

You don't trust encyclopedias? And you a librarian? For shame!

You don't trust encyclopedias? And you a librarian? For shame!
Good grief!

Why would anyone not trust encyclopedias?
They are full of much information.
Fred

Why would anyone not trust encyclopedias?.
They are full of much information.
Fred

That wasn't what she said.

dwashbur,
OH!! Sorry that I thought so.
Fred

My mistake; it's actually Psalm 14, which is repeated in Psalm 53. He quotes Isaiah a little further down in the development part. So it is in fact repeated over and over; with the Ecclesiastes reference that's at least four. And Psalm 53:3 does say "not even one."

That's what I get for using the LTMLV.
Dwashbur,
Psalm 14:1-3 and Psalm 53:1-3 do not relate to Romans 3:10 but to Romans 3:11-12. They do not mention "righteous" and classyT specifically quoted only Romans 3:10.

The scriptures repeat over and over that there is NONE righteous NO NOT ONE.

Furthermore the "not even one" in both Psalms refers to "there is no one who does good".

So I still maintain Scripture does not "repeat over and over", but at most only two times, states that "there is NONE righteous", and that Paul is using hyperbole in Romans 3:10 as explained before!

Romans 3:11-12
11there is no one who understands,
No one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
They have together become worthless;
There is no one who does good,
Not even one.

Psalm 14:1-3
1The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
There is no one who does good.
To the LORD looks down from heaven
On the sons of men
To see if there are any who understand,
Any who seek God.
3 All have turned aside,
They have together become corrupt;
There is no one who does good,
Not even one.

Psalm 53:1-3
1 The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God."
They are corrupt, and their ways are vile;
There is no one who does good.
2 God looks down from heaven
On the sons of men
To see if there are any who understand,
Any who seek God.
3 Everyone has turned away,
They have together become corrupt;
There is no one who does good,
Not even one.

dwasbur,
I cannot find any reference in Isaiah to the above. My NIV Bible cross references Romans 3:10 with Ecclesiastes 7:20

Ecclesiastes 7:20
There is not a righteous man on earth
who does what is right and never sins.

Romans 3:10

As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;

Paul did not quote scripture, he paraphrased what was written and clearly exaggerated what was written by adding "not even one" and dropping the "does what is right and never sins".



Even if you believe that Ecclesiastes 7:20 says the same thing as Romans 3:10 this is only two times NOT "repeated over and over".
I find it quite ironic that classyT uses hyperbole to get her point across about what Paul meant in Romans 3:10 and yet people deny that Paul used hyperbole when he clearly did!

For All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that ALL have sinned: Romans 5:12


ALL we like sheep have gone astray we have turned EVERYONE to his own way the Lord has laid on him the inquity of us ALL. Is. 53:6

There is none righteous.. no not one. Romans 3:10

For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.Ecclesiastes 7:20

I looked up cross references:


1 Kings 8:46 "When they sin against You (for there is no man who does not sin) and You are angry with them and deliver them to an enemy, so that they take them away captive to the land of the enemy, far off or near;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Chronicles 6:36 "When they sin against You (for there is no man who does not sin) and You are angry with them and deliver them to an enemy, so that they take them away captive to a land far off or near,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psalm 143:2 And do not enter into judgment with Your servant, For in Your sight no man living is righteous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proverbs 20:9 Who[ can say, "I have cleansed my heart, I am pure from my sin "?


And I can find more. EVERY human being born into this world is a sinner... I stand by my previous statement the bible is clear on this topic.

All I'm asking for is ONE verse that says anyone except for the Lord Jesus was born perfect and without sin. That is all I want. I have backed up my belief with the Word. Now, please back up YOURS with the word.

I can tell you what I personally believe and what the Bible tells me.

Jesus is the head of the church, not the pope.

Yes, about the virgin Mary being blessed. Yes. She was blessed with the spirit of God, and she conceived a child through the Holy Spirit. Does that mean that she is divine, no.

Dwashbur,
Psalm 14:1-3 and Psalm 53:1-3 do not relate to Romans 3:10 but to Romans 3:11-12. They do not mention "righteous" and classyT specifically quoted only Romans 3:10.


Furthermore the "not even one" in both Psalms refers to "there is no one who does good".



Oh, I see, so only exact verbal equivalence will satisfy. "There is no one who does good" apparently doesn't mean the same thing as "there is no one righteous" in your book. I'm not sure how that works http://www.nwdiveclub.com/images/smilies/dontknow.gif

Classy has given you plenty to show that the Bible does in fact hammer away at this fact. So I have no more to add.

dwashbur,
All I ask is that there is consistency in the meaning given to particular verses in Scripture.

On the one hand we have Wondergirl stating

The lack of righteousness in "none is righteous" is the umbrella type. This is the lack of righteousness (the human condition, Christianity calls it original sin).


On the other hand you equate "there is no one righteous" with "There is no one who does good" . To me this is the second type of "righteousness" that Wondergirl states


The other kind of righteousness of Noah et al. is a personal goodness that rose above the human condition, a righteousness that God noticed and acknowledged.


You can't have it both ways! So which is one is it?

You can't have it both ways! So which is one is it?
Now you're pitting us against each other (and still not understanding what either of us is saying)?

dwashbur,
all I ask is that there is consistency in the meaning given to particular verses in Scripture.



This may not be possible when it comes to language. Dwash would be better than me at this so I am sure he will want to add something.

Look at the words RIGHTEOUS or NOT RIGHTEOUS.

Think of all the things and acts that can be righteous or not righteous.

Think of all the people who can or cannot be described in this way.

There is obviously a common element which allows us to decide that something is righteous. However, with such understanding comes a problem. It is the problem of conceptual distance.

When we start discussing the term righteous in relation to particular events and people the common features we assumed were there at the beginning are gone.

In other words, common features drop in and out when discussing particular instances of words. It can get to a stage where the conceptual distances are so great that it is hard to imagine that we are talking about the same thing.

Football is a GAME just like playing cards is a GAME. I don't think there will be much consistency in meaning if we compare the two in terms of being a game.

Tut

dwashbur,
all I ask is that there is consistency in the meaning given to particular verses in Scripture.

On the one hand we have Wondergirl stating


On the other hand you equate "there is no one righteous" with "There is no one who does good" . To me this is the second type of "righteousness" that Wondergirl states



You can't have it both ways! So which is one is it?

Well obviously according to the scriptures we are born sinners and therefore unrighteous because of Adam's sin.

The Bible also says that without faith it is impossible to please God. But when we have faith and BELIEVE God...

James 2:23... Abraham believed God and it was IMPUTED unto him for righteousness...

Because of the finished work of Christ on the cross all that believe in him God looks upon those who have accepted the Lord as righteous.

Romans 3:24 Yet God, with undeserved kindness, declares that we are righteous. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins ( New living translation)

So we are born a sinner BUT with faith and believing God he can declare and impute the righteousness of His son on to us.

elscarta,
I agree Paul was using hyperbole,
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Paul wasn't using hyberbole unelss you believe that all of the Bible exaggerates the condition of ALL mankind. I have posted scripture after scripture that clearly says otherwise.

Personally I don't care if some Catholics want to believe Mary was sinless. But you should be able to back it up by the word of God. Otherwise it is just man's thoughts and traditons. What good does it do any of us to hold on to something just because it is a tradition of our denomination?

Paul warns:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

All I'm saying is this... Back up your beliefs with the 66 books the Lord has given us and compare scripture with scripture. I'm not saying we can't read other writings.. I'm saying other writings aren't the Bible and therefore NOT the inspired word Of God .

I'm beating a dead horse I guess... but it is better than pounding your head against a brick wall. Athos, stop doing that.. you are jarring your brain and it could be why you aren't getting what I'm saying... ha ha ha. :D

This may not be possible when it comes to language. Dwash would be better than me at this so I am sure he will want to add something.

Look at the words RIGHTEOUS or NOT RIGHTEOUS.

Think of all the things and acts that can be righteous or not righteous.

Think of all the people who can or cannot be described in this way.

There is obviously a common element which allows us to decide that something is righteous. However, with such understanding comes a problem. It is the problem of conceptual distance.

When we start discussing the term righteous in relation to particular events and people the common features we assumed were there at the beginning are gone.

In other words, common features drop in and out when discussing particular instances of words. It can get to a stage where the conceptual distances are so great that it is hard to imagine that we are talking about the same thing.

Football is a GAME just like playing cards is a GAME. I don't think there will be much consistency in meaning if we compare the two in terms of being a game.

Tut

Tut,
I think that you misunderstood my point. I do not want one definition for "righteous" for all of the verses in which it is used, I understand that this is not possible. But, when we are discussing what a particular verse (in this case Romans 3:10) means, then we should try to get an agreement on what that particular definition is.

The problem I have is that while wondergirl and dashbur say that they agree with classyT it doesn't appear to me that they have the same definition for "righteous" as each other. As I pointed out in my last post, wondergirl gave two definitions for "righteous". According to her, Romans 3:10 is the first definition. Dwashbur on the other hand appears to me to think that Romans 3:10 is the second definition.

To me this situation is illogical, I don't understand how you can say that you agree with someone yet have a different definition to them. Now maybe I have misunderstood dwashbur, if this is the case, I would appreciate it if someone could explain how "There is no one who does good" means the same thing as "there is no one righteous" according to the definition of the word "righteous" that wondergirl agrees with.

the definition of the word "righteous"
The definition of the word itself is not the problem. It is how the word is used. Like I had said, the sentences, "You love your mother" and "You love pizza" each use the word "love," but in two entirely different ways (unless you love pizza as much as you love your mother).

All I'm asking for is ONE verse that says anyone except for the Lord Jesus was born perfect and without sin. That is all I want. I have backed up my belief with the Word. Now, please back up YOURS with the word.

ClassyT,
You asked a question directed to Catholics who, unlike you, do not believe in the doctrine of "sola scriptura" and yet you demand that we produce evidence according to YOUR belief system?

We have backed up our belief with the teachings of the Magisterium, the "teaching authority of the Catholic Church" and our interpretation of verses as using hyperbole. While you may disagree with this, which is your right, it is our belief and that is what your original question asked for.

Furthermore the difference in opinion over whether certain verses in the Bible are hyperbole or not leads us again to the same impasse that I have posted before, on two different occasions in different threads (both receivied no answer), which is:

How can you decide, with absolute certainty, which interpretation of Scripture is the correct one, if you believe in "sola scriptura"?

This is one of the major flaws I see with the doctrine of "sola scriptura", i.e. God did not leave us with a way to decide with absolute certainty, what the truth of scripture is even though He is the Truth.

The definition of the word itself is not the problem. It is how the word is used. Like I had said, the sentences, "You love your mother" and "You love pizza" each use the word "love," but in two entirely different ways (unless you love pizza as much as you love your mother).

Wondergirl,
Did you not post two different definitions of the word "righteous"?
Did you not say that in Romans 3:10 the word "righteous" matched the meaning of your first definition?

Rather than nitpicking at the way I phrased the question, why not attempt to answer the question, which I will rephrase so as to make it absolutely clear what I am asking for.

Could you explain how "There is no one who does good" means the same thing as "there is no one righteous" according to the meaning of "righteous" which matches the first of your two definitions posted earlier.

All i'm saying is this...Back up your beliefs with the 66 books the Lord has given us and compare scripture with scripture. I'm not saying we can't read other writings ..I'm sayin other writings aren't the Bible and therefore NOT the inspired word Of God .


ClassyT,
This is another one of the major flaws I see with the doctrine of "sola scriptura". Where did you get that the Bible contains only 66 Books?

Can you give me any verse/verses in Scripture that backs up your claim that the Bible contains only those 66 books that you refer to as the Bible?

The problem is that "sola scriptura" is not self consistent and complete, it does not provide us with a list of which of the many writings are the inspired Word of God.

elscarta,

First, please do not be offended by me. I hope you aren't. I am enjoying our discussion and I am not meaning to be offensive in any way.

Second, I will be back to answer your questions as to why I believe the Bible to be complete. But first I must tend to my motherly duties. Kids are complaining no clean socks and I guess they want me to make dinner which means I need to go buy food. Go figure?? But never fear, I shall return with some answers for you. :)

Tess

ClassyT,
this is another one of the major flaws I see with the doctrine of "sola scriptura". Where did you get that the Bible contains only 66 Books?

Can you give me any verse/verses in Scripture that backs up your claim that the Bible contains only those 66 books that you refer to as the Bible?

The problem is that "sola scriptura" is not self consistent and complete, it does not provide us with a list of which of the many writings are the inspired Word of God.

You know what. There are so many and too many stories about Christ and God to even put a whole book together. It is impossible to tell all the stories, all the lessons. What we have is a bible put together that best describes Gods love for us and sacrifices made and a blue print for our lives of yesterday, today and tomorrow. The bible contains a certain amount of books and you know what it is what it is.

There will always be more stories, more lessons but they are free to look at whenever they may be found. We just have to trust that all of the books that we do have tell us the story that is most important for our faith.

elscarta,
I go along with what you are saying.
I do think that Paul was using hyperbole but maybe he wasn't.
If that's that case I find what he said to be perplexing.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

elscarta,
I go along with what you are saying.
I do think that Paul was using hyperbole but maybe he wasn't.
If that's that case I find what he said to be perplexing.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred, you remind me of B. B. King on the guitar: master of the short phrase. What in the text indicates to you that he's using hyperbole, and if he's not, what do you find perplexing about his statement?

dwashbur,
It is perplexing because it appears to be in conflict with other passages.
I believe that there are no conflicts in Scripture.
If so then what was he saying if it was not hyperbole?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

dwashbur,
It is perplexing because it appears to be in conflict with other passages.
I believe that there are no conflicts in Scripture.
If so then what was he saying if it was not hyperbole?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Okay, let's go step by step. What other passages?

All;

What do these verses mean to you?


What then? Do we excel them? No, not so. For we have charged both Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin. As it is written: There is not any man just. There is none that understands: there is none that seeks after God. (Romans 3:9-11)

I ask because my notion of these verses seems far removed from the non-Catholic understanding. It seems convoluted, so much so I figured that I'm reading too much between the lines. How does 'righteousness' figure into these verses? Do you read these verses to say that no man is just therefore no man is righteous or can't receive a state of righteousness or holiness through his works in cooperation with grace? Or, am I to assume the only way to salvation is to grit my teeth, hunker down in the big grunt, click my heals three times, spin around, and say 'I think I believe: I think: I believe!'? Do I do this once in a lifetime, or every waking minute?

How do you rectify your response with “Do we then destroy the law through faith? God forbid! But we establish the law.” (Romans 3:31)

Do you know that there is a difference between the law and the covenant? If the 'Law' is bad, then why did Paul say we needed to “establish the law”? In St. John Chrysostom's Homily on Romans he states that in verse 31 the word 'established' indicates it is worn out:


Do you see his varied and unspeakable judgment? For the bare use of the word “establish” shows that it was not then standing, but was worn out (katalelumenon). And note also Paul's exceeding power, and how superabundantly he maintains what he wishes. For here he shows that the faith, so far from doing any disparagement to the “Law,” even assists it, as it on the other hand paved the way for the faith. For as the Law itself before bore witness to it (for he saith, “being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets”), so here this establisheth that, now that it is unnerved.

'Covenant' can be construed as laws but normally it's used to refer to a body of laws. Let's look at an example like subdivision covenants. Such covenants form a relationship between the developer who established the covenants and the homeowner who buys a lot in the subdivision. Furthermore, these same subdivision covenants also forms reciprocity among the neighbors who are in a cooperative relationship for living and prospering in the subdivision. A similar relationship is formed between God and man in the Covenants of Moses, do they not? Did Christ come to destroy the Law, or as He said fulfill them?

The Old Testament Covenants holds this same nuance in meaning. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in his book “Many Religions, One Covenant” holds that “The relationship is therefore completely asymmetrical, because God, for the creature, is and remains the “wholly Other”. The covenant is not a two-sided contract but a gift, a creative act of God's Love.” God's act of love adds yet another dimension to 'covenant'. God's covenant becomes more than law, more than reciprocity, more than a spiritual love for “here God, the King, receives nothing from man; but in giving him law, he gives him the path of life.” This Holly ordinance becomes far more than direction, it brings a bridal love and a patristic relationship. So the Covenant of the Old Testament isn't 'simply' a set of laws it's a loving living, real live relationship (a.k.a. Covenant) between the immutable God and a mutable man.

All of which brings us head to head with a contradistinction if righteousness is denied to man. Why then did Paul want us to 'establish' the law in us'? Or, since no one is salvageable in the eyes of God, is He pernicious in His willy-nilly picking of who gets justified and who doesn't? If God is nilly-willy then how can we have assurances of salvation promised by the Protestants. Does God do a sort of 'eeny, meeny, miny, moe this one is saved, that one is damned '–if so of what value is the law or faith?

JoeT

Hey...
The other passages than HAVE BEEN POSTED HERE ON THIS THREAD
Fred

Hey...
The other passages than HAVE BEEN POSTED HERE ON THIS THREAD
Fred

No need to shout, thank you. I already dealt with those. What else you got?

I already dealt with those.

Dwashbur,
With regards to Romans 3:10 I have an outstanding question at https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/have-question-catholics-462861-3.html#post2320432 which I rephrased at https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/have-question-catholics-462861-4.html#post2321755

ClassyT,


The problem is that "sola scriptura" is not self consistent and complete, it does not provide us with a list of which of the many writings are the inspired Word of God.

I sat down this morninig to attempt to explain why I believe the Word of God is complete and the absolute truth. It isn't so much that I don't believe in reading other people's opinions or thoughts about certain subjects of the Bible. But there is no other source BUT the Bible that is Gods word to mankind. As I began posting some scripture, I googled to see how others may exlpain it. I ran across this and as much as I would like to think I could do a better job at it I can't. Ii thought this guy's explanation was really good. He compares scripture with scripture to prove his position. So I shall copy it. It is long but worth the read if you get the time:


“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” John 10:27.
The term “sola Scriptura” or “the Bible alone” is a short phrase that represents the simple truth that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible. Scripture states this concept repeatedly and emphatically. The very phrase “It is written” means exclusively transcribed, and not hearsay. The command to believe what is written means to believe only the pure word of God. What is at stake before the All Holy God is His incorruptible truth.

In the very last commandment in the Bible God resolutely tells us not to add to nor take away from His Word.

“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book”
—Revelation 22:18-19

His Word is absolutely sufficient in itself (Psalm 119:160).

The Biblical message breathed out by God is revelation in written form. (2 Timothy 3:15-16). The Biblical claim is that what God has inspired was His written word (2 Peter 1:20-21). When the Lord Jesus Christ said, “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), He was speaking of God’s written word. The events, actions, commandments, and truths from God are given to us in propositional form, i.e. logical, written sentences. God’s declaration in Scripture is that it and it alone, is this final authority in all matters of faith and morals.

Thus, there is only one written source from God, and there is only one basis of truth for the Lord’s people in the Church.

Affirmed by Jesus Christ
The Lord Jesus Christ, Himself, identified truth with the written Word. In His great, high priestly prayer, He said, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” This was consistent with the declarations right through the Old Testament in which the Holy Spirit continually proclaims that the revelation from God is truth, as for example Psalm 119:142, “thy law is truth.” There is no source other than Scripture alone to which such a statement applies. That source alone, the Holy Scripture, is the believer’s standard of truth.

In the New Testament, it is the written word of God, and that alone, to which the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles refer as the final authority. In the temptation, the Lord Jesus three times resisted Satan, saying, “It is written” as for example, in Matthew 4:4, “he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” In stating “It is written,” the Lord used the same phrase that is used in the Holy Bible forty six times. The persistence of the repeated phrase underlines its importance. The Lord’s total acceptance of the authority of the Old Testament is evident in His words found in Matthew 5:17-18:

“Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily, I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.”

Other sources of authority condemned
People often attempt to give human traditions higher authority than God’s Word. This was true of the Jews of Jesus’ day. In refuting the errors of the Sadducees, the Scripture records the Lord saying, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matthew 22:29). Christ Jesus continually castigated and rebuked the Pharisees because they made their traditions on a par with the Word of God—corrupting the very basis of truth by equating their traditions with God’s Word. So He declared to them in Mark 7:13 “You are making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such things do ye.” Since Scripture alone is inspired, it alone is the ultimate authority, and it alone is the final judge of Tradition.

The Word of the Lord says as a commandment in Proverbs 30:5-6:

“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”

God commands that we are not to add to His Word: this command shows emphatically that it is God’s Word alone that is pure and uncontaminated.

Aligned with Proverbs, the Lord’s strong, clear declaration in Isaiah 8:20 is: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” The truth is this: since God’s written word alone is inspired, it and it alone is the sole rule of faith. It cannot be otherwise.

How is Scripture to be accurately interpreted?
The principle of “sola Scriptura” is basic to accurate interpretation of Scripture. Psalm 36:9 explains, “For with thee is the fountain of life; in thy light we see light.” God’s truth is seen in the light of God’s truth. The Apostle Paul said the same thing, “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (I Corinthians 2:13). It is precisely in the light which God’s truth sheds, that His truth is seen. (Cp. John 3:18-21, II Corinthians 4:3-7).

The Apostle Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares, “knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation. For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:20-21). Logically then, Peter makes it very clear that in order to maintain the purity of Holy God’s written word, the source of interpretation must be from the same pure source as the origin of the Scripture itself.

Scripture can only be understood correctly in the light of Scripture, since it alone is uncorrupted. It is only with the Holy Spirit’s light that Scripture can be comprehended correctly. The Holy Spirit causes those who are the Lord’s to understand Scripture (John 14:16-17, 26). Since the Spirit does this by Scripture, obviously, it is in accord with the principle that Scripture itself is the infallible rule of interpretation of its own truth “it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth” (I John 5:6).

If you want to be true to God in this important matter, follow His instruction, “Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you” (Proverbs 1:23). If you are yearning for truth in the attitude of Psalm 51:17 “with a broken and a contrite heart”, the Lord God will not despise you. He will reveal to the basic foundation where the Lord Christ Jesus stood, as did the apostles.
Is Scripture alone adequate, or do we need more?
The total sufficiency of Scripture is declared by the Apostle Paul,

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
—2 Timothy 3:16-17

For final truth and authority, all that we need is the Scripture.

What about the claim that sola Scriptura is not possible?

In an attempt to justify traditions as being of equal or higher authority than Scripture, an appeal is often made to the very last verse in John’s gospel,

“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”
—John 21:25

Of course, there were many deeds and sayings of the Lord not recorded in Scripture. Nonetheless, Scripture is the authoritative record that Holy God has given His people. We do not have a single sentence that is authoritatively from the Lord, outside of what is in the written word. To appeal to a tradition for authority, when Holy God did not give it, is futile. The idea that somehow sayings and events from the Lord have been recorded in tradition is simply not true.

Another attempt to justify tradition, is the statement that the early church did not have the New Testament. The Apostle Peter speaks about the writings of the Apostle Paul when he states,

“…even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”
—2 Peter 3:15-16

Peter also declares that he was writing so that the believers could remember what he said. So he wrote, “Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth” (2 Peter 1:12).

From the earliest days of Christianity, a substantial part of the New Testament was available. Under the inspiration of the Lord, the Apostle Paul commands his letters to be read in other churches besides those to which they were sent. This clearly shows that the written word of God was being circulated even as the Apostles lived. The Lord’s command to believe what is written has always been something that the believers could obey and did obey. In this matter we must have the humility commanded in the Scripture not to think above what is written. “…that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another” (1 Corinthians 4:6).

Truth, God’s Word, and our love for Him
The Lord brings the topic of truth to bear on our love for Him. This again underscores its importance. “Jesus answered and said to him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings; and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent Me” (John 14:23-24). And then again “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35).

The Lord himself looked to the authority of the Scriptures alone, as did His apostles after Him. They confirmed the very message of the Old Testament. “The law of the LORD is perfect” (Psalm 19:7). The believer is to be true to the way of the Lord, holding alone to what is written: “Thy Word is truth.”

Author: Richard M. Bennett, Berean Beacon Ministries

ClassyT,
Thank you for your post, even though it does not actually answer my question.

My question was not about what you think the Bible contains rather how do you know which books make up the Bible. You claim that there are 66 books in the Bible. Catholics believe that there are 73 books in the Bible. How do you justify the list of books that you believe make up the Bible, just by using Scripture?

Scripture is my ONLY authority because I believe it is the word of God. I don't need to justify it because it is what it is.

I don't claim there is only 66 books, go to the bookstore and pick up a Bible. It starts in Genesis and it ends in Revelation. Incidentally this book happens to be the best selling book of all time.

I didn't decided which books went into the Bible. I didn't decide it would be 66 books. But if I have enough faith to believe the God of the universe spoke this world into existence. I don't have too much trouble believing it was no accident how those books were chosen and in what order and how many. I didn't write it, I didn't pick it, I don't add to it and I don't take away from it. I just believe it. :)

ClassyT,
thank you for your post, even though it does not actually answer my question.

My question was not about what you think the Bible contains rather how do you know which books make up the Bible. You claim that there are 66 books in the Bible. Catholics believe that there are 73 books in the Bible. How do you justify the list of books that you believe make up the Bible, just by using Scripture?

Good question, but don't expect a direct answer.

Good question, but don't expect a direct answer.
The decision to accept either 66 books or 73 was made by men for various reasons I will not go into here. That information can be found all over the Internet. God didn't mention to anyone specifically which books should be in the Bible.

The decision to accept either 66 books or 73 was made by men for various reasons I will not go into here. That information can be found all over the Internet. God didn't mention to anyone specifically which books should be in the Bible.

A touch of sanity in a sea of obfuscation.

(It wouldn't let me agree with you, so I post this)

... AND the direct answer you said you wouldn't get.

...AND the direct answer you said you wouldn't get.

Now, I wish it would have let me DISAGREE with you.

The original question was NOT directed to you! Geez!

Now, I wish it would have let me DISAGREE with you.

The original question was NOT directed to you!! Geez!
You said, "Good question, but don't expect a direct answer."

So I gave you a direct answer.

You said, "Good question, but don't expect a direct answer."

So I gave you a direct answer.

I repeat - it was NOT directed at you. It referred to elscarta's question to another poster, which is very obvious in the context of the thread.

It's fine if you answer a question not directed at you - it's done all the time - but please don't conflate it with a question intended elsewhere. Thank you.

This is getting silly. Soon a moderator is going to swoop in and close the thread. I'm done with this particular tete a tete.

The decision to accept either 66 books or 73 was made by men for various reasons I will not go into here. That information can be found all over the Internet. God didn't mention to anyone specifically which books should be in the Bible.


Yes the books that are contained in the bible were decided upon my man. But if you believe in God Almighty then you also have to believe that HE is more than capable of telling a group of men which books they need to translate and place into one book, The Bible! There is no middle ground here, it is either one way or the other. Just like your walk with Jesus. It is all the way or not at all. There is no half a Christian!

The decision to accept either 66 books or 73 was made by men for various reasons I will not go into here. That information can be found all over the Internet. God didn't mention to anyone specifically which books should be in the Bible.

Yes. In the case of the Old Testament, the main criterion was whether the book was written by a genuine prophet. That's why the "extra" books in the Catholic canon aren't accepted by all, because their authorship couldn't be verified. Their presence in the Jewish canon was iffy, at best, and with few exceptions, the Jews rejected them as non-canonical.

For the New Testament, the question was whether the item was written by an apostle or a close companion of an apostle (in the case of Luke and Mark). A lot of writings made the claim, but the 27 in our Bibles made the cut according to the church councils that investigated the question. It took several centuries, and even by the fifth century some were open to question; Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete copy of the New Testament we have, includes the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas, while Codex Alexandrinus, another very old complete copy, includes the epistles of Clement. Those four books ultimately fell out as non-canonical, and now they're part of the collection known as the Apostolic Fathers. Basically, the councils ultimately concluded that they were written in the century after the apostles passed off the scene, and hence didn't qualify as inspired writings.

JoeT,

Grumpy Joe, I'm not ignoring you, I read what you wrote. BUT... I feel I explained that the Apostle Paul was referring to the natural state of mankind because of original sin. In other words when we are ALL born that is our state. God IMPUTES righteousness unto to us when WE choose to have faith and believe HIM. It isn't willy nilly eeeny meeny minee mo. It is OUR choice... always has been, always will be.

Yes the books that are contained in the bible were decided upon my man. But if you believe in God Almighty then you also have to believe that HE is more than capable of telling a group of men which books they need to translate and place into one book, The Bible! There is no middle ground here, it is either one way or the other. Just like your walk with Jesus. It is all the way or not at all. There is no half a Christian!

Hi Donn,

Does this mean that some denominations are 'half Christian'?

Regards

Tut

Ooooooooh... ( feeling like a kid in school raising my hand... pick me , pick me) can I answer that TUT? I know it isn't directed at me BUT..

The answer is absolutely NOT. No such animal.

But.. you can be a Christian and screw up.

Yes. In the case of the Old Testament, the main criterion was whether or not the book was written by a genuine prophet. That's why the "extra" books in the Catholic canon aren't accepted by all, because their authorship couldn't be verified. Their presence in the Jewish canon was iffy, at best, and with few exceptions, the Jews rejected them as non-canonical.


That is not the Catholic view. I think you should say whose view you are representing, especially since you are implying that the Catholic canon is somehow not legitimate.

That is not the Catholic view. I think you should say whose view you are representing, especially since you are implying that the Catholic canon is somehow not legitimate.

Are you for real? I DID say whose view I was representing: the Jewish one. I'm aware that it's not the Catholic view; I never said it was. What's going on here?

That is not the Catholic view. I think you should say whose view you are representing, especially since you are implying that the Catholic canon is somehow not legitimate.

Why should he 'declare' whose view he represents? You’re bright and should be able to figure it out. What difference does it make, you’ve got to remember others like to keep their light under a bushel - at least that’s the claim of the Evangelists; I haven’t figured out why. But any case made against the Church is essentially empty.

Notice too, to his credit, dwashbur has only stated what he believes and thinks; he hasn’t ‘bashed’ the Church, at least not yet.

JoeT

JoeT,
Right you are.
Fred

I don't claim there is only 66 books, go to the bookstore and pick up a Bible. It starts in Genesis and it ends in Revelation.

But ClassyT,
If you went to a Catholic bookstore and picked up a Bible, then it would have 73 books in it not 66!

I didn't decided which books went into the Bible. I didn't decide it would be 66 books.
Actually in a way you did. You decided that the version which contains 66 is the correct version and the one that contains 73 is not! (Or for that matter any other version which contains a different number of books as there are more that just the Catholic and Protestant version of the Bible!)


I don't add to it and I don't take away from it.
Well someone must have either added to it or taken away from it, since there are two (main) conflicting versions of it!

I just believe it.
Again, you have chosen to believe that the particular version of the Bible with 66 books is the correct version. Without looking into the history of how the differences in the Bible came to be, and making an informed decision on which is actually the correct version, you run the risk of believing in a Bible that may actually have 7 less books in it than it should have and as you pointed out in a previous post:

In the very last commandment in the Bible God resolutely tells us not to add to nor take away from His Word.

“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book”
—Revelation 22:18-19

But ClassyT,
if you went to a Catholic bookstore and picked up a Bible, then it would have 73 books in it not 66!


Having once worked in a Christian bookstore (non-denominational) I can tell you it's not even necessary to go to a specifically Catholic bookstore.

I don't know all the ins and outs of why the Catholic church includes the books that are disputed by others (known as the Apocrpyha to non-Catholics). What I do know is, we all agree on what books are in the New Testament, and I consider that a good start.

Dwashbur,
With regards to Romans 3:10 I have an outstanding question at https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/have-question-catholics-462861-3.html#post2320432 which I rephrased at https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/have-question-catholics-462861-4.html#post2321755

Els,
I don't know if it's my browser or what's going on but I'm not finding any references to Romans 3:10 in either of those links. Maybe Firefox is taking me to the wrong place?

Wondergirl,
did you not post two different definitions of the word "righteous"?
No. I posted two different uses, two ways the word can be understood -- one as an umbrella ("no one is righteous") and the other as personal (God noticed someone was righteous). The first damns the human race; the second says that God looks into an individual's heart.

No. I posted two different uses, two ways the word can be understood -- one as an umbrella ("no one is righteous") and the other as personal (God noticed someone was righteous). The first damns the human race; the second says that God looks into an individual's heart.

The difference is one of source: no one is righteous because no one can measure up to God's standard. But there have been individuals in the Bible who trusted God and their faith was counted as righteousness to them, e.g. Abraham. But nobody in history except Jesus is ever described as not having sinned.

All;

[snip]

How do you rectify your response with “Do we then destroy the law through faith? God forbid! But we establish the law.” (Romans 3:31)

Do you know that there is a difference between the law and the covenant? If the ‘Law’ is bad, then why did Paul say we needed to “establish the law”?

[snip]


Joe,
I want to discuss what you wrote but first I need a clarification: what does "establish" mean to you in this verse?

The difference is one of source: no one is righteous because no one can measure up to God's standard. But there have been individuals in the Bible who trusted God and their faith was counted as righteousness to them, e.g. Abraham. But nobody in history except Jesus is ever described as not having sinned.

Nobody in history except Jesus... and the Blessed Virgin Mary who was protected from sin... is ever described as not having sinned

JoeT

But ClassyT,

Again, you have chosen to believe that the particular version of the Bible with 66 books is the correct version.

Elsacarta,

While dissecting my posts ( which always seems to make them seem less intelligent then I originally thought btw; and no comments from the peanut gallery :D),you left out what I considered the most important thing I said:

" But if I have enough faith to believe the God of the universe spoke this world into existance. I don't have too much trouble believing it was no accident how those books were chosen and in what order and how many."

The Bible as most people know it( and the one that is the best selling book of all time) is the one that contains 39 books in the OT and 27 in the NT. I don't know why the other 7 books were eventually not considered inspired by the men who finally agreed upon them. But I do know that the Catholic Bible and my Bible should both contain this verse:

Daniel 2:21 He controls the course of world events; he removes kings and sets up other kings. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the scholars. (NLT)

Therefore for me, the 66 books that were finally agreed upon as "inspired" was really orchestrated by the Lord himself. He is ultimately in control. Do I have a problem reading other writings such the dead sea scrolls, or even the 7 extra books in the Catholic bible? NO I don't. BUT I do not consider them the word of God.

Joe,
I want to discuss what you wrote but first I need a clarification: what does "establish" means to you in this verse?

Establish: to place on a firm or stable foundation or as in to adopt or take a position or to validate (as in to prove) or to bring about a permanency. I would lend more weight to the meaning of ‘establish’ as ‘to ordain’.

That is to say the Law predisposes us to faith, hope and charity. Throughout the New and Old Testaments we find that the ‘Law’ as being somewhat vague, but most always it refers to those ordinances given by Moses and the Prophets. Any long married couple knows that that early in the relationship there are rules by which each spouse must relate too. In domestic affairs it goes something like, “don’t mess with my side of the closet; or I don’t care how long you’ve had it, if it smells like something dead; or “stay out of my Kitchen or I’ll be emboss this ‘no. 10’ skillet on the backside of your head!” I think you get the gist. Years down the road these rules are no longer written or even verbalized, they can be communicated with ‘THE LOOK’. If you’ve been married a few years, I don’t think I need to explain ‘THE LOOK.’ Still many years later, no rules are necessary, none whatsoever, you ‘know’ what your spouse wants, needs, or desires. And it’s at this stage, you start finishing each other sentences, even in the privacy of the home – essentially becoming ONE. The point being that the rules, laws or ordinances found in marriage are same types as those found in the Covenants. Some are Divine, some are prophetic and some are mere preferences all aimed at the good of our relationship with God. When the laws are no longer applicable, or needed, when continued to be enforced they become burdensome, oppressive. It’s these laws Christ perfected, they still exist, and they simply don’t need to be enumerated for or relationship if they are carried in the interior – like the old woman and man. And as Matthew's Gospel (chp. 5) tells us Christ came to perfect the LAW fulfilling every jot.

JoeT

I don't know why the other 7 books were eventually not considered inspired by the men who finally agreed upon them.


ClassyT,
If you studied the history of the Bible, you would know that the New Testament was set at the Councils of Hippo in 393 AD and Carthage in 397 AD. Also at these Councils the Septuagint was confirmed as the canon of the Old Testament.

The Septuagint is the Old Testament as accepted by Catholics which contains 7 more books that the version that you accept.

It was in the early 1500s that Martin Luther removed the 7 books from their rightful place in the Bible and placed them between the Old and New Testaments and called them "Apocrypha: These Books Are Not Held Equal to the Scriptures, but Are Useful and Good to Read". Later they were removed entirely from some versions of the Bible.

St Paul, in 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 warns about this:

3But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

Martin Luther preached a different scripture to the one that had been accepted by the Church for over 1100 years, and many have been led astray.

He also added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 which was NOT in any other version of the Bible before his time and which was subsequently removed from the Bible.

And as you have quoted before
Revelations 22:18-19

18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Establish: to place on a firm or stable foundation or as in to adopt or take a position or to validate (as in to prove) or to bring about a permanency. I would lend more weight to the meaning of ‘establish’ as ‘to ordain’.

That is to say the Law predisposes us to faith, hope and charity. Throughout the New and Old Testaments we find that the ‘Law’ as being somewhat vague, but most always it refers to those ordinances given by Moses and the Prophets. Any long married couple knows that that early in the relationship there are rules by which each spouse must relate too. In domestic affairs it goes something like, “don’t mess with my side of the closet; or I don’t care how long you’ve had it, if it smells like something dead; or “stay out of my Kitchen or I’ll be emboss this ‘no. 10’ skillet on the backside of your head!” I think you get the gist. Years down the road these rules are no longer written or even verbalized, they can be communicated with ‘THE LOOK’. If you’ve been married a few years, I don’t think I need to explain ‘THE LOOK.’ Still many years later, no rules are necessary, none whatsoever, you ‘know’ what your spouse wants, needs, or desires. And it’s at this stage, you start finishing each other sentences, even in the privacy of the home – essentially becoming ONE. The point being that the rules, laws or ordinances found in marriage are same types as those found in the Covenants. Some are Divine, some are prophetic and some are mere preferences all aimed at the good of our relationship with God. When the laws are no longer applicable, or needed, when continued to be enforced they become burdensome, oppressive. It’s these laws Christ perfected, they still exist, and they simply don’t need to be enumerated for or relationship if they are carried in the interior – like the old woman and man. And as Matthew's Gospel (chp. 5) tells us Christ came to perfect the LAW fulfilling every jot.

JoeT

Well, as a redneck mechanic might say, "dat's yer problem right dere." That's not what the term "establish" in the Greek text means. To understand it we have to go back to verses 19-20:

"Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin." (NIV)

The purpose of the Law, Paul says, was never to save or to make someone righteous. It was to show us how impossible it is and drive us to throw ourselves on the mercy of God. Paul continues:

"21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." (NIV)

He elaborates on this same idea in Galatians when he says that the law was our schoolmaster, so to speak, that was meant to lead us to Christ (Gal 3:24).

Paul continues in Romans 3:

"27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29 Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." (NIV)

Note the translation "uphold" rather than "establish." It's much closer to the meaning of the original, which basically means "confirm," or, if we must use the term "establish," it's more like "establish as having filled its purpose." What does that mean? Paul has already told us: its purpose was to show us our sinfulness so that we would be driven to Christ, seeking the mercy of God and forgiveness in spite of our sins. For this reason, nobody can boast that they're righteous or that they keep the law, because nobody can do it. Salvation comes by faith, not by keeping the law. The law was never meant for that; its purpose was to show us that we need a savior. That's the essence of Romans 3, and the reason that we know Paul wasn't using hyperbole when he said that there is nobody righteous and that all have sinned. It's easy to take a verse out of context, like verse 10, and try to claim it's hyperbole, but when we put it in the context of the entire chapter, he means exactly what he's saying. "Establishing" the law is coming to Christ by faith because the law has shown us our sinfulness.

ClassyT,
if you studied the history of the Bible, you would know that the New Testament was set at the Councils of Hippo in 393 AD and Carthage in 397 AD the canon of the New Testament was set. Also at these Councils the Septuagint was confirmed as the canon of the Old Testament.

The Septuagint is the Old Testament as accepted by Catholics which contains 7 more books that the version that you accept.

It was in the early 1500s that Martin Luther removed the 7 books from their rightful place in the Bible and placed them between the Old and New Testaments and called them "Apocrypha: These Books Are Not Held Equal to the Scriptures, but Are Useful and Good to Read". Later they were removed entirely from some versions of the Bible.

St Paul, in 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 warns about this:

3But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

Martin Luther preached a different scripture to the one that had been accepted by the Church for over 1100 years, and many have been led astray.

He also added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 which was NOT in any other version of the Bible before his time and which was subsequently removed from the Bible.

And as you have quoted before
Revelations 22:18-19

18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Elscarta,

I'm not even going to try to argue Martin Luther.. I don't know enough about him. IF he did add the word alone... it is NOT in there now.

However I did check out the words of the Apostle Paul very closely : Did he preach a different Jesus? Nope!. did he preach a different Spirit!. nope! Did he preach a different gospel than the Apostle PAUL? No way!!


I am out of my element talking about church history and Martin Luther. However, if what you say is true and he did add the word "alone" to the verse it has since been removed. The seven books were also removed. By whom? Men?. Martin Luther? Or God? I tend to believe God. It is called faith.. for without faith it is impossible to please God.

Daniel 2:21 :He controls the course of world events; he removes kings and sets up other kings. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the scholars

Establishing" the law is coming to Christ by faith because the law has shown us our sinfulness.
As my minister father taught as a mnemonic --

Law = SOS = show's oyour sin

Gospel = SOS = show's oyour Savior

ClassyT,
if you studied the history of the Bible, you would know that the New Testament was set at the Councils of Hippo in 393 AD and Carthage in 397 AD the canon of the New Testament was set. Also at these Councils the Septuagint was confirmed as the canon of the Old Testament.

The Septuagint is the Old Testament as accepted by Catholics which contains 7 more books that the version that you accept.

[snip]


The Septuagint is NOT the Old Testament; the councils were wrong in that decision. The Old Testament is the Hebrew text, not a third-century BC Greek translation that is horribly variable in its accuracy. If the Septuagint is the Catholic OT, they have a BIG problem.

ALL of the previous post have been very interesting to me, including those which mention different bibles, the first for centuries with 72 books and the one that came out after the reformation with fewer books.
In my case I prefer the complete bible.
And yes Joe you are right about who was sinless.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

ALL of the previous post have been very interesting to me, including those which mention different bibles, the first for centuries with 72 books and the one that came out after the reformation with fewer books.
In my case I prefer the complete bible.


Did you even read what I wrote? The "complete" Bible as regards the Old Testament is the one written in Hebrew, which does NOT include the "extra" books found in the Septuagint.

For those scratching their heads, the "Septuagint" (often abbreviated LXX, the roman numeral 70) is a translation of the Old Testament into Greek that was made over a period of about 200 years during the time between the Testaments. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, with a few small parts in Aramaic. Supposedly, the translation was made by 70 scribes, each translating in a separate room, and when their translations were compared they all agreed exactly, word for word. This was supposed to be proof that the translation they produced was inspired by God. All this is detailed in an ancient document called the Letter of Aristeas, written around the time that the translation was made. Unfortunately, it has long been known that the Letter of Aristeas is fraudulent; it was written several centuries after the translation was made, apparently with the aim of "proving" that the Septuagint was more "inspired" than the actual Hebrew text. Obviously, some church councils bought the lie.

The actual truth is that the "Septuagint" is a collection of translations of Old Testament books, made by various people at various times, and of various quality; some translators knew Greek better than others. The translation of some of the 12 prophets, for example, is horrible and barely comprehensible. The translation of Jeremiah is about 30% shorter than the Hebrew text and omits large sections of what Jeremiah actually wrote. And, of course, those 7 extra books were collected along with the actual canonical books of the Hebrew Bible. Several of them are unknown in Hebrew, and only known in the Septuagint translation, so we have no clue how accurate they are. The Greek Old Testament itself was revised several times between when first appeared and the time of Jesus, so which Septuagint was accepted by the church councils is open to question. So arcura's "complete bible" is a little too "complete," because it is not only based on a faulty translation of the actual Old Testament, but includes extra stuff that was never part of the Hebrew canon of Scripture.

I notice nobody has said WHY those church councils adopted the Septuagint as their Old Testament...

Well, as a redneck mechanic might say, "dat's yer problem right dere." That's not what the term "establish" in the Greek text means. To understand it we have to go back to verses 19-20:

"Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin." (NIV)

The purpose of the Law, Paul says, was never to save or to make someone righteous. It was to show us how impossible it is and drive us to throw ourselves on the mercy of God. Paul continues:

"21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." (NIV)

He elaborates on this same idea in Galatians when he says that the law was our schoolmaster, so to speak, that was meant to lead us to Christ (Gal 3:24).

Paul continues in Romans 3:

"27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29 Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." (NIV)

Note the translation "uphold" rather than "establish." It's much closer to the meaning of the original, which basically means "confirm," or, if we must use the term "establish," it's more like "establish as having filled its purpose." What does that mean? Paul has already told us: its purpose was to show us our sinfulness so that we would be driven to Christ, seeking the mercy of God and forgiveness in spite of our sins. For this reason, nobody can boast that they're righteous or that they keep the law, because nobody can do it. Salvation comes by faith, not by keeping the law. The law was never meant for that; its purpose was to show us that we need a savior. That's the essence of Romans 3, and the reason that we know Paul wasn't using hyperbole when he said that there is nobody righteous and that all have sinned. It's easy to take a verse out of context, like verse 10, and try to claim it's hyperbole, but when we put it in the context of the entire chapter, he means exactly what he's saying. "Establishing" the law is coming to Christ by faith because the law has shown us our sinfulness.

The law is a part of the Covenant which is perfected in Christ. St. John C. points out that Paul teaches that justification is possible through the Law, that the Law cannot produce the result of justification, and that faith is not opposed to the Law. The Catechism teaches much the same thing; that the Law is a teacher, exercising our awareness to desire for righteousness.


“This divine pedagogy appears especially in the gift of the Law. (Cf. Ex 19; 20, Deut 1-11; 29-30). God gave the letter of the Law as a ‘pedagogue’ [I’m told that ‘pedagogue’ is a Latin derivative of paedagōgus – to watch over children, a teacher or schoolmaster] to lead his people towards Christ. (Gal 3:24) But the Law's powerlessness to save man deprived of the divine "likeness," along with the growing awareness of sin that it imparts (Rom 3:20), enkindles a desire for the Holy Spirit. The lamentations of the Psalms bear witness to this. (CCC 708)

Maybe I opted not to present this because of the ‘Greek.’ I’m not versed in Greek, and can’t argue one way or the other. St. Chrysostom presents the argument much the same way as I did (without the Greek of course – and without so much rambling).


Do you see his varied and unspeakable judgment? For the bare use of the word establish shows that it was not then standing, but was worn out (καταλελυμένον). And note also Paul's exceeding power, and how superabundantly he maintains what he wishes. For here he shows that the faith, so far from doing any disparagement to the Law, even assists it, as it on the other hand paved the way for the faith. For as the Law itself before bore witness to it (for he says, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets), so here this establishes that, now that it is unnerved. And how did it establish? He would say. What was the object of the Law and what the scope of all its enactments? Why, to make man righteous. But this it had no power to do. For all, it says, have sinned: but faith when it came accomplished it. For when a man is once a believer, he is straightway justified. The intention then of the Law it did establish, and what all its enactments aim after, this has it brought to a consummation. Consequently it has not disannulled, but perfected it. Here then three points he has demonstrated; first, that without the Law it is possible to be justified; next, that this the Law could not effect; and, that faith is not opposed to the Law. For since the chief cause of perplexity to the Jews was this, that the faith seemed to be in opposition to it, he shows more than the Jew wishes, that so far from being contrary, it is even in close alliance and cooperation with it, which was what they especially longed to hear proved. St. John Chrysostom, on Romans, Homily 7, Ver. 31, (CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 7 on Romans (Chrysostom) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210207.htm))

Either way, aren’t we saying the same thing? Maybe that’s the problem; your mechanic overcharged you for an oil leak that didn’t exist.

JoeT

The Septuagint is NOT the Old Testament; the councils were wrong in that decision. The Old Testament is the Hebrew text, not a third-century BC Greek translation that is horribly variable in its accuracy. If the Septuagint is the Catholic OT, they have a BIG problem.


You might want to explain how little-ol you know better than the Church councils. Isn’t this a bit presumptuous? There were about 4 or 5 versions that the council considered. But, I’ve got to get some sleep and it’s getting late. Chew on this for awhile; it’s actually a pretty good article.


The importance of the Septuagint Version is shown by the following considerations:

(1) The Septuagint is the most ancient translation of the Old Testament and consequently is invaluable to critics for understanding and correcting the Hebrew text (Massorah), the latter, such as it has come down to us, being the text established by the Massoretes in the sixth century A.D. Many textual corruptions, additions, omissions, or transpositions must have crept into the Hebrew text between the third and second centuries B.C. and the sixth and seventh centuries of our era; the manuscripts therefore which the Seventy had at their disposal, may in places have been better than the Massoretic manuscripts.

(2) The Septuagint Version accepted first by the Alexandrian Jews, and afterwards by all the Greek-speaking countries, helped to spread among the Gentiles the idea and the expectation of the Messias, and to introduce into Greek the theological terminology that made it a most suitable instrument for the propagation of the Gospel of Christ.

(3) The Jews made use of it long before the Christian Era, and in the time of Christ it was recognised as a legitimate text, and was employed in Palestine even by the rabbis. The Apostles and Evangelists utilised it also and borrowed Old Testament citations from it, especially in regard to the prophecies. The Fathers and the other ecclesiastical writers of the early Church drew upon it, either directly, as in the case of the Greek Fathers, or indirectly, like the Latin Fathers and writers and others who employed Latin, Syriac, Ethiopian, Arabic and Gothic versions. It was held in high esteem by all, some even believed it inspired. Consequently, a knowledge of the Septuagint helps to a perfect understanding of these literatures.

(4) At the present time, the Septuagint is the official text in the Greek Church, and the ancient Latin Versions used in the western church were made from it; the earliest translation adopted in the Latin Church, the Vetus Itala, was directly from the Septuagint: the meanings adopted in it, the Greek names and words employed (such as: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers [Arithmoi], Deuteronomy), and finally, the pronunciation given to the Hebrew text, passed very frequently into the Itala, and from it, at times, into the Vulgate, which not rarely gives signs of the influence of the Vetus Itala; this is especially so in the Psalms, the Vulgate translation being merely the Vetus Itala corrected by St. Jerome according to the hexaplar text of the Septuagint. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Septuagint Version (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm)

You might want to the read further.

JoeT

dwashbur,
Yes I read what to said.
I also know that the boos of the Septuagint were used for centuries by Jews outside of Israel. The reason for those in Israel not using them was because some of them treated Rome nicely.
So you see that there WERE many Jews who used them and some still do.
As for why The Church chose to include them in the Cannon was because it felt that they were inspired.
Did you know that the New Testament has some quotes from the Septuagint?
Don't ask me what they are because I have forgotten.
I find that reading them is educational and of spiritual value.
Give it a try.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

And, of course, those 7 extra books were collected along with the actual canonical books of the Hebrew Bible.

Exactly when did the Jews state what the actual canonical books of the Hebrew Bible are?

No. I posted two different uses, two ways the word can be understood -- .

Two different uses, two different ways to understand the word, two different meanings, two different definitions.

These are all saying basically the same thing!!

Def·i·ni·tion (df-nshn)
A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry.

Again, instead of answering my question you seem to be deliberately trying to avoid answering it by once again nitpicking at the differences between how you would say something to how I say it.

Rephrasing my original question once more.

Could you explain how "There is no one who does good" means the same thing as "there is no one righteous" according to second of the two ways that the word "righteous" can be understood, as you posted in an earlier post!

Exactly when did the Jews state what the actual canonical books of the Hebrew Bible are?

The Dead Sea Scrolls give us some good hints, but they established it for sure at the Council of Jamnia near the end of the first century AD. However, their tradition of the canon goes back much further. Those other 7 books were all written during the period between the testaments, which the Jews call the 400 Silent Years. They call it that because there were no prophets during that time; their canon closed with Malachi.


Yes I read what to said.
I also know that the boos of the Septuagint were used for centuries by Jews outside of Israel.

Yes, obviously. Also irrelevant. It was made for Jews outside Israel who could no longer read Hebrew. The same situation exists today with our English translations, but with rare (and usually laughable) exceptions I don't see anybody trying to claim any of those English translations is inspired or authoritative.


The reason for those in Israel not using them was because some of them treated Rome nicely.

I have no idea what this means.


So you see that there WERE many Jews who used them and some still do.

Still irrelevant. When you ask them what the inspired scriptures are they point to the Hebrew, as well they should.


As for why The Church chose to include them in the Cannon was because it felt that they were inspired.

That's not the question. The question is, why did they go with the Septuagint? And I think we all know the answer, though nobody wants to come out and say it: antisemitism.


Did you know that the New Testament has some quotes from the Septuagint?

Having not only done extensive research on the subject but also written on it, yes, I know that. I also know that they are rare, and that there's an equal number that represent the Hebrew text even when it diverges from the Septuagint. A good resource on this subject is Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey by Gregory Chirichigno and Gleason Archer. It has the Greek text of the New Testament, the Septuagint and the Hebrew text of the Old Testament in parallel columns for quick and careful comparison. There's also Paul's Use of the Old Testament by E. Earle Ellis which is more analytical, but confines itself to Paul's writings (obviously).


Don't ask me what they are because I have forgotten.
I find that reading them is educational and of spiritual value.
Give it a try.

I have. Why would you assume otherwise?


You might want to explain how little-ol you know better than the Church councils. Isn’t this a bit presumptuous?

What makes you think it's just me? The vast majority of textual critics have come to this conclusion. Even Ralph W. Klein, in his book Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: the Septuagint After Qumran, who clearly would prefer to go with the Septuagint, had to admit that the evidence points to the Septuagint as a secondary source, reliable in places but obviously unreliable in others, and that the Hebrew text is the one closest to the original Old Testament. The evidence is well summarized in two of the most prominent books on the subject: The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica by Ernst Würthwein , which is a little older, and the current magnum opus, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible by Emanuel Tov .

It's hardly "little ol'" me; I stand on the shoulders of giants.

From your citation:


The Septuagint is the most ancient translation of the Old Testament and consequently is invaluable to critics for understanding and correcting the Hebrew text (Massorah), the latter, such as it has come down to us, being the text established by the Massoretes in the sixth century A.D. Many textual corruptions, additions, omissions, or transpositions must have crept into the Hebrew text between the third and second centuries B.C. and the sixth and seventh centuries of our era; the manuscripts therefore which the Seventy had at their disposal, may in places have been better than the Massoretic manuscripts.

This is horribly outdated. Yes, the Septuagint is one of the oldest translations we have. But the manuscripts we have are no earlier than the fourth or fifth century AD, which puts them right there with the Hebrew manuscripts. I just love the phrase "must have crept into the Hebrew text" as justification, because it's nothing more than an unfounded assumption. And we now know it's not true, thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls. The scrolls show us that the Masoretic text-form was alive and well and remarkably well preserved clear back to the time of Christ and beyond. Places where they align with the Septuagint against the Hebrew text are amazingly rare. If you want to check this out for yourself, see my book A Catalog of Biblical Passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Text-Critical Studies, V. 2) by David L. Washburn . I combed through every biblical citation, both in the biblical and non-biblical scrolls, to see how the textual alignments shake out. The only books in which the scrolls appear to support the Septuagint over the Hebrew text are the books of Samuel, and we already knew that there are major problems with the Hebrew of those books. So that was nothing new. There are virtually no Septuagint manuscripts among the scrolls; in fact, there's a Greek scroll of the minor prophets, 8Hev XIIgr, that is a literal Greek translation of the Masoretic text-form, even where the Hebrew diverges from the Septuagint.

I just love the reference to "the Seventy" because that was debunked centuries ago. I also wonder why they don't assume that the same kinds of corruptions etc. "must have" crept into the Septuagint between the second century BC and the fourth century AD (our earliest manuscript, Codex Sinaiticus) just like they "must have" crept into the Hebrew text.

Since all this evidence predates the Septuagint manuscripts we have by several centuries, your article needs some serious updating. And somebody needs to seriously re-examine their blind faith in the Septuagint, because the evidence points elsewhere.



You might want to the read further.

Speak for yourself, my friend. If you expand your reading beyond the Catholic Encyclopedia (the only source I've seen you cite to date) you might be surprised.

Extremely interesting.
Thanks,
Fred

Dwashbur,
Firstly to clarify a point. It is the books of the Septuagint that the RCC holds as inspired, not the particular translation, but which books were in it. St Jerome's translation, the Latin Vulgate, forms the basis of the modern Catholic Bible and it was translated from the Masoretic Text for those books that exist in the Masoretic Text, otherwise he used the Septuagint.


The Dead Sea Scrolls give us some good hints, but they established it for sure at the Council of Jamnia near the end of the first century AD. However, their tradition of the canon goes back much further. Those other 7 books were all written during the period between the testaments, which the Jews call the 400 Silent Years. They call it that because there were no prophets during that time; their canon closed with Malachi.


According to The Oxford Companion to Archaeology:

The biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which include at least fragments from every book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther, provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100


The question is, why did they go with the Septuagint? And I think we all know the answer, though nobody wants to come out and say it: antisemitism.

With regards to the Deuterocanonical Books:

"Their acceptance among early Christians was widespread, though not universal, and the Bible of the early Church always included, with varying degrees of recognition, the books now called deuterocanonical." J.N.D. Kelly, "Early Christian Doctrines", p.53

"For the most part their canonicity seems not to have been doubted in the Church until it was challenged by the Jews after A.D. 100." Stuart G. Hall, "Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church", p.28

The reality is that the early Christians were using the Septuagint which included the Deuterocanonical Books because that was the Greek translation that was around at the time, not because it was antisemitic, after all they were writing the New Testament in Greek, and so it would be natural to use the Greek version of the Old Testament.

The real question is whether around 100 AD, when the Jews finally closed their canon, were they inspired by God to do so or were they motivated by some other reason?

Dwashbur,
Firstly to clarify a point. It is the books of the Septuagint that the RCC holds as inspired, not the particular translation, but which books were in it. St Jerome's translation, the Latin Vulgate, forms the basis of the modern Catholic Bible and it was translated from the Masoretic Text for those books that exist in the Masoretic Text, otherwise he used the Septuagint.


Interesting. On the other side there's this well-referenced summary from wikipedia:


Michael Barber asserts that, although Jerome was once suspicious of the apocrypha, he later viewed them as Scripture. Barber argues that this is clear from Jerome's epistles. As an example, Barber cites Jerome's letter to Eustochium, in which Jerome quotes Sirach 13:2. [4], elsewhere Jerome also refers to Baruch, the Story of Susannah and Wisdom as scripture.[12][13][14]

Jerome expressed some uneasiness about the authority of the Apocrypha. He was in general agreement with the Jewish position and separated the extra books found in the Septuagint, which he admitted could be edifying, from the Jewish canon.

In his prologues, Jerome argued for Veritas Hebraica, meaning the truth of the Hebrew text over the Septuagint and Old Latin translations. His Preface to The Books of Samuel and Kings[15] includes the following statement, commonly called the Helmeted Preface:
“ This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a “helmeted” introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees I have found to be Hebrew, the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style. ”

At the request of two bishops,[16] however, he made translations of Tobit and Judith from Hebrew texts[17], which he made clear in his prologues he considered apocryphal. In addition to these, the Vulgate Old Testament included books outside of the 24, many from the Vetus Latina, which Jerome did not translate anew.

The article goes on to note that Jerome's view lost out to that of Augustine, who insisted that the Septuagint was the right canon. I guess you pays your money and you takes your pick.




According to The Oxford Companion to Archaeology:

The biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which include at least fragments from every book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther, provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100

Nothing like a bit of over-simplification, eh? Check out the two books I already mentioned, they'll give you more and better information. A few manuscripts of Exodus align with the Samaritan Pentateuch, but once again as I already mentioned, that happens in places where we knew there were problems with the Masoretic text already and had the Samaritan for comparison. Ditto for the Septuagint in the books of Samuel. Moreover, the material in this article really does nothing to help establish any primacy for the Septuagint, canon or otherwise. And again, if you want to check out the situation for yourself, pick up my book. It's published by the Society of Biblical Literature and can be found by poking around their site, Society of Biblical Literature (http://www.sbl-site.org)

We've gotten a little far afield of the original questions, so I'll leave it at that. The Jews' canon was actually closed long before AD 100; all they did around that time was make it official. The quotes you cited seem to suggest they had all these other books floating around and weren't sure if they were inspired or not; that is most definitely not the case.

Ll this is very interesting to me.
But I still like those "extra" books to be in my bible for they do offer some spirituality and wisdom.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

That's not the question. The question is, why did they go with the Septuagint? And I think we all know the answer, though nobody wants to come out and say it: anti-Semitism.

I don’t doubt that there was some form of anti-Semitism at play. Don’t forget, Acts, and Paul’s Epistles are complete with examples Jewish reaction to the new ‘Christian’ sect of Jews. The Jews didn’t like Christians reading and expounding on scripture in ‘their’ Synagogues. You might say the Jews ‘hastened’ the split between Christianity and Judaism. I see this as, you might say, soft anti-Semitism in that the Christians preferred separation; I can’t believe that a Christian community willing to allow themselves to be martyred were ‘aggressive’ enough to force the Jews into a new and improved Septuagint in a 3,000 year old dead language.

But the Septuagint was in great demand by Greek speaking Jews for centuries before Christ. Much of Israel had inclined hard toward the Greek culture. It wasn’t till the fall of the Temple in 70 A.D. do we see a rabbinical resurgence for all things Hebrew such as the Massorah (sp?). I’ve read that many of the Hebrew versions of the Bible are dated to 1,000 A.D; no doubt there was a continued culture of maintaining Hebrew Scripture. The Qumran findings can’t be taken as scripture widely in use in Christ’s time. And if they were, we don’t know if Christ preferred the Massorah over the Septuagint. Also, without credible new findings that would substantiate that the Qumran findings aren’t little more than dumping grounds for sacred text. What I’m trying to convey is that too much weight may be placed on the finding of Qumran to as a means to investigate the culture of zero A.D.


The article goes on to note that Jerome's view lost out to that of Augustine, who insisted that the Septuagint was the right canon. I guess you pays your money and you takes your pick.

Did I misunderstand something, I thought Jerome preferred the Hebrew Scripture, but was ‘commissioned’ to us the Greek text, because many of the scholars (Greek and Latin) of the day were translating the Greek to Latin and the Pope wanted some uniformity. Is that your understanding or did I get something backwards?


The literary activity of St. Jerome, …

A first period extends to his sojourn in Rome (382), a period of preparation. From this period we have the translation of the homilies of Origen on Jeremias, Ezechiel, and Isaias (379-81), and about the same time the translation of the Chronicle of Eusebius; then the "Vita S. Pauli, prima eremitae" (374-379).

A second period extends from his sojourn in Rome to the beginning of the translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew (382-390). During this period the exegetical vocation of St. Jerome asserted itself under the influence of Pope Damasus, and took definite shape when the opposition of the ecclesiastics of Rome compelled the caustic Dalmatian to renounce ecclesiastical advancement and retire to Bethlehem. In 384 we have the correction of the Latin version of the Four Gospels; in 385, the Epistles of St. Paul; in 384, a first revision of the Latin Psalms according to the accepted text of the Septuagint (Roman Psalter); in 384, the revision of the Latin version of the Book of Job, after the accepted version of the Septuagint; between 386 and 391 a second revision of the Latin Psalter, this time according to the text of the "Hexapla" of Origen (Gallican Psalter, embodied in the Vulgate). It is doubtful whether he revised the entire version of the Old Testament according to the Greek of the Septuagint. In 382-383 "Altercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi" and "De perpetua Virginitate B. Mariae; adversus Helvidium". In 387-388, commentaries on the Epistles to Philemon, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to Titus; and in 389-390, on Ecclesiastes.

... In 392-93, "De viris illustribus", and "Adversus Jovinianum"; in 395, commentaries on Jonas and Abdias; in 398, revision of the remainder of the Latin version of the New Testament, and about that time commentaries on chapters 13-23 of Isaias; in 398, an unfinished work "Contra Joannem Hierosolymitanum"; in 401, "Apologeticum adversus Rufinum"; between 403-406, "Contra Vigilantium"; finally from 398 to 405, completion of the version of the Old Testament according to the Hebrew.

In the last period of his life, from 405 to 420, … he commented on Osee, Joel, Amos, Zacharias, Malachias; in 408, on Daniel; from 408 to 410, on the remainder of Isaias; from 410 to 415, on Ezechiel; from 415-420, on Jeremias. From 401 to 410 date what is left of his sermons; treatises on St. Mark, homilies on the Psalms, on various subjects, and on the Gospels; in 415, "Dialogi contra Pelagianos".
(APA citation. Saltet, L. (1910). St. Jerome. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved April 26, 2010 from New Advent: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Jerome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08341a.htm))

JoeT

JoeT,
I think that you have it right about Jerome.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

In regards to Jerome and the deuterocanonical books:

If anything, there is one thing that Jerome was, an extremely intelligent saint of an apologist. While unlike Popes, doctors of the church are fallible. In St. Jerome's early years he did have some reservations on the deuterocanonical books. However, it seems the wisdom's years made him think better of it.


...It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to be writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion. Otherwise from the fact that I stated that Porphyry had said many things against this prophet, and called, as witnesses of this, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinarius, who have replied to his folly in many thousand lines, it will be in his power to accuse me for not having written in my Preface against the books of Porphyry. If there is any one who pays attention to silly things like this, I must tell him loudly and freely that no one is compelled to read what he does not want; that I wrote for those who asked me, not for those who would scorn me, for the grateful not the carping, for the earnest not the indifferent. Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be. (Against Rufinus II:33 [A.D. 402]). http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2710.htm


The Jews which Jerome associated with said to the effect, 'the deuterocanonical books were not canon according to the Jews;' Jerome was dutifully reporting that fact.

JT

JoeT,
Thanks much form that additional information.
Very interesting...
Fred

I don’t doubt that there was some form of anti-Semitism at play. Don’t forget, Acts, and Paul’s Epistles are complete with examples Jewish reaction to the new ‘Christian’ sect of Jews. The Jews didn’t like Christians reading and expounding on scripture in ‘their’ Synagogues. You might say the Jews ‘hastened’ the split between Christianity and Judaism. I see this as, you might say, soft anti-Semitism in that the Christians preferred separation; I can’t believe that a Christian community willing to allow themselves to be martyred were ‘aggressive’ enough to force the Jews into a new and improved Septuagint in a 3,000 year old dead language.

What "3,000 year old dead language" are you talking about? If you mean Hebrew you're WAY off base. Hebrew was still in use in the time of Jesus, though Aramaic had taken over as the street language after the Babylonian exile. Hebrew continued to be in use through the intertestamental period and well into New Testament times.


But the Septuagint was in great demand by Greek speaking Jews for centuries before Christ. Much of Israel had inclined hard toward the Greek culture. It wasn’t till the fall of the Temple in 70 A.D. do we see a rabbinical resurgence for all things Hebrew such as the Massorah (sp?). I’ve read that many of the Hebrew versions of the Bible are dated to 1,000 A.D; no doubt there was a continued culture of maintaining Hebrew Scripture.

Wrong again. You need to read a good history of the Hebrew language. It was the language of the synagogue and there are even suggestions that it was a spoken language during the time of Christ. I don't know where you're getting this, but somebody is giving you a bum steer.


The Qumran findings can’t be taken as scripture widely in use in Christ’s time.

WHAT? I do hope you're joking. They show that the Hebrew scriptures were alive and well in Christ's time, they show that Hebrew continued as a language in use - note the so-called sectarian scrolls, written in Hebrew, as well as commentaries on the biblical books in Hebrew - they verify what we knew from Jewish history all along: Hebrew continued to be used well into the New Testament era.


And if they were, we don’t know if Christ preferred the Massorah over the Septuagint. Also, without credible new findings that would substantiate that the Qumran findings aren’t little more than dumping grounds for sacred text. What I’m trying to convey is that too much weight may be placed on the finding of Qumran to as a means to investigate the culture of zero A.D.

Where did you get that notion? First of all, Qumran wasn't the only place such scrolls were found. They were found all up and down the Dead Sea area, even down to Masada. We're learning that there was no actual "Qumran sect"; in fact, it's possible that what we found in those caves was the Temple library, smuggled out of Jerusalem and hidden in the caves for safe keeping against the Romans. We do know they were produced at different places by different hands over a period of a couple of centuries, which tells us that the Hebrew scriptures were in constant use during that period and beyond.


Did I misunderstand something, I thought Jerome preferred the Hebrew Scripture, but was ‘commissioned’ to us the Greek text, because many of the scholars (Greek and Latin) of the day were translating the Greek to Latin and the Pope wanted some uniformity. Is that your understanding or did I get something backwards?

I'm not really a specialist on Jerome. I do know he preferred the Hebrew text, but that's about it. So I'll bow out of that part of the topic.

But when it comes to the Dead Sea Scrolls, you've gotten some very bad information. A good place to start getting some better information would be Norman Golb, Who Wrote The Dead Sea Scrolls?.

So it goes, round and round and where it stops nobody knows.
Peace and kindness,
Fred