Forensic Scientists reveal what Jesus may have looked like as a 12-year old

Catholic News Agency ^ | February 12, 2005

[kosta50]

The passage in Psalms says nothing about "before all ages, etc," but rather the opposite. It says, "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."

Protestants don't use the oldest OT (Septuagint) but the Hebrew Masoretic Text (10th century copy found in Moscow's Synagogue). The MT has removed all references to anything that might support Christian teaching. The Septuagint, which originated two hundred years BEFORE Christ had no reason to alter any of the passages. Incidentally, the MT also removed the "virgin" in Eisaiah (Isaiah) for the same reason.

Luther,in his insanity decided that MT was the better OT and thus WE DO NOT USE THE SAME BIBLE! There is nothing more futile than debating Bible quotes with protestants when we don't use the same Scripture.

[Vicomte13]

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. --Isa 8:20

This passage states that anything spoken contrary to the scripture is darkness. Scripture therefore supercedes any other authority; if a Pope contradicts scripture, 'it is because there is no light in him.'"

Isaiah was not the last prophet. None of the New Testament had been written yet, and much of the Old Testament had not been written yet either. So, does that mean that everything in the Old or New Testament written AFTER Isaiah has no light in it, since it was not already existing writing when Isaiah wrote this?
No?
Why not?
That's the meaning you've given this passage.
If it meant what you say it means when Isaiah wrote it, then everything that comes after in the Old or New Testament which injects any new idea or interpretation "has no light in it".

"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. --Acts 17:11

Scriture commends the Bereans for checking the Apostles' teaching against scripture--even though the Apostles were working miracles to attest their message! You mean to tell me that the Pope, who doesn't even work miracles, should be held to a lower standard? Puh-lease."

So, since the Gospel of John and much of the New Testament was also written after Paul's death, and after Luke wrote his Acts, "the Scriptures" that are referred to here certainly do not contain any of them. The "Scripture" which was being compared to in the New Testament is not the New Testament. Several of Paul's letters precede ALL of the written Gospels. When Paul and the First Century Christians refer to "Scripture", they are not referring to the New Testament Bible you have in your hands, because they had no such book in their hands. They refer only to the Septuagint Greek Old Testament, which was "The Scripture" to Jews of that era. When Luke wrote that, the Thessalonians were not consulting Christian scriptures that were yet to be written. Those later texts became "Scripture" because the Church said they were. They didn't exist when Acts was written, and they are, therefore, most certainly not being referred to.

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. --Gal 1:8

Even an angel does not have authority to contradict the message already laid down. How much less authority should man's tradition hold? If an angel is accursed for contradicting the Gospel, the punishment can hardly be less on a Bishop who does so."

Ah yes, Galatians, written by Paul in about 48 AD. It is the OLDEST book of the New Testament. None of the written Gospels existed when those words were written. Nor did any of the other letters of Paul. Nor did the letters of Peter. Nor did the Revelation. So, if that REALLY means "Nothing else written counts", then it would mean that the entire New Testament, written after those words were written, are not scripture.
You are confusing the word "gospel", which means good news, with the written "Gospels according to YYY". Paul is referring to the good news the apostles and himself were preaching by word of mouth. He was not referring, at all, to the four documents we call "Gospels", which had not been written yet. He was not referring to anything else in the New Testament at all, since when he wrote this in Galatians, he was writing the first and oldest document among all of those in the New Testament. If those words mean what you say, then there is no New Testament at all...unless the Church Councils and Fathers who picked those books for the New Testament were under the Holy Spirit and got it right.

None of this is particularly hard.
It is simply a matter of getting the timeline in order.
When Isaiah spoke those words, which you say cuts everything thereafter off, if they did, then those words eliminate the rest of the Old Testament and all the New Testament. Ditto for Paul's words in Galatians. If what he wrote closed the canon, then the canon doesn't include the New Testament.

If the New Testament is canonical in spite of all of those works added to the Bible AFTER the point when those words you cited were uttered, then all of those added words were added by an authority.
If that authority was NOT God acting through the Church and the Holy Fathers, all of whom you reject, then the Canon closed with Isaiah or with Paul. Since you don't believe that, you must believe that God was still acting through men at least far enough to select the right books of the Canon all of which were written AFTER those two scriptures from Isaiah and Galatians you cited.

Which means that those Fathers and Councils can jump in the lake, except insofar as God let them pick the right latter-day Scriptures.

Query: Do you think that the Gospel of John says:
"and the Word was with God and the Word was God..."
or do you think it says "and the Word was with God and the Word was a god..."?
Which translation of the Bible are you using?

[kosta50]

We are not bound by the law. The Old Convenant is dead (Heb 8:7, 13). Christianity rests on the New Testament and the New Covenant, and interprets the OT in light of Jesus' teachings. You may be one of those "Christians" who wants to live by the law -- go ahead, it's called Judaism. Again: the law is not the Bible.

[Sloth]

Look .. I spent 3 years studying the Word of GOD - nobody can tell me GOD's own son would be anything but the most excellent specimen of humankind ever born. He would have been tall and strong ..

Then you disbelieve Isaiah 53:2: "He has no form or comeliness; and when we see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him."

[Cronos]

This passage states that anything spoken contrary to the scripture is darkness. Scripture therefore supercedes any other authority; if a Pope contradicts scripture, "it is because there is no light in him."

Look here -- you're taking your antagonism against the Catholic heirarchy and distorting God's word because of that. If a Pope contradicts scripture, he will be deemed wrong -- but the Pope is infallible ONLY ex cathedra namely if he is talking about dogmatic issues while sitting on Peter's seat and he would only do that when the entire church is in concurrence.

Fine, you don't want to be CAtholic, you carry too much baggage against the Church, fine. Look to the Orthodox then, they have their own Patriarchs. If your antagonism against the Papacy is so great, become Orthodox -- they too follow the true word and you won't have to overcome your prejudice against the Catholic church

[kosta50]

But you seem to have the confused idea that this means the Old Testament is out in the trash

Not at all! The OT is reinterpreted in the light of what Jesus taught. Just look at Matthew 5:38-39. He directly redefines that which is in the OT.

[Cronos]

Protestants don't use the oldest OT (Septuagint) but the Hebrew Masoretic Text (10th century copy found in Moscow's Synagogue). The MT has removed all references to anything that might support Christian teaching. The Septuagint, which originated two hundred years BEFORE Christ had no reason to alter any of the passages. Incidentally, the MT also removed the "virgin" in Eisaiah (Isaiah) for the same reason. Luther,in his insanity decided that MT was the better OT and thus WE DO NOT USE THE SAME BIBLE! There is nothing more futile than debating Bible quotes with protestants when we don't use the same Scripture.

I did not know that -- thank you for telling us that kosta

[kosta50]

The Orthodox recognize the Pope as the first among patriarchs. We cannot be in communion with him because our theology is not the same. Also, we consider the Pope in the light of the Seven Councils; you see him in the light of the 12th century imperial papacy which the early Church did not know. It's not prejudice.

[Cronos]

Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and most protestant sects are equally astray in their understanding of scripture. For good reason: all owe their doctrinal legacy to the early Catholic church.

When you say Early Catholic Church you mean the church of the 7 Patriarchs? The Churchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Ephesus, Constantinople, Rome and Colosse? What then, of the churches that did not follow these? What then of the Ethiopian and the Marthomite Churches? These were cut off from the mainstream of Christianity and yet had the same Christian thoughts. how can you justify that?>

[Cronos]

Sorry, I should have worded it differently -- I meant that for many Protestants they've been broguth up to believe that the Catholic church is like this and like that. That is difficult for them to overcome. Instead, I say to them, join the Orthodox then, since you follow the Word. That way, they follow the true word of Christ AND do not have to labor against what they have been brought up to associate the Catholic church with. A Win-win

[kosta50]

Now you are convoluting. The OT cannot say one thing and Jesus another. Obviously, the message He gives is "do not do what that verse says" (eye for an eye), "but do this..."

You can sugarcoat it any way you want, Jesus reminded everyone that they were misinterpreting God. He turned the money changers' tables. He also saved a man's life on a Sabbath. The legalistic bible thumpers Pharisees would have rather let the man die than save his life. Jesus told them that the spirit of God is that we break the rule for the good. How can the Jews and the Christians both be right? Obviously, one is not interpreting the Scriputre correctly. Your pick.