Posted on 07/22/2009 10:39:38 PM PDT by bdeaner
You wrote:
“I doubt that.[that Jesus loves ZC]”
I don’t doubt that Jesus loves ZC for a single second.
“Is there a “Catholic bible” in existence that contains traditional commentary from fathers or doctors of the church rather than “modern scholarship?” I doubt it.”
You need to stop doubting.
Haydock DRV: http://www.catholictreasures.com/cartdescrip/11341.html?gclid=CJm9j5P07psCFSQeDQodj1cKAA
The notes, by the way, are online here: http://haydock1859.tripod.com/
And there’s always this new DRV: http://www.tanbooks.com/news/holy-bible-douay-rheims.htm
Both of these Bibles are currently in print. The TAN DRV Bible is due to be released soon.
There’s also this: http://www.baroniuspress.com/category.php?wid=58&cid=1
Isaiah 7 (Hebrew Names Version)
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, an almah shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu'el.
from the Hebrew
5959 `almah al-maw' feminine of 5958; a lass (as veiled or private):--damsel, maid, virgin.
1) virgin, young woman
a) of marriageable age
b) maid or newly married
++++However.... there is also no reason to disregard the other options for the use of the word almah, instead of the word bthuwlaw, which unlike the word used in Isaiah, has only one meaning. Virgin!
There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin. (TWOT)
from the Hebrew
1330 bthuwlah beth-oo-law' feminine passive participle of an unused root meaning to separate; a virgin (from her privacy); sometimes (by continuation) a bride; also (figuratively) a city or state:--maid, virgin.
1) virgin
Had the author of Isaiah wanted to make sure that everyone knew the young woman was a technical virgin, he would have used the word that actually meant, a technical virgin, instead of a word that could be taken to mean, young woman, or lass.
'parthenos' is not used exclusively for 'a virgin', the LXX verse below refers to Dinah as 'parthenos' after she was raped by Shechem in Gen 34:3.
English Translation -- from the Greek 3933 virgin
Original Word -- parqevnoß
Transliterated Word -- parthenos
parthenos 1 from an online greek dictionary (you'll have to scroll down towards the bottom)
* I. a maid, maiden, virgin, girl, Hom., etc.
* 2. Parthenos, as a name of Athena at Athens, of Artemis, etc.
* II. as adj. maiden, virgin, chaste, parthenon psuchên echôn Eur.: metaph., p. pêgê Aesch.; parthenoi triêreis maiden, i. e. new, ships, Ar.
* III. as masc., parthenos, an unmarried man, NTest.
[deriv. uncertain] 1 parqe/nos, h(,
Not only that, but:
Justin Martyr admits that christianity offers nothing new, that the pagans and their pagan gods didn't already have.
And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth45 of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Aesculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus.Justin Martyr gives a point, by point, by point, accounting of the similarities between paganism and the 'new religion'. Its the same thing under a new name.But far be such a thought concerning the gods from every well-conditioned soul, as to believe that Jupiter himself, the governor and creator of all things, was both a parricide and the son of a parricide
Moreover, the Son of God called Jesus, even if only a man by ordinary generation, yet, on account of His wisdom, is worthy to be called the Son of God; for all writers call God the Father of men and gods. And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated.
And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Aesculapius.
There is absolutely nothing reasonable or to be heard out about your absurd inconsistency according to which, apparently, the Creation was a natural/scientific event but later miracles were "singular exceptions" to the natural law that G-d couldn't interfere with during the Creation! I'm sorry.
It's simple logic. If (lehavdil!) the "virgin birth" was a "singular violation of natural law," then how much the more so the event that brought "natural law" into existence from nothing in the first place?
Why you can't see the obvious illogic of your position escapes me. You must be so enslaved to the uniformitarian natural-supremacist worldview that you have partial intellectual blindness.
My point is that the article at the top of this thread--an article on how Catholics are supposed to read the Bible--is committed to "modern scholarship" which replaces traditional commentaries with blasphemies by Wellhausen and his followers.
Preach it, Brother!
I do not think all modern scholarship can simply be lumped in with Wellhausen.
You wrote:
“The virgin birth is not only a mistranslation but something they borrowed from the pagans.”
Actually there’s no reason to believe it’s either.
“Justin Martyr admits that christianity offers nothing new, that the pagans and their pagan gods didn’t already have.”
No. What Justin Martyr did was try to show the pagan emperor that Christianity could be understood by someone who was already familiar with many pagan stories. Some would say that similar points can be made about the Old Testament as well.
“Justin Martyr gives a point, by point, by point, accounting of the similarities between paganism and the ‘new religion’. Its the same thing under a new name.”
No. The incarnation of the God man so that He could die on a cross and redeem all mankind and rise from the dead, is uniquely Christian. Yes, pagan religions reflect many or even most of those ideas. But no pagan religion has all that Christianity has.
End of discussion.
Most of the stuff in these Catholic bibles can.
I'll take the Perennial Tradition over "modern scholarship" of any type, thank you.
Obviously, since you refuse to consider the Creation as a "miracle" that takes place outside the "laws of nature."
End of discussion because I asked you politely for a discussion with a mature, respectful tone, and you are unwilling to grant me that basic dignity. I am not willing to waste my time on someone who simply refuses to listen. Go ahead and rant all you want. I don’t care.
I try to talk with Christians who actually live the Word, not ones who use it as an excuse to abuse people.
The "word" that isn't true because it contradicts what scientists say?
I'm not a chr*stian at all. Did I give you the idea that I was?
I was under the impression your were Catholic. If you were Catholic, clearly you are no longer one.
I was under the impression your were Catholic. If you were Catholic, clearly you are no longer one.
Excuse me, but no "straw man" is involved. You yourself said that "miracles" occur outside the laws and the purview of science. I merely point out the supreme logic of the Creation being the ultimate example of this. It took place outside any scientific laws (which were merely the productsw of the Creation) and is outside the purview of science.
Why you insist that ex-nihilation (as it has been called) is subject to scientific study while the "virgin birth" isn't is illogical.
You wrote:
“Most of the stuff in these Catholic bibles can.”
Not really. The NAB, granted it’s probably the worst Catholic Bible ever put together, still has some worthwhile info.
“I’ll take the Perennial Tradition over “modern scholarship” of any type, thank you.”
I agree with you there. That’s one of the reasons why I like the Orthodox Study Bible so much. No Bible edition is perfect, however.
The Fathers organized around the verses of the New Testament is a so-called Catena, the most known of which is Catena Aurea put together by St. Thomas Aquinas. It is harder to find online, the only place I know of badly needs editing, it seems to be scanned and contains scanning errors. This is it: www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php. I use it daily to post commentary on the daily Gospel.
Various scans and editions. You will need a djvu reader, like WinDjvu. You can download that from sourceforge.
Catena 3 part 1
Catena 1 part 2
Catena 1 part 2 (another scan)
Catena 4 part 2
Catena 2 (complete)
Catena 1
Catena 2
Catena 3
Catena 4
Catena 1 part 1 and 3
Catena 4
Catena 3
Catena 4
Catena Aurea
Catena 1
Catena 2
Catena 3
Catena 4
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.