The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible

Handsonapologetics ^ | Gary Michuta

[GonzoII]

The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible

By Gary Michuta

King James I at the Hampton Court Conference

"Dr. Reynolds...insisted boldly on various points ; but when he came to the demand for the disuse of the apocrypha in the church service James could bear it no longer. He called for a Bible, read a chapter out of Ecclesiasticus, and expounded it according to his own views ; then turning to the lords of his council, he said, " What trow ye makes these men so angry with Ecclesiasticus ? By my soul, I think Ecclesiasticus was a bishop, or they would never use him so."

(John Cassell’s Illustrated History of England, text by William Howitt, (W. Kent & Co.:London), 1859, vol. 3p. 15)

In 1604, the Church of England commissioned a new English translation of the Scripture, which later became known as the King JamesVersion. According to it dedication to the king, the hope was that this new version would “counteract the barbs” of Catholics and a foil to the “self-conceited” Protestants “who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil…” [Preface and dedication to the King, 1611 King James Bible], namely religious dissenters like the Baptists and others. Ironically, the Church of England had moved to other translations and the King James Bible (K.J.V.) had become, at least for a time, the translation for those groups that would have been considered dissenters. Today, the New International Version has become the best selling translation among Protestants, but the King James is still widely used and revered by non-Catholics.

Bible translations are interesting in that they can provide a snapshot of the beliefs of their translators at that time. The Latin Vulgate, for example, can show us how certain words were understood in the fourth century when it was translated by St. Jerome. The King James Bible is no exception. When one compares the original 1611 edition with subsequent editions, one can discern some very important changes in viewpoints. If you own a King James Bible, the first and biggest change you will notice is that the original 1611 edition contained several extra books in an appendix between the Old and New Testaments labeled “The books of the Apocrypha.” The appendix includes several books, which are found in the Catholic Old Testament such as the books of  Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1st and 2nd Maccabees and others.

Table of Contents KJV 1611

Some may be tempted to dismiss the omission of these books from the King James Bible as superfluous “add on” to the translation and that its omission really does not change anything important about the King James Bible. On the contrary, the so-called "Apocrypha” formed an integral part of the text, so much so that the Protestant scholar E. G. Goodspeed once wrote:

“[W]hatever may be our personal opinions of the Apocrypha, it is a historical fact that they formed an integral part of the King James Version, and any Bible claiming to represent that version should either include the Apocrypha, or state that it is omitting them.  Otherwise a false impression is created.” [Story of the Apocrypha (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939, p. 7]

If you pick up a modern copy of the King James Version and open to the title page, chances are you’ll not see any mention of the deliberate omission of these books (e.g. “The King James Version without the Apocrypha”). After all, who would want to put a negative statement about a product on the title page? However, perhaps to avoid false advertising, publishers do notify you that books are missing by cleverly stating the contents in a positive fashion like “The King James Version Containing the Old and New Testaments.” If you didn’t know that the Apocrypha was omitted, you’d probably assume that complete King James Bible since most modern Protestant Bibles contain only the Old and New Testaments anyway. Hence, as Goodspeed warns “a false impression is created.”

The Cross-references

The King James “Apocrypha” had a much more integral roll in its early editions than simply being an appendix unconnected to the two Testaments. Instead, the 1611 King James Bible included (like the Geneva Bible) cross-references from the Old and New Testaments to the so-called “Apocrypha.” Like modern cross-references, these were meant to refer the reader back to the text cited in order to provide further light on what had just been read. There were 11 cross-references in the New Testament and 102 Old Testament that referred Protestant readers back to the “Apocrypha.” The New Testament cross-references were:

	Mat 6:7	Sirach 7:14
	Mat 27:43	Wisdom 2:15-16
	Luke 6:31	Tobit 4:15
	Luke 14:13	Tobit 4:7
	John 10:22	1 Maccabees 4:59
	Rom 9:21	Wisdom 15:7
	Rom 11:34	Wisdom 9:13
	2 Cor 9:7	Sirach 35:9
	Heb 1:3	Wisdom 7:26
	Heb 11:35	2 Maccabees 7:7





1611 KJV Heb. 11:35 - 2 Mac. 7:7

1611 KJV Matt. 27:43 - Wisdom 2:15-16





1611 KJV Heb. 11:3 - Ws. 7:26

1611 KJV Luke 14:13 - Tobit 4:7

Like the early editions of the Geneva Bible, the editors of the Authorized Version believe that the non-Catholic readers should aware of what the “Apocrypha” had to say in regards to these passage. While some are mere correspondences of thought, others point to an awareness or even a dependence upon the “Apocrypha” by inspired New Testament writers. I detail these important passages in Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: The Untold Story of the Lost Books of the Protestant Bible (Grotto Press, 2007).

In addition to the eleven cross-references in the New Testament, the 1611 King James also sported 102 cross-reference  in the Old Testament as well bringing to total up to 113 cross-references to and from the Apocrypha overall. No wonder Goodspeed could say that the "Apocrypha" was an integral part of the King James Bible!

The King James Bible was not the only early Protestant Bible to contain the “Apocrypha” with cross-references. As we have seen in a previous article (Pilgrims’ Regress: The Geneva Bible and the “Apocrypha”), the "Apocrypha" also played an integral role in other Protestant Bibles as well.

As I mentioned earlier, translations serve as historical snapshots of the beliefs of the translators and readers. The very presence of these cross-references shows that the translators believed that the "Apocrypha" was at work within the New Testament writings and that Protestant Bible readers would benefit from reading and studying the New and Old Testaments in light of these books. Sadly, today this noble heritage has been lost.

Now You Read Them, Now You Don’t…

Those who viewed the "Apocrypha" as somehow being the last vestige of "popery" pressed for the Apocrypha appendix and its cross-references to be removed altogether from the Bible. In 1615, George Abbott, the Archbishop of Canterbury, went so far as to employ the power of law to censure any publisher who did not produce the Bible in its entirety (i.e. including the "Apocrypha") as prescribed by the Thirty-nine Articles. However, anti-Catholic hatred and the obvious financial advantages of printing smaller Protestant Bibles began to win out against the traditionalists who wanted the Bible in the form that was given in all previous Protestant translations up until that point (in the form of Luther's Bible - with the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments). The "Apocrypha" remained in the King James Bible through the 1626, 1629, 1630, and the 1633 editions. By 1632, public opinion began to decidedly turn against the "bigger" Protestant Bibles. Of the 227 printings of the Bible between 1632 and 1826, about 40% of Protestant Bibles contained the "Apocrypha." The Apocrypha Controversy of the early 1800's enabled English Bible Societies to flood the bible-buying market with Apocrypha-less Protestant Bibles and in 1885 the "Apocrypha" was officially removed with the advent of the Revised Standard Version, which replaced the King James Version.

It is hard to pin point the exact date where the King James Bible no longer contained the "Apocrypha." It is clear that later editions of the KJV removed the "Apocrypha" appendix, but they continued to include cross-references to the "Apocrypha" until they too (like the Geneva Bible) were removed as well. Why were they removed? Was it do to over-crowded margins? The Anglican scholar William H. Daubney points out the obvious:

“These objectionable omissions [of the cross-references] were made after the custom arose of publishing Bibles without the Apocrypha. These apparently profess to be what they are not, entire copies of the Authorized Version … Plainly, the references to the Apocrypha told an inconvenient tale of the use which the Church intended should be made of it; so, either from dissenting influence without, or from prejudice within the Church, these references disappeared from the margin.” [The Use of the Apocrypha In the Christian Church (London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1900), 17]

What was the inconvenient tale these cross-references told? They showed that the so-called Apocrypha actually plays a much greater role that most modern Protestants are willing to admit. Moreover, the cross-references showed that the church believed that knowledge of the so-called "Apocrypha" and their use in the New Testament benefited Christians who wished to understand the Bible. Sadly today, many Protestants use the King James Bible have been handed on to them in an unaltered and uncompromised form. The reality is that its contents had undergone several substantial changes beginning with Martin Luther's gathering together the Deuterocanon and placing it in an "Apocrypha" appendix and later when that appendix (and its cross-references) were removed altogether from Protestant Bibles.

 

[Natural Law]

"The RCC has turned her into a pathetic superhero who literally usurps the role of our only King and Savior."

I'm not looking for a dust up here, or to try to change anyone's mind. I just want to make sure when Catholicism is discussed it is discussed honestly.

The adoration and veneration of Mary began well before you have ever admitted the RCC existed. The earliest documented prayers to Mary date to the 2nd century. In addition to the Latin Rite Catholics (aka "Rome" and the "RCC", the Eastern (Orthodox), Byzantine, and Alexandrian Rite Churches, the Anglicans and some forms of Lutheranism share in Marian devotions.

We do not claim her to have superhuman powers. We only recognize her as God did, the most perfect example of a Christian and because no person has loved Jesus more completely and unconditionally as the human God entrusted His Son to, His Mother.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

We do not claim her to have superhuman powers

Your own catechism says Mary is partly responsible for saving men's souls, not just by birthing Christ but by actively intervening in men's lives and decisions and influencing God's reaction to them.

Every true Christian knows salvation is the SOLE responsibility of Jesus Christ.

Shame on the RCC.

[Natural Law]

"Your own catechism says Mary is partly responsible for saving men's souls, not just by birthing Christ but by actively intervening in men's lives and decisions and influencing God's reaction to them."

That is a gross manipulation of the Catechism and reading what is not there. Permit me to simplify, to an elementary level, the Church's teaching on Mary's participation in our Salvation. Whether you agree with these doctrines and dogma's is irrelevant to an understanding of what the Church teaches.

Unlike your belief in Irresistible Grace, the Catholic Church teaches that we must all cooperate with Grace for our own Salvation. Mary, by Her unique role and perfect example of consent, cooperated in the Salvation of all. Catholics do not believe that Mary saves.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I’ve read the offending catechism re: Mary dozens of time. I don’t have the time to look it up again. It says what it says. Rome can try to change the meaning of words but every time it does it loses the debate.

Mary is no one’s mother but the baby Jesus. Christ ALONE saves those God has given Him to bring safely home.

[MarkBsnr]

Srsly??? If by "opponents" you mean those indicted as "a bunch of people who follow him (Paul) like he was a god...", then it should certainly NOT be reassuring, very or otherwise, nor surprising that "they" have not responded. No, my dear Mark, there is no response simply because no one of this imagined "bunch" post on Free Republic much less on this thread.

These two groups are largely, but not entirely coincident.

If one's beliefs come exclusively, or nearly exclusively from the Pauline Epistles, with backup from the OT, and spurn the Gospels as to the Jews only, then what can be the only conclusion? When silly statements are made to the effect that anything Paul says (on the assumption that God is Paul's ventriloquist), and anything that the Incarnated Christ said doesn't matter to Christians, why then we have a number of this 'imagined bunch' posting right here even on this thread.

I genuinely hate to burst anyone's bubble and I sure hope my words do not cause you undue uncertainty but I would be remiss if I left a FRiend relishing in something of which he has no reason TO relish. :o)

I don't relish it. It is bitter and it is something that the Church had responsibility to avoid. It is a failure of the bishops of the time and we are living with the consequences today.

[Natural Law]

"Rome can try to change the meaning of words but every time it does it loses the debate."

I'm not debating or quarreling, only trying to teach. Mary is referenced over 100 times in the Catechism and in not one of them does it say she is anything other than subservient to Jesus. Those are the facts, you can do with them what you will.

[MarkBsnr]

When silly statements are made to the effect that anything Paul says (on the assumption that God is Paul's ventriloquist), and anything that the Incarnated Christ said doesn't matter to Christians, why then we have a number of this 'imagined bunch' posting right here even on this thread.

Umm, more like this:

When silly statements are made to the effect that anything Paul says (on the gleeful assumption that God is Paul's ventriloquist) matters absolutely to Christians, and at the same time,anything that the Incarnated Christ said doesn't matter to Christians whatsoever, why then we have a number of this 'imagined bunch' posting right here even on this thread.

[MarkBsnr]

"WE" haven't determined anything of the sort that the APostles were to "judge the church" OR that the message of the Twelve and Paul were the same. How, for instance, do you explain this Scripture?

"According to the GRACE OF GOD WHICH IS GIVEN UNTO ME, as a wise masterbuilder, I HAVE LAID THE FOUNDATION, and another buildeth thereon, But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon."1 Cor. 3:10.

So on one hand, you argue vociferously that Peter cannot be the foundation because it is Christ, and on the other, you argue that Paul is actually the master builder, not Christ. Let us see the passage in context.

If you read the history of Corinth beginning in Acts, you will see that Paul had started a modest church there, but eventually they got out of hand. Paul is remonstrating with them because they are so out of control. He reminds them that he started the church there not every one, but this particular one and is trying to get everyone to do their part within the Church context.

Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone for the Kingdom gospel, the Messianic Church built by the Twelve, AND the gospel of the grace of God, built by Paul. BOTH with Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone. But ONE is for an earthly kingdom of believers, Israel, and the OTHER is for a heavenly body of believers, US.

John 17: 20“I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.m 22And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, 23I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.

There will be no separation.

ONe more thing, it's not "anti-catholic fantasies" that drive us.

It sure is. Hubris is a powerful thing. So is power, as the princes of Germany found out during the Reformation, and Calvin found out during his occupation of Geneva.

[MarkBsnr]

I think I have also explained to you why Peter converted the first Gentile, not Paul. But I will explain it again. Although just reading the Scriptures on it should be enough. Acts, Chapter 10. Peter has a vision. WHAT?? WHY on earth would God need to show Peter a vision about Cornelius? Weren't the Twelve instructed to go ALL the world, every nation, with the gospel? There should have been NO REASON to give Peter a vision of something he already knew. UNLESS something else is going on here. And of course, according to Scripture, it is.

So? Peter knew Jesus was the Christ and still denied Him three times. I think that this shows that Peter, given the enormous gift of his office, was still just a man and needed the help of God and the Church in order to get the job done.

Make no mistake, Peter didn't jump on the first train and make haste to Cornelius to save a Gentile, Acts 10: 17 says that Peter DOUBTED IN HIMSELF WHAT THIS VISION WHICH HE HAD SEEN SHOULD MEAN"...

And he also doubted when he walked on the water towards Christ. So? Christ buttressed him.

So what was the point in God sending a vision to Peter to go to Cornelius, the Gentile? So that, when Paul came to the Twelve with his gospel to the Gentiles, Peter would have a starting place with Gentiles. That vision from God. That he doubted. Because he knew it was unlawful to come unto one of another nation. THAT'S how Peter knew Paul's gospel to the uncircumcision was true. And therefore loosed himself and the 11 to take the gospel of the kingdom to all nations, giving the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas, with their gospel of the grace of God. That's what Galatians, Chapter 2 is all about.

You're not seriously proposing to hang your theological hat on this, are you? There is nothing in your thesis that says that the Apostles abandoned their Commission, rather, that they were tentative and this was a kick in the backside for them.

Remember in spite of his words, Paul spent most of his missionary time with the Jews, not the Gentiles. You'd be convinced if you traced Paul's journeys.

[CynicalBear]

>>Please try to focus on a single issue at a time.<<

You were the one who said you needed the magesterium for teaching and understanding.

>>Why else would an Episcopacy have been established and referred to frequently by St. Paul?<<

Acts 15 in no way sets up an “Episcopacy. Clarifying the change from law to grace as the apostles were doing was in no way setting a hierarchy in the church. And no, Jesus did not set up a hierarchy. Their were no “Priests” set up in the New Testament church.

>>that it would be lead by a Pope as chosen His form of Church governance.<<

Would you give scripture book, chapter, and verse for that?

>>He also established that the first Pope was Peter.<<

Absolute nonsense. We have been through that verse before. First of all that is not what that ONE verse is saying. Second if the RCC rests it’s foundation for having a pope on one verse of scripture it’s ludicrous. Peter was never even the leader of the church in Rome for crying out loud.

>>Throughout the Old Testament God had always chosen a single man to guide His Church<<

Old Testament church? News to me!

>>“Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.<<

Revealed what? Revealed that "You are the Christ, the son of the living God."

>>I also say to you that you are Peter,<<

Jesus acknowledges who Peter is as Peter had acknowledged who Jesus was.

>>and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.<<

On what Rock? On Jesus the Rock of ages. How do we know that? God said so.

Deut. 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

2 Sam. 22:2 And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; 3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.

Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."

Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."

Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."

1 Cor. 3:11, "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,"

1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."

The RCC blasphemes God by trying to misinterpret ONE verse and disregard all the rest of scripture reference to who the Rock truly is.

[smvoice]

Feeling hopelessly mired in confusion? That's to be expected when 2 Tim. 2:15 isn't followed.

In the first place, I didn't say it. Paul said it. Through the Holy Spirit. Meaning God said it. Paul laid the foundation of the dispensation of the grace of God, of which Paul was the Apostle. How much clearer can it be made? The Twelve did not. Paul did. With Christ as the chief cornerstone. Just like Christ being the chief cornerstone of the Messianic Church of the Kingdom, of which the Twelve were the Apostles. They are both built on the foundation of Christ. One being for a KINGDOM OF BELIEVERS, and one being for a BODY OF BELIEVERS. BOTH on Christ. As Messiah AND the head of the Body.

As for your "He (Paul) reminds them that he stard the church there (Corinth) NOT EVERY ONE, BUT THIS PARTICULAR ONE and is trying to get everyone to do their part within the Church context."

"Besides those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the CARE OF ALL THE CHURCHES." 2 Cor. 11:28. Which CHURCHES? Certainly not the Messianic Church, that was the job of the Twelve. Preaching Christ as Messiah, to persuade the Nation of Israel to accept Christ as Messiah, so He would return to set up His Kingdom. So, what CHURCHES did Paul have care of? The churches of the body of Christ, founded on the grace of God and the finished work of Christ, where Gentiles were saved apart from the covenants of promise made to Israel. Both preached Christ, one for Kingdom Jews, and one for Gentiles. Until Israel is blinded and set aside in Acts 28. Then it was to Jew and Gentile alike, without preference, all based on the reconciliation of God and man.

If you would take the time to read Galatians, Chapter 2, you would see the gospel of the CIRCUMCISION and the gospel of the UNCIRCUMCISION being discussed, and agreed upon by the Twelve and Paul.

[smvoice]

Feeling hopelessly mired in confusion? That's to be expected when 2 Tim. 2:15 isn't followed.

In the first place, I didn't say it. Paul said it. Through the Holy Spirit. Meaning God said it. Paul laid the foundation of the dispensation of the grace of God, of which Paul was the Apostle. How much clearer can it be made? The Twelve did not. Paul did. With Christ as the chief cornerstone. Just like Christ being the chief cornerstone of the Messianic Church of the Kingdom, of which the Twelve were the Apostles. They are both built on the foundation of Christ. One being for a KINGDOM OF BELIEVERS, and one being for a BODY OF BELIEVERS. BOTH on Christ. As Messiah AND the head of the Body.

As for your "He (Paul) reminds them that he stard the church there (Corinth) NOT EVERY ONE, BUT THIS PARTICULAR ONE and is trying to get everyone to do their part within the Church context."

"Besides those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the CARE OF ALL THE CHURCHES." 2 Cor. 11:28. Which CHURCHES? Certainly not the Messianic Church, that was the job of the Twelve. Preaching Christ as Messiah, to persuade the Nation of Israel to accept Christ as Messiah, so He would return to set up His Kingdom. So, what CHURCHES did Paul have care of? The churches of the body of Christ, founded on the grace of God and the finished work of Christ, where Gentiles were saved apart from the covenants of promise made to Israel. Both preached Christ, one for Kingdom Jews, and one for Gentiles. Until Israel is blinded and set aside in Acts 28. Then it was to Jew and Gentile alike, without preference, all based on the reconciliation of God and man.

If you would take the time to read Galatians, Chapter 2, you would see the gospel of the CIRCUMCISION and the gospel of the UNCIRCUMCISION being discussed, and agreed upon by the Twelve and Paul.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I've read the offending catechism re: Mary dozens of time. I don't have the time to look it up again. It says what it says. Rome can try to change the meaning of words but every time it does it loses the debate.

Mary is no one's mother but the baby Jesus. Christ ALONE saves those God has given Him to bring safely home.

According to the Second Vatican Council:

Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix and Mediatrix.

Who lies?

[smvoice]

I most certainly AM proposing to "hang my theological hat on this". For 3 Scriptural reasons.

1."Go ye therefore, and teach ALL NATIONS, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching THEM to OBSERVE ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER I HAVE COMMANDED YOU: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Mat. 28:19,20.

2. "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among ALL NATIONS, BEGINNING AT JERUSALEM." Luke 24:44-47.

Who was Jesus Christ speaking to and commanding? The Twelve.

"But CONTRARIWISE, when they SAW THAT THE GOSPEL OF THE UNCIRCUMCISION (THE GENTILES< THE NATIONS) WAS COMMITTED UNTO ME, as the GOSPEL OF THE CIRCUMCISION WAS UNTO PETER: (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the APOSTLESHIP OF THE CIRCUMCISION, the SAME was MIGHTY IN ME TOWARD THE GENTILES..." 2 Gal. 2:7,8.

"And when James, Cephas (Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, PERCEIVED THE GRACE THAT WAS GIVEN UNTO ME (Paul), they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of FELLOWSHIP; that WE SHOULD GO unto the heathen and THEY UNTO THE CIRCUMCISION." 2 Gal. 2:9.

What does that say to anyone who can read? That when James, Peter and John perceived the GRACE (not that Paul was graceful, but the dispensation of the GRACE OF GOD, the GOSPEL OF THE UNCIRCUMCISION) that was given to Paul, they LOOSED THEMSELVES of THEIR COMMISSION to go to ALL NATIONS (that would be GENTILES), and AGREED to confine their ministry to THE CIRCUMCISION, while Paul went to ALL NATIONS (THE GENTILES, THE UNCIRCUMCISION).

You would have to be purposely refusing to see this to miss it. I know you don't want to see that. But it doesn't change the truth. Once again, I didn't say it. Paul said it. By the Holy Spirit, who said it. Meaning God said it.

And what was loosed on earth was loosed in heaven. The Twelve remained in and around Jerusalem, Israel, Palestine, preaching the gospel of the circumcision. As long as Israel remained operational and could accept, as a Nation, Christ as their Messiah.

[Natural Law]

"How do we know that? God said so."

You BELIEVE God said so. Catholics BELIEVE something different. I am only stating Catholic belief, I am not arguing the merits.

In the 10 years I have been participating on these threads I haven't seen anyone's mind changed one way or the other. Minds and hearts are not changed by our arguments, but by the Holy Spirit and not one second sooner. All either of us can hope to accomplish is that the other has an accurate understanding of the what and why of each other's belief.

May the Holy Spirit be with you. Peace and Blessings.

NL

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."

Amen.

[CynicalBear]

>>You BELIEVE God said so.<<

I believe what scripture says. Did you not recognize all those verses as scripture? I thought even Catholics believe scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

>>Catholics BELIEVE something different.<<

Catholics believe something different than what scripture says is no surprise to many of us.

>>In the 10 years I have been participating on these threads I haven't seen anyone's mind changed one way or the other.<<

You obviously don’t get the pm’s I get then. I don’t really wonder why.

>>All either of us can hope to accomplish is that the other has an accurate understanding of the what and why of each other's belief.<<

No, I would hope that the truth of scripture is “accomplished”.

[Natural Law]

"I've read the offending catechism re: Mary dozens of time. I don't have the time to look it up again. It says what it says. Rome can try to change the meaning of words but every time it does it loses the debate.

I've already said I am not debating. Please do not tr to make this what it is not.

"Mary is no one's mother but the baby Jesus."

At least you have moved past the "Mary had other children nonsense"

Christ ALONE saves those God has given Him to bring safely home."

At last, we have common ground.

According to the Second Vatican Council:

Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix and Mediatrix."

Don't you think it is just a little disingenuous to give that one line out of the entire Lumen Gentium? You ought to have someone teach the entire thing to you rather than grabbing snippets of it off of the internet. It is a magnificent document. The preceding and following lines put it into proper perspective and show it meaning something completely different that you are implying"

"This maternity of Mary in the order of grace began with the consent which she gave in faith at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, and lasts until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this salvific duty, but by her constant intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation.(15*) By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and cultics, until they are led into the happiness of their true home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix.(16*) This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator.(17*)"

Who lies?

Lying implies motives and is beneath the dignity of this forum.

I would have thought, for all of the times you have posted from 2nd Timothy on these threads you would have read the following. It might temper your demeanor.

"And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will." 2 Timothy 2:24-26

[CynicalBear]

Oh that more would see the truth of scripture rather than the teaching of man. Great job smvoice! Please keep it up. You have an amazing gift.

[CynicalBear]

And yet Catholics believe something different. It’s beyond sad.