Posted on 12/14/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by ealgeone
The path is not to Mary it is through Mary, the first human to keep and hear the Word.
Well, now you've done it! Get ready to hear that until has also been redefined by Catholicism in 3...2...1.
Anything to keep the narrative going.
Who removed Canonical texts? I am pretty sure it wasn’t the Catholic Church. Instead, Luther in 1534, decided the Canon needed to be changed. And changed to suit his novel teachings. Those who followed Luther in turning their backs on the church Christ founded, were the ones who were developing novel clarifications.
The Catholic Church has been clarifying for 2000 years. It is the only continuous Church to be doing so. Our Orthodox brothers have also been doing so for 1000 years. In both cases, people DID speak and read the original languages, and that is how the doctrine and clarifications developed.
It was renowned linguist, St. Jerome (347-420 AD), who translated the books of the Bible into a single language, Latin. The Jerusalem Bible, as it continues to be known, was THE definitive Bible for centuries. Other translations, in other languages, such as the Douay-Rheims, were not only based upon not only the Jerusalem Bible, but also the original texts as well.
As mentioned above, it was 1534 years after Jesus that Luther decided, and others followed, to create novel doctrine, based upon a corrupted, and incomplete canon.
What is your theory? What IS there?
So what?
Are you denying that Catholics bow down to graven images?
But you are not addressing the point, which is that words the Church has used to express its beliefs and praise exist outside of the canon.
As you likely use words outside of the canon to worship God, that doesn’t make you heretical, any more than Catholics using words of praise.
Which has been proven over and over again not to be true to the original language.
What part of the NT was changed?
It was renowned linguist, St. Jerome (347-420 AD), who translated the books of the Bible into a single language, Latin.
Actually the Vulgate is well known to have translation issues. Your own catholic encyclopedia acknowledges this.
Yep...put it in latin so the masses couldn't read it for themselves.
What does it say then?
Fellow citizens and saints with the household of God. The household of God would be Angels, who serve in the presence of God. We, both physically and spiritually alive, are citizens with the angels. That is pretty clear, and I am using the KJV.
What value is it to be a fellow citizen with angels, whether in flesh or spirit, if we can not aid another?
Every Catholic belief is fully supported in the Holy Bible. That would be the unaltered Holy Bible, not the one Luther used post 1534.
please post just ONE example of how Jerome’s translation was not true to the ORIGINAL Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin or ancient Greek text.
and please post your source for the original text so we know the provenance
AMDG
Different argument for a different time. I will leave it with this. The use of until in Bible, is found to have more than one grammatical meaning. It is not limited to how we use it in modern English.
Please show where the apostles taught the assumption of Mary.
She venerated Mary and she praised Jesus. That is the pattern in most if not all Marian prayers:
| Hail Mary, full of grace Blessed art thou among women And blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners Now and in the hour of our death |
The woman's prayer concentrated on the physical aspect of Mary's relationship to Jesus. That is why Jesus corrected her and offered His own prayer to His Blessed Mother: "Blessed is Mary and everyone who hears the Word and keeps It". That is the first Marian prayer. It gave us the proper form to venerate Mary for her spiritual feat and it expanded the future Church Triumphant to many saints alongside Mary.
See my previous post.
No where in scripture is Mary described as being "full of grace". Only two people were described as "full of grace". They were Jesus and Stephen. Jerome inserted that Mary was "full of grace".
I am absolutely denying it, and stating for the umpteenth time that Catholics do not “bow down to graven images,” and all that connotes.
Please read the following, approved, teaching on this.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/do-catholics-worship-statues
http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056
This is regarding the immaculate conception.
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel ( Proto-evangelium ), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman : "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" ( Genesis 3:15 ). The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.
Next question please.
Could your question be related to the fact that you do not believe in the Trinity? Just curious...
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.