Posted on 03/12/2016 9:36:07 AM PST by Salvation
Your are correct sir. Only Christians will go in the rapture. I don't know what will happen to those left behind, but I don't think it will be pleasant.
My opinion is, most of the people going through the tribulation, will recognize that the world will be coming to an end. I believe that could be just a bit unnerving. 😆
There is no "bad" sex, some is just better than others.
Douay will do...show me the differences between Douay, other Catholis Bibles and Genesis.
(Incidentally, it was also held by the founders of the Protestant faiths of Anglicanism, Methodism and Lutheranism: Luther, Latimer, Cranmer, Wesley, etc.)
So, to formally reject this is heresy, and involves rejecting the teaching authority which Christ guaranteed to His Church.
And that's a biggie. If you don't accept the virginity of Mary on the authority of the Church, why would you accept the doctrines of the Incarnation, or the Trinity, Baptism or the Lord's Supper or even the canon of Scripture on the authority of the Church? If you reject Christ's guarantees to His Church in principle, you've rejected what He constituted as the pillar and foundation of the Truth.
Whether one can be "saved" while rejecting the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, is another question. If one is in the mortal sin of heresy, no.
However, I don't think most theological dissenters are formal heretics. This is because they lack --- I think --- either the degree of knowledge or the degree of intentionality which would have to be there, to constitute a mortal sin. Denial of Mary's virginity is a material heresy ----an error --- but most who have fallen into this error don't reject the foundation of Truth formally, knowingly and contumaciously. That is, they are not willfully and obstinately disobedient to Christ.
At least, so I must assume in charity.
No He didn't.
No, but to deny the truth is sometimes VERY dangerous.
Your anti-Catholic diatribes keep getting weaker and weaker.....sigh.
Well not true, but no problem-at least for me.
Interesting that you use YOUR interpretation instead of the Holy Spirits.
Your statement:
“I see no contradictions to this belief in my interpretation of scripture”
Which is why I said “Therein lies the problem”
Do you believe the Bible or ONLY Catholic teaching?
It seems that if you really believed that the Holy Spirit’s “interpretation is clearly pointed out in Catholic teaching” that you would use that instead of your own interpretation.
SOP for you it seems.
“when I get to Heaven”
Better plan on a long stay in Purgatory.
“to deny the truth is sometimes VERY dangerous”
So, you live on the edge do you?
Whoa, I NEVER said that the Jewish Old testament wasn't Biblical, I did say, however, that The Catholic Bible, which contains the Old Testament, was and is the only accurate and complete Bible on Earth....The Jews did not publish a bible as such.
Oh, yeah, I forgot about that 19th century story of the end of time....sigh.
The problem is that Pope Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus (Latin for "Ineffable God") relies upon a Vulgate translation [and thus the Douay Rheims] of Gn. 3:15 which changed the “he” to “she shall crush thy head.”
However, as the Catholic Encyclopedia remarks:
"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. The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent's head, is Christ…” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Immaculate Conception)
• In the Hebrew there is no “the” in “enmity between you and the woman” and it can refer to or include women in general and all women, (Gn. 14:16; Ex. 25:22; Est. 1:17) with the Lord speaking to Eve but including all women.
Note that the Neo-Vulgate (Nova Vulgata), the revised Latin version authorized by the Vatican, corrected the error and changed it from ipsa to ipsum in the Latin. (http://reformedapologeticsministries.blogspot.com/2012/02/catholic-misuse-of-genesis-315.html)
The approved notes in the official New American Catholic Bible (1970 ver.), while also allowing the Marian view, explains this verse,They will strike…at their heel: the antecedent for “they” and “their” is the collective noun “offspring,” i.e., all the descendants of the woman. Christian tradition has seen in this passage, however, more than unending hostility between snakes and human beings. The snake was identified with the devil (Wis 2:24; Jn 8:44; Rev 12:9; 20:2), whose eventual defeat seemed implied in the verse. Because “the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8), the passage was understood as the first promise of a redeemer for fallen humankind, the protoevangelium. Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. A.D. 130–200), in his Against Heresies 5.21.1, followed by several other Fathers of the Church, interpreted the verse as referring to Christ, and cited Gal 3:19 and 4:4 to support the reference. http://usccb.org/bible/genesis/3
The Anglican/Roman Catholic International Commission explains the controversy:
“The Hebrew text of Genesis 3:15 speaks about enmity between the serpent and the woman, and between the offspring of both. The personal pronoun (hu’) in the words addressed to the serpent, “He will strike at your head”, is masculine. In the Greek translation used by the early Church (LXX), however, the personal pronoun autos (he) cannot refer to the offspring … but must refer to a masculine individual who could then be the Messiah, born of a woman. The Vulgate (mis)translates the clause as ipsa … This feminine pronoun supports a reading of this passage as referring to Mary which has become traditional in the Latin Church.
Even RC apologist Jimmy Akin also states,
Q: Please explain to me how come the Douay-Rheims Gen 3:15 and the New American Bible Gen 3:15 differ. I’m sure you know what I am talking about.
...The reason for the difference in the renderings is a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). The variant probably originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman... just as the first half of the verse, speaking of the enmity between the serpent and the woman, has been applied to Mary, the second half, speaking of the head crushing and heel striking, has also been applied to Mary due to the manuscript variant, though it properly applies to Jesus, given the original Hebrew. (www.jimmyakin.com/mary-and-genesis-315)
As a reformed source states, “He” .. in the original Hebrew is masculine. It is pronounced “hoo” and can also mean “it.” Many think it means “it” in reference to collective offspring of the woman crushing the head of the serpent. In the LXX, however, it is rendered autos “he,” indicating that the passage should be understood as a Messianic prophecy about Jesus Christ alone crushing the head. “He [Jesus] will crush the serpent’s head.” (http://reformedapologeticsministries.blogspot.com/2012/02/catholic-misuse-of-genesis-315.html)
Another example of the Catholic Mary being raised up as the main figure in Catholicism.
It’s gotta be rationalized ya know...
.show me the differences between Douay, other Catholics Bibles and Genesis.
OK. Here is one in the above post, while you need to read this RC critique of your Bible (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4300&CFID=45541857&CFTOKEN=30609021), and note also that there is more than one version of the Douay.
You are in over your head, but at least this time you responded.
There was, and continues to be, a “cult” of Mary. It doesn’t really honor the real Mary but perpetuates a false idea about this blessed and faithful woman who God used in a miraculous way. The REAL story is wonderful enough and there is no need for embellishing upon God’s narrative. Those who do have perverted the truth and we see the fruit of that error here and around the world when Jesus Christ is pushed aside.
Do you mean the Latin Vulgate? Is this what you mean by the “Catholic” Bible?
It's just one hugh protection racket, that's all.
They would not have been exempt from the census. If they existed, they would have all gone together.
Luke 2:1-5 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
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.