Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
I've read it. Its not a bad story, but the theology is rather 'modernist'. And it gets worse in the later books of the series.
LOL, my son is the reigning house "Uno" champion. He beat me six out of nine games the other night.
and you guys want to make a distinction between "living saints" and those who have passed on. The point that Paul makes in 1st Corinthians 15 is that THERE IS NO DISTINCTION.
839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, "the first to hear the Word of God." The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ", "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."
- Catechism of the Catholic Church
Hmmmm, I could make the same claim about the resurrection accounts.
v-That the Septuagint was translated into Latin,
That a man we call St. Jerome did the work,
That he did it in A.D. 390-405,
or that people in Ancient Rome spoke Latin?
Pretty much all the above.
The Septuagint was the Greek translation from the original Hebrew, and it was only the Old Testament.
What happened toward the end of the 4th century that suddenly the Church, empowered by Constantine, found it necessary to have the Greek Septuagint translated into Latin?
It was in 367AD, that the first canon of the New Testament with all 27 writings were finally completed, and even though few spoke Latin at the time, as it was the language of the elite and sophisticates, those in power of the catholic Church, (not yet the official name, )
With the cannon now assembled, many were reading it in total for the first time, and it didn’t match up with the established beliefs and doctrine that was developing, so it was shoved under the rug until the hierarchy could figure how to handle the discrepancies, such as scripture with Christ saying to call no man on earth father, which was already in use, and he also said there was to be no mediator between man and God but Christ Jesus, and with the ever virgin Mary being said to have other children.
The solution was to translate the Bible into a language that only a certain few people were able to read, and to then make it compulsory for all priest to learn Latin and to use it with his congregation.
Then years later others began translating the Bible into German and then English, the Church did everything in it’s power to destroy them, but finally the battle was won, and the truth finally came out in English that most could now read and compare with what they had been taught.
The rest is history, but this is what I have gleaned from the many articles I’ve read on the subject, and the reason I believe it, is because it explains why a Church would be able to develop doctrine that is at opposites with the Holy scripture and Christ, that they claimed to represent.
While the false doctrine may have started being developed before there were clear guidelines as to what the Christian church was to believe, instead of them doing what God’s people would be expected to do, and correct the mistakes, they ignored the scripture they tried to take credit for organizing into the canon, and went about as they had been, developing customs, traditions, and doctrine to suite their purpose, and that was to acquire more power and control.
Paul had said to do the things that you have heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit you to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also, and since they had failed to do this, there whole foundation was corrupt, and the next 1000 years would be spent covering their tracks.
Can I prove all of this? No, no more then you can prove it’s not the way it happened. This is just my gut feeling and the only way I can explain why the RCC has such disdane and little use for the Holy Bible, written by the God they claim is their boss.
JH
Well, sure they do, but perhaps not in the sense that you mean! ;o)
As I argued on another thread last week, the Pharisees come in for some harsh treatment in the Christian scriptures. Given that the gospels are teaching something quite different than Pharisaic Judaism, and the two groups were hardly friendly, its not surprising. But I think the Pharisees get a bad rap. The word "Pharisee" as used today is synonymous with "hypocrite". I'm sure some Pharisees fit that description. I'm also sure that some did not.
To use your language "I don't believe it, so prove it to me". Do a quick google search for "latin, vulgate, jerome, translation" or similar and tell me how many links even imply that the Vulgate (literally "vulgar" "common" latin) was the language of the "elite and sophisticates". Please provide any link that makes that case. Pick any NC historian you like if Wycliff isn't an acceptable source.
Oh. Wait... This is just my gut feeling and the only way I can explain....
Maybe your "gut feeling" and explanation are just wrong.
Well, I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for. Much of what Maimonides wrote was philosophy or summaries of the Law rather than specifically commentary on the Torah. You might want to check out:
I haven't read it myself, but it sounds like a good introduction to his work.
The Transfiguration was a commercial? ;o)
Thank God your family is ok. I pray that the situation will work out for you. I don't know if there is anything I can do to help, but if there is, just let me know. God's blessings be with you and your family.
Happy to, Nate.
<img src="http://www.domainname.com/mypicture.gif">
Put the URL in the middle, and make sure you get the quotation marks on either side.
"I see dead people."
OK, someone had to say it! ;o)
The Palestinians had a chance for a state in 1948. The original plan was for a Jewish Israel side-by-side with an Arab Palestine. Rather than allow this to happen, all of the surrounding Arab countries attacked Israel the moment it declared its independence. Their objective was to destroy the nascent state of Israel so that the Palestinians could have the whole of the territory. The invading Arabs even urged the Palestinians to flee to safety until the defeat of Israel was complete. Well, to their surprise, Israel won.
None of the Arab states has allowed the Palestinians to settle permanently there, even though Israel absorbed around 800,000 Jews who were expelled from Arab countries after 1948.
The Arabs launched further attacks on Israel in 1956, 1967, and 1973. Israel won each time.
It is worth noting that the original British Mandate included territory that is now both Israel and Jordan. The territory of modern Jordan was supposed to be for the Palestinian Arabs, with modern Israel for the Jews. Instead, England gave the Trans-Jordan territory to the Hashemite clan, an Arabian family that lost out to the House of Saud.
Do you think that Jews should have to tolerate whatever atrocities the Palestinians choose because of your distorted view of supercessionist Christianity?
Well, that's rather the whole point of the book of Hosea. I posted this in response to some of Dave's comments which seemed to place him on the side of the supercessionists. "Everlasting" means everlasting.
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.