Abominations of the Catholic Church
taxman.
Hav'ah <ha...@sstsystems.net> wrote in message
news:dt8B2.207$EF1...@198.235.216.4...
>Hi Mark:
>
>You did you homework on this one. You had me going along just fine until I
>read about that Mary apparition to those children. I never really chose to
>believe what those children saw, just that they saw something. And it gave
>them a message. Then, you mention about this apparition telling the
children
>to pray to her and use the rosary etc. I remembered that that was something
>I caught out of the corner of my eye when I saw the documentary on TV, but
I
>guess I just didn't really care who they saw, at the time.
>
>On all counts, I find your manifesto agreeable. Any thing that suggests any
>thing bow to any thing other than God, is a false prophet=false profit.
>God gave us the "ten commandments". They are found in all cultures in all
>natins in any time in history, and they all are the same 10 laws or
>harmonious co-existence with the creator and all that was/is created. Jesus
>then reiterated a 'Reader's Digest' version just to make it even more
clear.
>
>I wondered myself about this Mary worship stuff. So, I went to the catholic
>service. I found a child's Bible in the pew book holder thing. A
>lesson-of-the-day BOOK. A song BOOK.
Why are you emphasizing the word BOOK?
>And the priest goes to the podium and
>people begin kneeling, standing, sitting, kneeling, standing, kneeling. I
>spend more time wondering if I was supposed to be kneeling or standing than
>listening to the priest's sermon.
You can't do both at the same time? Do you also have problems
chewing bubble gum and rubbing your stomache at the same
time too?
>Hmmm, I think. And what's worse, I don't
>feel comfortable enough to look around and see what others are doing
because
>I'm a litttle afraid that someone will notice and think I'm being
>disrespectful of God by not paying strict attention. I figured I'd better
>watch myself. I wanted to get home for dinner on time, not spend my evening
>trying to say Hail Mary's for a sin I hadn't committed. So, whilst
wallowing
>in my blundering newbie-ism, I think, "Hey, wait a minute. Aren't these the
>group that expect people to 'confess' their sins by saying: Bless Me Father
>for I have Sinned???? Bless Me?????"
And how do you confess your sins? Do you ask the Lord for forgiveness, or
do you just wish really hard and hope that all your sins go away?
>Oh, oh, gotta pay attention, they're
>all kneeling again! Finally, the priest suggests we pray.
>All heads bow (mine included, this is God we are talking about here), and
>suddenly a litany from elementary school comes over the PA..."Our Father,
>who is in Heaven..." Again, I'm stunned. Why didn't the priest let everyone
>say their own prayer privately to God as Jesus instructed?
If you were paying attention you would realize several times in the Mass you
are asked and able to pray in private. Personally, I prefer using the words
our Lord has given.
>Okay, the service is over.
The Mass is over.
>I hunt someone down with authority in the place
>and ask them if I could please take one of their Bibles home with me
because
>I'd like to look at their perspective of God.
>I'm told I have to come back Monday, for an answer.
>
>Monday: I visit the Reverend ( I think that's what he termed himself) and I
>ask him if I may have a beat up old dusty copy of their Bible.
What a cheapskate you are. Are you really that poor that you can't
purchase a bible at your local bookstore? If you do have money problems
use the local library, they usually have multiple copies of the Bible.
>He tells me to buy one for $20 from the store on the other side of town.
>
>So sad...
sad that he didn't want you stealing his Bible?
>
>Hav'ah
>
>
>
>Mark Hines wrote in message <7b2pj2$g...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>...
>>
>>
>>A mature Christian who has the Holy Spirit should know that God must burn
>>with anger at the idolatrous Mary worship and other abominations of the
>>Catholic church
>
>
Mark Hines
A mature Christian who has the Holy Spirit should know that God must burn
with anger at the idolatrous Mary worship and other abominations of the
Catholic church. Repeatedly in the Old Testament, God killed Hebrews by the
thousands when they worshipped another. Catholics say that they do not
worship Mary, but the prayers to her, the exalted names for her, the
adulation, dedications, consecrations, songs, bended knees, etc., speak
otherwise. God says that He is a Jealous God, and He gives fair warning
to those who bend their knees to another. Although God reigned down fierce
anger and retribution when Hebrews burned incense to the "Queen of Heaven"
(Jeremiah 7:18-20, 44:17-23, 44:25-27). Catholics defy God by calling Mary
"Queen of Heaven," knowing that God hates this term.
Mary's being a mediator between God and man is not supported Biblically,
and is, in fact, contradicted by the Bible's saying that there is only one
mediator, Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5). The Catholic doctrine that Mary was
without sin is false. The Bible says that all humans have sinned (Romans
5:12). Mary was a human who sinned and who needed a savior, just as the
rest of us need a savior. The fact that Mary called God "My Savior" (Luke
1:47) proves that Mary needed a Savior to save her from her sins just as
the rest of us do. Millions of Catholics signed a document trying to make
Mary a co-redemptrix, a redeemer on a "co" or equal level with Christ. This
is an abominable effort for which there is no Biblical support. God kills
and makes examples out of those who try to put themselves on a level with
God, as King Herod found out. Satan knows that he will find out, too. There
is zero Biblical evidence for the assumption, Mary's body being taken to
heaven without her dying. The Bible indicates that she was not a virgin all
of her life (Matthew 1:25). This verse says that Joseph did not know her
"until" she gave birth to her firstborn son, Jesus. Additionally, the term
"firstborn son" implies that Mary had other sons. Every word in the Bible
is significant. The Greek term for "sisters" (Matthew 13:55-56) is used
only for blood relations. These relatives did not believe Him (John 7:5).
The prophetic verse Psalm 69:8 also supports Mary's having other children.
Once a church strays from using the Bible as its sole authority, it is, of
course, free to follow whatever it chooses. The Catholic church has
introduced abominations by using what it calls "sacred church tradition" to
invalidate the Bible. Consider the Messiah's severe condemnation of the
Pharisees, who, like the Catholics of today, used tradition to invalidate
the Tanach (The Bible of Christ's day).
-----Mark 7:13 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which
you have handed down; and you do many things such as that"
-----Matthew 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall
exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case
enter into the kingdom of heaven.
In the above quotation, Christ makes it clear that those who invalidate the
word of God, as the Pharisees had done through tradition, will go to hell.
Catholics should think twice about defying Christ, who, after we die, has
the sole power and authority to give us the thumbs up for heaven or the
thumbs down for hell. The Bible is clear that the vast majority of people
will go to hell (Matthew 7:14). Catholics will not be able to say that they
did not have fair warning. God will save only a remnant. Burn pain is the
most excruciating pain. It is more severe than the worst backache pain and
the worst headache pain. The Bible says that hell is a lake of fire, a
place of eternal gnashing of teeth and crying. There is blackness and
eternal separation from God. The tormenting burn pain goes on 24 hours a
day, with no sleep or relief.
There is no Biblical support for Catholic doctrines that Mary's prayers
redeem people (Catechism of the Catholic Church #1477), that her
intercession brings eternal salvation (CCC #969) and that God can apply no
grace to man except through her (CCC #969). All of these doctrines are
abominations. How can Catholics say that God needs Mary's permission before
He can apply grace? God does what He pleases, and He doesn't need anybody's
permission to act.
The entire Bible devotes only about one page to Mary, showing her relative
lack of importance in the larger scheme of what God chooses to emphasize.
Almost every time Jesus talks to or about Mary, He does so in a correcting
or rebuking way. For instance, when she was out of line with concerns
about His whereabouts, He corrected her by saying she should have known
that He would be about His Father's business (Luke 2:49). At the wedding
feast at Cana, He corrects her again by putting her in her place and not
even addressing her as His mother (John 2:4), "Woman, what have I to do
with you?" When someone tries to say that blessed is the womb that carried
You, Jesus corrects with Blessed instead are those who hear the word of God
and obey it (Luke 11:27). On another occasion when someone tells Him that
His mother wants to speak with Him, He refuses to see her and snubs her
(Matthew 12: 46-50). He then says that His mother and brethren are those
who do the will of God. Christ also indicated that Mary did not honor Him
(Mark 6:4). This is evidence that the Messiah was not pleased with Mary.
The only time He does not correct or rebuke her, He relieves Himself of her
burden by assigning John to take care of her (John 19:27). Catholics have
twisted this verse into meaning that Mary is the mother of us all. Mary is
not the mother of God. Mary is the mother of Jesus only in His physical
aspect, not in His divine aspect. The Bible clearly indicates that Christ
existed before Mary was born (John 8:58). "Before Abraham was, I AM."
Theophanies of the Son of God, such as His appearance in Nebuchadnezzar's
fiery furnace (Daniel 3:25), as Palmoni (Daniel 8:13), or as Melchizedek
(Psalms 110:4, Hebrews 7:1-3) are further evidence that He existed before
Mary was born. Even in the very first verse of the Bible, the word God uses
for Himself is "ELOHIM," a plural noun in Hebrew. In the very first verse
of the Bible, God hints at the Three-Person Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit.
God expressly forbids trying to contact dead humans (a sin as sorcery,
witchcraft, spiritism, having a familiar spirit), yet Catholics routinely
pray to Mary and demonically enthrall themselves. In fact, God was so angry
with King Saul for trying to contact the dead spirit of Samuel that God
killed Saul and his son the next day. The Bible nowhere says that we should
pray either to or for dead humans. For hundreds of years, though, the
Catholic church obtained money for praying for the dead. Even the Papacy
has been sold.
When one consecrates oneself to Mary, one totally surrenders to her (Totus
Tuus, total surrender in Latin), body, mind and soul. Enthralling one's
heart to Mary is indistinguishable from idol and demon worship. Total
submission to Mary centers one's religious devotion away from God and to
Satan. Catholics claim that Mary only shows them the way towards God, yet
after years and years of such "way showing" their devotions to her only
increase.
The Catholic church officially recognized the Fatima apparitions as
authentic messages from Mary. The messages, of course, were from demons
pretending to be Mary.
-----1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter
times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits,
and doctrines of devils;
The Fatima prophecies gave predictions so shocking that the Pope locked
some of them away from the public. On July 13, 1917, a Fatima demon
pretending to be Mary showed three children a ghastly vision of hell. The
demon said that they and others could save themselves from hell through
devotion to Mary's Immaculate Heart. The demon said, "Jesus wishes to make
use of you to make me known and loved. He wants to establish in the world
devotion to my Immaculate Heart." The demon said that world peace would be
possible if people consecrated themselves to Mary.
The Bible says that one will know something by its fruit (Luke 6:44). One
should note that the apparitions of Mary instruct people to pray the Rosary
to her, build churches to her and consecrate themselves to her. Our prayers
and worship should be to God only.
Mark Hines
Hav'ah
You did you homework on this one. You had me going along just fine until I
read about that Mary apparition to those children. I never really chose to
believe what those children saw, just that they saw something. And it gave
them a message. Then, you mention about this apparition telling the children
to pray to her and use the rosary etc. I remembered that that was something
I caught out of the corner of my eye when I saw the documentary on TV, but I
guess I just didn't really care who they saw, at the time.
On all counts, I find your manifesto agreeable. Any thing that suggests any
thing bow to any thing other than God, is a false prophet=false profit.
God gave us the "ten commandments". They are found in all cultures in all
natins in any time in history, and they all are the same 10 laws or
harmonious co-existence with the creator and all that was/is created. Jesus
then reiterated a 'Reader's Digest' version just to make it even more clear.
I wondered myself about this Mary worship stuff. So, I went to the catholic
service. I found a child's Bible in the pew book holder thing. A
lesson-of-the-day BOOK. A song BOOK. And the priest goes to the podium and
people begin kneeling, standing, sitting, kneeling, standing, kneeling. I
spend more time wondering if I was supposed to be kneeling or standing than
listening to the priest's sermon. Hmmm, I think. And what's worse, I don't
feel comfortable enough to look around and see what others are doing because
I'm a litttle afraid that someone will notice and think I'm being
disrespectful of God by not paying strict attention. I figured I'd better
watch myself. I wanted to get home for dinner on time, not spend my evening
trying to say Hail Mary's for a sin I hadn't committed. So, whilst wallowing
in my blundering newbie-ism, I think, "Hey, wait a minute. Aren't these the
group that expect people to 'confess' their sins by saying: Bless Me Father
for I have Sinned???? Bless Me?????" Oh, oh, gotta pay attention, they're
all kneeling again! Finally, the priest suggests we pray.
All heads bow (mine included, this is God we are talking about here), and
suddenly a litany from elementary school comes over the PA..."Our Father,
who is in Heaven..." Again, I'm stunned. Why didn't the priest let everyone
say their own prayer privately to God as Jesus instructed?
Okay, the service is over. I hunt someone down with authority in the place
and ask them if I could please take one of their Bibles home with me because
I'd like to look at their perspective of God.
I'm told I have to come back Monday, for an answer.
Monday: I visit the Reverend ( I think that's what he termed himself) and I
ask him if I may have a beat up old dusty copy of their Bible.
He tells me to buy one for $20 from the store on the other side of town.
So sad...
Hav'ah
Mark Hines wrote in message <7b2pj2$g...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>
taxman.
>
>taxman. wrote in message
<85aB2.1214$hl4.4...@lwnws01.ne.mediaone.net>...
>
>
>>>>I wondered myself about this Mary worship stuff. So, I went to the
>catholic
>>>service. I found a child's Bible in the pew book holder thing. A
>>>lesson-of-the-day BOOK. A song BOOK.
>>
>
>books, but that an adult copy of God's word wasn't available. I mean,
that's
>a BOOK, and it was missing.
So you don't like the idea of hymns and bible readings in the same BOOK?
>>>And the priest goes to the podium and
>>>people begin kneeling, standing, sitting, kneeling, standing, kneeling. I
>>>spend more time wondering if I was supposed to be kneeling or standing
>than
>>>listening to the priest's sermon.
>>
>>You can't do both at the same time? Do you also have problems
>>chewing bubble gum and rubbing your stomache at the same
>> time too?
>
>I fully admit that I was new to the catholic ceremony. I found having to
>constantly move around distracting. As a person who wanted more to listen,
I
>was unable to do so. As a newcomer, this made listening almost impossible.
>
>>
>>>Hmmm, I think. And what's worse, I don't
>>>feel comfortable enough to look around and see what others are doing
>>because
>>>I'm a litttle afraid that someone will notice and think I'm being
>>>disrespectful of God by not paying strict attention. I figured I'd better
>>>watch myself. I wanted to get home for dinner on time, not spend my
>evening
>>>trying to say Hail Mary's for a sin I hadn't committed. So, whilst
>>wallowing
>>>in my blundering newbie-ism, I think, "Hey, wait a minute. Aren't these
>the
>>>group that expect people to 'confess' their sins by saying: Bless Me
>Father
>>>for I have Sinned???? Bless Me?????"
>>
>>And how do you confess your sins? Do you ask the Lord for forgiveness, or
>>do you just wish really hard and hope that all your sins go away?
>
>
>Nope. I ask God to please forgive my misgivings. God knows that in my heart
>I make mistakes. I don't mess up on purpose. God knows that. When I mess
up,
>I always tell God how sorry I am and that I love that he loves me so much
>and forgives me... and that I'll try not to make that mistake again.
So what you are saying is that you wish really hard that they will all go
away....
>
>>>Oh, oh, gotta pay attention, they're
>>>all kneeling again! Finally, the priest suggests we pray.
>>>All heads bow (mine included, this is God we are talking about here), and
>>>suddenly a litany from elementary school comes over the PA..."Our Father,
>>>who is in Heaven..." Again, I'm stunned. Why didn't the priest let
>everyone
>>>say their own prayer privately to God as Jesus instructed?
>>
>>If you were paying attention you would realize several times in the Mass
>you
>>are asked and able to pray in private. Personally, I prefer using the
>words
>>our Lord has given.
>
>
>I'm sorry, whether you believe it or not, it's true. No where did the
priest
>give anybody time to pray to themselves.
I highly doubt that. There are numerous times at which one can pray
privately, the most noteable being after communion.
>>
>>>Okay, the service is over.
>>
>>The Mass is over.
>
>
>Symantics.
No, not symantics.
>
>>>I hunt someone down with authority in the place
>>>and ask them if I could please take one of their Bibles home with me
>>because
>>>I'd like to look at their perspective of God.
>>
>>>I'm told I have to come back Monday, for an answer.
>>>
>>>Monday: I visit the Reverend ( I think that's what he termed himself) and
>I
>>>ask him if I may have a beat up old dusty copy of their Bible.
>>
>>What a cheapskate you are. Are you really that poor that you can't
>>purchase a bible at your local bookstore? If you do have money problems
>>use the local library, they usually have multiple copies of the Bible.
>
>
>That's horrible!!! Yes, I was quite poor and in a search for God and truth
>and a search for the true God means that you don't just take the word of
the
>first organization that comes along that says they are the ones you should
>join.
Sure you can. The organization I joined was there from the beginning, they
even packed all the scriptures into a nicely bound book and called it the
bible.
>I was exploring my options, and that is because I was in need of God.
>And I checked the library. You can't take Bibles home, they're classified
>reference and stay in the library.
Then stay at the library and read it, a nice quite atmosphere conducive to
learning. Or another option is to photocopy pages and read at home.
>>
>>>He tells me to buy one for $20 from the store on the other side of town.
>>>
>>>So sad...
>>
>>sad that he didn't want you stealing his Bible?
>
>That's rude too. If I was trying to steal a Bible, then why would I have
>asked for it on the previous day??? I would have just taken it, now
wouldn't
>I have???
If you had really wanted to read the bible you would have gone and
done it instead of making it an issue. The bible is not very hard to
find. Its all over the net, at the library and the bookstore. You may
be poor, but I seriously doubt you would have huge trouble putting
aside $20 to purchase a bible.
>I did visit a different Catholic Church, and asked them for a copy. They
>said I could get one for free at St. Vincent de Pauls. I did visit there,
>and I cherish your bible as I do all my others. Ironically, it was the same
>Bible that was in the pews. The way it was all handled, I really did think
I
>was going to receive an adult's version.
What are you talking about adult version?
> My friend's father has a Catholic
>Bible and it looks much different than the Good News Bible. It was also,
>through this experience, that I had the glorious opportunity to read the
They are all on the insternet too.
>Apocrypha. I had heard these tales as a child, and was glad to know the
>stories actually existed.
>
>Hav'ah
>
>>
>
>
Edward Thorne
Hines) writes:
>
>
Hey!
Why are you repeating this?
This was the same hateful diatribe you wrote against the mother of
Jesus a couple of weeks ago!
Why do you beset us with these repetitious postings?
I responded at length to your last posting, but you have not deigned to
reply --in fact, you disappeared.
I guess that you are nothing more than a hit-and-run poster, who puts
out his hateful propaganda in favor of a false religion, but does not
stay around to answer the replies.
In fact, you don't even care about the reply, you just want to post, ad
nauseam! :-(
But, I have a question for you, and it is this: How can you claim
Jesus as your brother if you do not accept Mary as your mother?
* * * * *
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
--Ed
Hav'ah
Hmmm...
If you are Timothy, then I sent an extensive email response to you.
I give 1000% respectful effort in every answer. I feel if you will take the
time to reply to a post, regardless what it is you say, then I should have
the decency to reply. I am not out to point fingers. I don't believe that
one religion is better than another. I am BAPTIZED Roman Catholic. Does that
make a difference? WIll you be kinder now?
It really bothers me how most people in most ngs think that when someone
does not agree or has an alternate opion that they are giving attitude. I
know my scripture inside out. I have no problem with my love for Jesus or
God, etc. I see a problem. I get it out and dealt with, straight up. Someone
posted the topic. I looked at the responses FIRST. It was pro-con so to
speak. So, I posted.
However, I did not realize that even though I know my scripture, that I'm
not qualified to say something about the topic. Am I illogical in its
presentation? Does it sound like I'm out to attack Catholics?
Hmmmm... so much negativity in the world ... people are so afraid...
And I somewhat think it's rude of you to presume that I posted something
simply to dash off with uninterest. I spend sometimes as long as an hour on
a reply. I look for the scripures thoroughly, so as not to misrepresent God
or Jesus. If I don't "hop to" a reply, maybe it's because I'm taking a major
sincere effort to respond to it!
If you are talking about a discussion you and I had regarding the ark,
serpent, etc and worship, then I have all my emails and I'll show you that I
responded. Please don't think I won't. I might take a while to respond
sometimes (not more than 24 hours usually - like playing chess: I don't just
whip out an answer, I seek the right one), but I always do with respect and
sincerity.
Hav'ah
Hav'ah
taxman. wrote in message <85aB2.1214$hl4.4...@lwnws01.ne.mediaone.net>...
>>>I wondered myself about this Mary worship stuff. So, I went to the
catholic
>>service. I found a child's Bible in the pew book holder thing. A
>>lesson-of-the-day BOOK. A song BOOK.
>
>Why are you emphasizing the word BOOK?
It surprised me that so much publishing expense went into these other thick
books, but that an adult copy of God's word wasn't available. I mean, that's
a BOOK, and it was missing.
>
and forgives me... and that I'll try not to make that mistake again!
>>Oh, oh, gotta pay attention, they're
>>all kneeling again! Finally, the priest suggests we pray.
>>All heads bow (mine included, this is God we are talking about here), and
>>suddenly a litany from elementary school comes over the PA..."Our Father,
>>who is in Heaven..." Again, I'm stunned. Why didn't the priest let
everyone
>>say their own prayer privately to God as Jesus instructed?
>
>If you were paying attention you would realize several times in the Mass
you
>are asked and able to pray in private. Personally, I prefer using the
words
>our Lord has given.
I'm sorry, whether you believe it or not, it's true. No where did the priest
give anybody time to pray to themselves.
>
>>Okay, the service is over.
>
>The Mass is over.
Symantics.
>>I hunt someone down with authority in the place
>>and ask them if I could please take one of their Bibles home with me
>because
>>I'd like to look at their perspective of God.
>
>>I'm told I have to come back Monday, for an answer.
>>
>>Monday: I visit the Reverend ( I think that's what he termed himself) and
I
>>ask him if I may have a beat up old dusty copy of their Bible.
>
>What a cheapskate you are. Are you really that poor that you can't
>purchase a bible at your local bookstore? If you do have money problems
>use the local library, they usually have multiple copies of the Bible.
That's horrible!!! Yes, I was quite poor and in a search for God and truth
and a search for the true God means that you don't just take the word of the
first organization that comes along that says they are the ones you should
join. I was exploring my options, and that is because I was in need of God.
And I checked the library. You can't take Bibles home, they're classified
reference and stay in the library.
>
>>He tells me to buy one for $20 from the store on the other side of town.
>>
>>So sad...
>
>sad that he didn't want you stealing his Bible?
That's rude too. If I was trying to steal a Bible, then why would I have
asked for it on the previous day??? I would have just taken it, now wouldn't
I have???
I did visit a different Catholic Church, and asked them for a copy. They
said I could get one for free at St. Vincent de Pauls. I did visit there,
and I cherish your bible as I do all my others. Ironically, it was the same
Bible that was in the pews. The way it was all handled, I really did think I
was going to receive an adult's version. My friend's father has a Catholic
Bible and it looks much different than the Good News Bible. It was also,
through this experience, that I had the glorious opportunity to read the
billu
Despite the radicalism of early Protestantism with regard to many ancient
Catholic "distinctives," such as the Communion of the Saints, Penance,
Purgatory, Infused Justification, the Papacy, the priesthood, sacramental
marriage, etc., it may surprise many to discover that Martin Luther was rather
conservative in some of his
doctrinal views, such as on baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist, and
particularly the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Luther indeed was quite devoted to Our Lady, and retained most of the
traditional Marian doctrines which were
held then and now by the Catholic Church. This is often not well-documented in
Protestant biographies of Luther
and histories of the 16th century, yet it is undeniably true. It seems to be a
natural human tendency for latter-day
followers to project back onto the founder of a movement their own prevailing
viewpoints. Since Lutheranism
today does not possess a very robust Mariology, it is usually assumed that
Luther himself had similar opinions.
We shall see, upon consulting the primary sources (i.e., Luther's own writings),
that the historical facts are very
different. We shall consider, in turn, Luther's position on the various aspects
of Marian doctrine.
Along with virtually all important Protestant Founders (e.g., Calvin, Zwingli,
Cranmer), Luther accepted the
traditional belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary (Jesus had no blood
brothers), and her status as the Theotokos
(Mother of God):
Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children
besides Him . . . "brothers"
really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins
brothers. (Sermons on John,
chapters 1-4, 1537-39).
He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal
womb . . . This was without the
cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. (Ibid.)
God says . . . : "Mary's Son is My only Son." Thus Mary is the Mother of
God. (Ibid.).
God did not derive his divinity from Mary; but it does not follow that it
is therefore wrong to say that God
was born of Mary, that God is Mary's Son, and that Mary is God's mother . .
. She is the true mother of
God and bearer of God . . . Mary suckled God, rocked God to sleep, prepared
broth and soup for God, etc.
For God and man are one person, one Christ, one Son, one Jesus, not two
Christs . . . just as your son is
not two sons . . . even though he has two natures, body and soul, the body
from you, the soul from God
alone. (On the Councils and the Church, 1539).
Probably the most astonishing Marian belief of Luther is his acceptance of
Mary's Immaculate Conception,
which wasn't even definitively proclaimed as dogma by the Catholic Church until
1854. Concerning this question
there is some dispute, over the technical aspects of medieval theories of
conception and the soul, and whether
or not Luther later changed his mind. Even some eminent Lutheran scholars,
however, such as Arthur Carl
Piepkorn (1907-73) of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, maintain his unswerving
acceptance of the doctrine.
Luther's words follow:
It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was
effected without original sin; so that in
the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and
adorned with God's gifts, receiving
a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live
she was free from all sin"
(Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527).
She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something
exceedingly great. For God's grace
fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. (Personal
{"Little"} Prayer Book, 1522).
Later references to the Immaculate Conception appear in his House sermon for
Christmas (1533) and Against
the Papacy of Rome (1545). In later life (he died in 1546), Luther did not
believe that this doctrine should be
imposed on all believers, since he felt that the Bible didn't explicitly and
formally teach it. Such a view is
consistent with his notion of sola Scriptura and is similar to his opinion on
the bodily Assumption of the Virgin,
which he never denied - although he was highly critical of what he felt were
excesses in the celebration of this
Feast. In his sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time he preached on the Feast
of the Assumption, he stated:
There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we
do not know. And since the
Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of
faith . . . It is enough to know that
she lives in Christ.
Luther held to the idea and devotional practice of the veneration of Mary and
expressed this on innumerable
occasions with the most effusive language:
The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart.
(Sermon, September 1, 1522).
[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ
. . . She is nobility, wisdom, and
holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise
must be given to her in such a
way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures. (Sermon, Christmas,
1531).
No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all
nobility, wisdom, and sanctity.
(Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537).
One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the
Magnificat. She praised God
for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the
honor of God, the praise of
God's grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake
of Christ . . . Mary does not wish
that we come to her, but through her to God. (Explanation of the
Magnificat, 1521).
Luther goes even further, and gives the Blessed Virgin the exalted position of
"Spiritual Mother" for Christians,
much the same as in Catholic piety:
It is the consolation and the superabundant goodness of God, that man is
able to exult in such a treasure.
Mary is his true Mother, Christ is his brother, God is his father. (Sermon,
Christmas, 1522)
Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was
Christ alone who reposed on
her knees . . . If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where
he is, we ought also to be and all
that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother. (Sermon,
Christmas, 1529).
Luther did strongly condemn any devotional practices which implied that Mary was
in any way equal to our Lord
or that she took anything away from His sole sufficiency as our Savior. This is,
and always has been, the official
teaching of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, Luther often "threw out the baby
with the bath water," when it
came to criticizing erroneous emphases and opinions which were prevalent in his
time - falsely equating them
with Church doctrine. His attitude towards the use of the "Hail Mary" prayer
(the first portion of the Rosary) is
illustrative. In certain polemical utterances he appears to condemn its
recitation altogether, but he is only
forbidding a use of Marian devotions apart from heartfelt faith, as the
following two citations make clear:
Whoever possesses a good (firm) faith, says the Hail Mary without danger!
Whoever is weak in faith can
utter no Hail Mary without danger to his salvation. (Sermon, March 11,
1523).
Our prayer should include the Mother of God . . . What the Hail Mary says
is that all glory should be given
to God, using these words: "Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with
thee; blessed art thou among
women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus Christ. Amen!" You see
that these words are not
concerned with prayer but purely with giving praise and honor . . . We can
use the Hail Mary as a
meditation in which we recite what grace God has given her. Second, we
should add a wish that everyone
may know and respect her . . . He who has no faith is advised to refrain
from saying the Hail Mary.
(Personal Prayer Book, 1522).
To summarize, it is apparent that Luther was extraordinarily devoted to the
Blessed Virgin Mary, which is
notable in light of his aversion to so many other "Papist" or "Romish"
doctrines, as he was wont to describe
them. His major departure occurs with regard to the intercession and invocation
of the saints, which he denied,
in accord with the earliest systematic Lutheran creed, the Augsburg Confession
of 1530 (Article 21).
His views of Mary as Mother of God and as ever-Virgin were identical to those in
Catholicism, and his opinions
on the Immaculate Conception, Mary's "Spiritual Motherhood" and the use of the
"Hail Mary" were
substantially the same. He didn't deny the Assumption (he certainly didn't
hesitate to rail against doctrines he
opposed!), and venerated Mary in a very touching fashion which, as far as it
goes, is not at all contrary to
Catholic piety.
Therefore, it can be stated without fear of contradiction that Luther's
Mariology is very close to that of the
Catholic Church today, far more than it is to the theology of modern-day
Lutheranism. To the extent that this fact
is dealt with at all by Protestants, it is usually explained as a "holdover"
from the early Luther's late medieval
Augustinian Catholic views ("everyone has their blind spots," etc.). But this
will not do for those who are
serious about consulting Luther in order to arrive at the true "Reformation
heritage" and the roots of an
authentic Protestantism. For if Luther's views here can be so easily
rationalized away, how can the Protestant
know whether he is trustworthy relative to his other innovative doctrines such
as extrinsic justification by faith
alone and sola Scriptura?
It appears, once again, that the truth about important historical figures is
almost invariably more complex than the "legends" and overly-simplistic
generalizations which men often at the remove of centuries - create and accept
uncritically.
taxman.
>If you are even a poor example of a catholic-following person, I'm glad I
>DID steal your Bible!
As I see it you had a set agenda, and you proved your agenda.
>DUH! Of course, I didn't. Just making a point.
Pretty stupid point.
>I was a potential customer.
>I went into the store to check out the goods.
>I found rotten apples.
>I decided to shop somwwhere else.
The Church is not a store. If you want to use the store analogy
then actually go to a book store. If you had questions on the
Catholic faith then ask the priest, don't beat around the bush
and try to take his bible.
>I told someone I was having the discussion with my incident.
>You stick your nose in.
>Why? You clearly knew it was not "directed" at you.
>I was a potential customer complaining about the terrible service!
>You hear my complaint and give me a second opportunity to tell someone:
>You had an opportunity to pacify my experience in your establishment:
>I had gone to your franchise, I most certainly would have received a Bible.
>Isn't that supposed to be your product service list, so to speak?
>I just hope you don't collect the tithe!
>(Now you're going to assume all kinds of things! I can feel it.)
What the hell are you talking about? I am totally losing your analogy.
>And if you are serving the banquet,
>I'll stay at home for candlelight dinner with God.
>
>If this is your brand of saving MY soul,
>I'd be far more worried about yours!
>
>You got a problem with that?
Like I said, if you have a question then ask it. Did you even bother
asking the priest *why* he wouldn't give you his bible? No, you only
walked off with your assumption of why. You did get a bible
eventually didn't you? from the St. Vincent De Paul Society or
something? So stop complaining.
>Hav'ah
>
>P.S Luke 11:52 comes to mind here.
No one took away the 'keys of knowlege'. You weren't seeking
knowlege at all, you didn't even bother asking a knowlegeable
question. Can I have the keys to your car? I swear I'll return them
on Monday.
>Oh yeah, it would be nice if you took out the word "animal", because it's
>not in any other bible. At least Italisize it so people know YOU slid it
in.
>Gen 3:21
What difference does "animal" make? It may affect your fragile faith but
not mine. If you are going to say it was inserted you'll have to back it
up,
it'd be a good topic for a new thread too.
>
>
>
>taxman. wrote in message ...
Edward Thorne
writes:
I think that you have me confused with someone else.
I was responding to a repeated by mhines about Mary, whom he does not
like.
Hav'ah
DID steal your Bible!
DUH! Of course, I didn't. Just making a point.
I was a potential customer.
I went into the store to check out the goods.
I found rotten apples.
I decided to shop somwwhere else.
I told someone I was having the discussion with my incident.
You stick your nose in.
Why? You clearly knew it was not "directed" at you.
I was a potential customer complaining about the terrible service!
You hear my complaint and give me a second opportunity to tell someone:
You had an opportunity to pacify my experience in your establishment:
I had gone to your franchise, I most certainly would have received a Bible.
Isn't that supposed to be your product service list, so to speak?
I just hope you don't collect the tithe!
(Now you're going to assume all kinds of things! I can feel it.)
And if you are serving the banquet,
I'll stay at home for candlelight dinner with God.
If this is your brand of saving MY soul,
I'd be far more worried about yours!
You got a problem with that?
Hav'ah
P.S Luke 11:52 comes to mind here.
Oh yeah, it would be nice if you took out the word "animal", because it's
not in any other bible. At least Italisize it so people know YOU slid it in.
Gen 3:21
taxman. wrote in message ...
>
taxman.
>You
>
>are useless.
Then try and get someone else to reply to your messages. I think most
people tend to ignore messages with the subject line above.
>Your Genesis came from where??? The Septuagint. It does not say 'animal"
>anywhere in any other bible or version of Genesis. If you are so sure, then
>you prove me wrong. Here, I'll even give you the bibliography:
>
>Torah
>Septuagint
>KJV 1901
>Genesis
>Every religion's bible over the last 6,000 years (except yours), says just
>"skin" or "skins"
>
>It is a problem as it changes the meaning of the statement and implies that
>God murdered animals to provide clothing for the humans even though God
>easily could have knitted them something in a soft wool blend. God could
>have taught them how to spin wool. There were sheep, but no, you've got God
>killing animals.
I still fail to see how this changes anything. Since I'm not much of a
bible scholar
you may want to send a new message to this newsgroup with a different
subject
line so it gets more attention by those who can give a better answer to your
question then I.
>Hav'ah
Hav'ah
are useless.
Your Genesis came from where??? The Septuagint. It does not say 'animal"
anywhere in any other bible or version of Genesis. If you are so sure, then
you prove me wrong. Here, I'll even give you the bibliography:
Torah
Septuagint
KJV 1901
Genesis
Every religion's bible over the last 6,000 years (except yours), says just
"skin" or "skins"
It is a problem as it changes the meaning of the statement and implies that
God murdered animals to provide clothing for the humans even though God
easily could have knitted them something in a soft wool blend. God could
have taught them how to spin wool. There were sheep, but no, you've got God
killing animals.
Hav'ah
taxman.
>Taxman:
>
>There you go ASSUMING...
>
>I didn't post this topic.
I didn't say you posted this topic. The only thing I am assuming is that
people
aren't reading your posts because its in this thread. It seems I'm the only
one
reading them. Start a new thread, thats my suggestion.
>And if you are NOT a scholar, then you openly admit your ignorance. I an
>accept that.
Yes, I admit I don't have all the knowlege of the world within my grasp
just yet, but I'm working on it.
>But, if you are going to answer a post (which nobody put a gun
>to your head to do so), then increase your knowledge. Don't say that it
>changes nothing to change the meaning og God's word by adding words that
>were never there in the first place. What???
Now who is being ignorant? If it changes something I don't see it, so it is
up to
fill me in. What does it change?
> Don't you think God said it
>well enough that the RCC has to ad lib???
Its a translation, it probably had the word inserted for it to be
grammatically
correct or something. But if you think there is some evil motive behind it
all
please tell.
>Hav'ah
>
>BTW: Now that I have put forward this glaring error in your bible, are they
>going to do anything about it?
There are people in this newgroup who can berate the KJV on many points,
I suggest you talk with them. Make a new post and call it 'Errors in the
Catholic Bible" or if you want to make it sound nicer say "A question about
the Catholic Bible".
>P.S. I do believe that if the RCC wants to put out a manifesto in 2000
>professing apology for past mistakes, the proof of their sincereity would
>begin with correcting any errors that blatantly exist in the present.
Why should they apologize? The people who made the mistakes are long
since dead. Sure we could dig up there bones, slap some animatronics on
them and make an apology themepark, but why bother? Are the sins of the
father carried over to the son?
Hav'ah
There you go ASSUMING...
I didn't post this topic.
And if you are NOT a scholar, then you openly admit your ignorance. I an
accept that. But, if you are going to answer a post (which nobody put a gun
to your head to do so), then increase your knowledge. Don't say that it
changes nothing to change the meaning og God's word by adding words that
were never there in the first place. What??? Don't you think God said it
well enough that the RCC has to ad lib???
Hav'ah
BTW: Now that I have put forward this glaring error in your bible, are they
going to do anything about it?
P.S. I do believe that if the RCC wants to put out a manifesto in 2000
professing apology for past mistakes, the proof of their sincereity would
begin with correcting any errors that blatantly exist in the present.
Hav'ah
Taxman
I suppose you haven't heard about the manifesto coming out in 2000 by the
RCC about the Inquistion, etc... I have a scan from the Globe & Mail. I've
sent it to you email (unless it bounces back).
And I'm saying that if God says that adam and Eve were clothed with skin
(ie: SKIN, like perhaps HUMAN SKIN) to assume that it's supposed to have
"animal" included is wrong. Only the Good News Bible of any bible
translation sticks the word animal in there. Now, any bible I've ever
studied or compared puts added words NOT from the original text into
italics, so the reader knows what has been inserted.
I'm asking the RCC, now that someone has mentioned this error, if they would
like to at least italisize the addition of this word in the text.
Martyn Bevan
HUMAN SKIN ?!!!?
What do you suppose they were wearing prior to this then?
Or were they just skeletons?
Oh no, their organs would fall out
Catholic Bibles;
Two examples
The Jerusalem Bible renders the verse,"Yahweh God made clothes out of skins
for the man and his wife,and they put them on",
Christian Community Bible,"Yahweh God made garments of skin for the man and
his wife,and with these he clothed them"
The Good News Bible was an attempt some twenty years ago to inspire the
youth with scripture by modernising the translation, in my personal opinion
not the best of translations as it has been replaced by other improved
(again my view) translations.
BTW come to think of it, I don't think it ever was regarded as as an
official Catholic Bible. In fact the only time that I have come into contact
with it was through my wife who is a Protestant.
CAEL RHAD DUW, CAEL Y CYFAN
TO HAVE GOD'S BLESSING IS TO HAVE EVERYTHING
WELSH PROVERB
MARTYN
Hav'ah wrote in message ...
>Hmmm,
>
>Taxman
>
>I suppose you haven't heard about the manifesto coming out in 2000 by the
>RCC about the Inquistion, etc... I have a scan from the Globe & Mail. I've
>sent it to you email (unless it bounces back).
>
>And I'm saying that if God says that adam and Eve were clothed with skin
>(ie: SKIN, like perhaps HUMAN SKIN) to assume that it's supposed to have
>"animal" included is wrong. Only the Good News Bible of any bible
>translation sticks the word animal in there. Now, any bible I've ever
>studied or compared puts added words NOT from the original text into
>italics, so the reader knows what has been inserted.
>
>I'm asking the RCC, now that someone has mentioned this error, if they
would
>like to at least italisize the addition of this word in the text.
>
<SNIP FOR BREVITY>
Hav'ah
don't understand Genesis as well as you think you do...
I submit, if the following came from Genesis 1, and you probably didn't know
this, then maybe you didn't know that Genesis 2-3 is the story of every
parent because it is the story of the devloping fetus:
"The secret to all modern science is in the first chapter of Genesis."
Lyman Abbott; Quote from Torah, pg. 5 commentary
4D = Special Relativity = God's Realm:
***
Level 0 or 11 SPACE
Level 1 "In the beginning," TIME
Level 2 "God created" ENERGY
Level 3 "heaven and earth" (Notice how it's redundant in mentioning earth.
Earth is already part of heaven, it must be a different place or heaven -
more shortly on this) MASS
then:
3D = General Relativity = Our realm:
***
Level 4 Day 1 Light (Energy=Earth's gravity field) (earth)
Level 5 Day 2 Heaven (our earth's atmosphere and universe around it -
kinda like the nucleus has a "bubble" around it, then stuff, then a
membrane) also Hera (Greek meaning Queen of Heaven) (Air)
Level 6 Day 3 Water and land are SEPARATED (they are one thing at
first ); plants seed (water)
Level 7 Day 4 Sun, moon, stars (to serve as signs, that's why I often
check planets or Tarot) (fire)
Level 8 Day 5 fish, birds (cell walls)
Level 9 Day 6 animals, humans (cell membranes)
Level 10 Day 7 God tidy's up and takes a nap (slows down, then stops,
says in Revelations God is going to start up again - that's like a pulse, or
breathing, or tides) SPIRITUALITY
10 levels.
plus God
***
What is sprituality? It's a simple answer.
So, don't try to disprove this data, you can't undo the atom bomb.
What God has put together let no man split asunder! I don't think anybody
was listening.
:-(
Hav'ah
Martyn Bevan wrote in message <7bhp38$ik1$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>Hav'ah, a question re- Genesis 3. 21
>
>HUMAN SKIN ?!!!?
>What do you suppose they were wearing prior to this then?
>Or were they just skeletons?
>Oh no, their organs would fall out
>
>Catholic Bibles;
>Two examples
>
>The Jerusalem Bible renders the verse,"Yahweh God made clothes out of skins
>for the man and his wife,and they put them on",
>
>Christian Community Bible,"Yahweh God made garments of skin for the man and
>his wife,and with these he clothed them"
>
>The Good News Bible was an attempt some twenty years ago to inspire the
>youth with scripture by modernising the translation, in my personal opinion
>not the best of translations as it has been replaced by other improved
>(again my view) translations.
>
>BTW come to think of it, I don't think it ever was regarded as as an
>official Catholic Bible. In fact the only time that I have come into
contact
>with it was through my wife who is a Protestant.
>
>
>CAEL RHAD DUW, CAEL Y CYFAN
>
>TO HAVE GOD'S BLESSING IS TO HAVE EVERYTHING
>
>WELSH PROVERB
>
>MARTYN
>Hav'ah wrote in message ...
>>Hmmm,
>>
>>Taxman
>>
>>I suppose you haven't heard about the manifesto coming out in 2000 by the
>>RCC about the Inquistion, etc... I have a scan from the Globe & Mail. I've
>>sent it to you email (unless it bounces back).
>>
>>And I'm saying that if God says that adam and Eve were clothed with skin
>>(ie: SKIN, like perhaps HUMAN SKIN) to assume that it's supposed to have
>>"animal" included is wrong. Only the Good News Bible of any bible
>>translation sticks the word animal in there. Now, any bible I've ever
>>studied or compared puts added words NOT from the original text into
>>italics, so the reader knows what has been inserted.
>>
>>I'm asking the RCC, now that someone has mentioned this error, if they
>would
>>like to at least italisize the addition of this word in the text.
>>
><SNIP FOR BREVITY>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
taxman.
http://www.cybercomm.net/~dcon/drbible.html
"21 And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife, garments of skins, and
clothed them."
Then I also have my New American Bible with Catholic Translation:
"For the man and his wife the Lord God made leather garments, with which he
clothed them."
Hav'ah <ha...@sstsystems.net> wrote in message
news:_6HD2.6$W76...@198.235.216.4...
>Martyn:
>
>I appreciate what you are saying. I would appreciate more, if you could
find
>ONE more bible that puts "animal skins" in the genesis quote, outside of
the
>Good News Bible. I've looked and looked. There is none. However, you may
>find one that I missed. I'd like to see it. Again, I maintain that the
books
>from which the Good News Bible evolved (Torah, Septuagint) DO NOT say
>"animal". Nor does the KJV, nor any other bible. I have many bibles, some
>extremely old.
>
>Since the word has been added to the text, it is common courtesy to the
>reader to place additions like this in italics.
>
>That's what I'm asking. Why is this blatant addition of the word "animal"
>not italicised? Why is it even in there to begin with if it appears nowhere
>else?
>
>Hav'ah
>
>
>Martyn Bevan wrote in message <7bmhp1$6j7$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>>Hav'ah,
>>I am neither a specialist in the development of little ones in the womb
nor
>>have I pretended to have any specialist knowledge of Genesis.
>>
>>I respect your view and your right to post your insight into this or any
>>other work.
>>You never know , I might learn something. I really do try to keep an open
>>mind on these things.
>>But the main thrust of my reply to your post was to defend the Catholic
>>Church against a totally unjust charge levied by you.
>>
>>You launched a tirade against the Catholic Church accusing them of
>>inserting the word animal in the Good News Bible and demanded that they
>>publish a retraction.
>>In light of the fact that this version is not and never has had anything
to
>>do with the Catholic Church, can we now expect at least a retraction of
>your
>>charge.
>>
>>The Good News Bible - published by the Bible Societies
>>
>>
>>CAEL RHAD DUW, CAEL Y CYFAN
>>
>>TO HAVE GOD'S BLESSING IS TO HAVE EVERYTHING
>>
>>MARTYN
>>Hav'ah wrote in message ...
>>>The last organ to devlop in the human fetus is skin. Human skin. Seems
you
>>>don't understand Genesis as well as you think you do...
>>>SNIP<
>>
>>
>>>>Hav'ah wrote in message ...
>>>>>Hmmm,
>>>>>
>>>>>Taxman
>>>>>
>>>>>I suppose you haven't heard about the manifesto coming out in 2000 by
>the
>>>>>RCC about the Inquistion, etc... I have a scan from the Globe & Mail.
>>I've
>>>>>sent it to you email (unless it bounces back).
>>>>>
>>>>>And I'm saying that if God says that adam and Eve were clothed with
skin
>>>>>(ie: SKIN, like perhaps HUMAN SKIN) to assume that it's supposed to
have
>>>>>"animal" included is wrong. Only the Good News Bible of any bible
>>>>>translation sticks the word animal in there. Now, any bible I've ever
>>>>>studied or compared puts added words NOT from the original text into
>>>>>italics, so the reader knows what has been inserted.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm asking the RCC, now that someone has mentioned this error, if they
>>>>would
>>>>>like to at least italisize the addition of this word in the text.
>>>>>
>>>><SNIP FOR BREVITY>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Martyn Bevan
I am neither a specialist in the development of little ones in the womb nor
have I pretended to have any specialist knowledge of Genesis.
I respect your view and your right to post your insight into this or any
other work.
You never know , I might learn something. I really do try to keep an open
mind on these things.
But the main thrust of my reply to your post was to defend the Catholic
Church against a totally unjust charge levied by you.
You launched a tirade against the Catholic Church accusing them of
inserting the word animal in the Good News Bible and demanded that they
publish a retraction.
In light of the fact that this version is not and never has had anything to
do with the Catholic Church, can we now expect at least a retraction of your
charge.
The Good News Bible - published by the Bible Societies
CAEL RHAD DUW, CAEL Y CYFAN
TO HAVE GOD'S BLESSING IS TO HAVE EVERYTHING
MARTYN
Hav'ah wrote in message ...
>The last organ to devlop in the human fetus is skin. Human skin. Seems you
>don't understand Genesis as well as you think you do...
>SNIP<
>>Hav'ah wrote in message ...
>>>Hmmm,
>>>
>>>Taxman
>>>
>>>I suppose you haven't heard about the manifesto coming out in 2000 by the
>>>RCC about the Inquistion, etc... I have a scan from the Globe & Mail.
I've
>>>sent it to you email (unless it bounces back).
>>>
>>>And I'm saying that if God says that adam and Eve were clothed with skin
>>>(ie: SKIN, like perhaps HUMAN SKIN) to assume that it's supposed to have
>>>"animal" included is wrong. Only the Good News Bible of any bible
>>>translation sticks the word animal in there. Now, any bible I've ever
>>>studied or compared puts added words NOT from the original text into
>>>italics, so the reader knows what has been inserted.
>>>
>>>I'm asking the RCC, now that someone has mentioned this error, if they
>>would
>>>like to at least italisize the addition of this word in the text.
>>>
>><SNIP FOR BREVITY>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Hav'ah
I appreciate what you are saying. I would appreciate more, if you could find
ONE more bible that puts "animal skins" in the genesis quote, outside of the
Good News Bible. I've looked and looked. There is none. However, you may
find one that I missed. I'd like to see it. Again, I maintain that the books
from which the Good News Bible evolved (Torah, Septuagint) DO NOT say
"animal". Nor does the KJV, nor any other bible. I have many bibles, some
extremely old.
Since the word has been added to the text, it is common courtesy to the
reader to place additions like this in italics.
That's what I'm asking. Why is this blatant addition of the word "animal"
not italicised? Why is it even in there to begin with if it appears nowhere
else?
Hav'ah
Martyn Bevan wrote in message <7bmhp1$6j7$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>>>>Hmmm,
>>>>
>>>>Taxman
>>>>
>>>>I suppose you haven't heard about the manifesto coming out in 2000 by
the
>>>>RCC about the Inquistion, etc... I have a scan from the Globe & Mail.
>I've
>>>>sent it to you email (unless it bounces back).
>>>>
>>>>And I'm saying that if God says that adam and Eve were clothed with skin
>>>>(ie: SKIN, like perhaps HUMAN SKIN) to assume that it's supposed to have
>>>>"animal" included is wrong. Only the Good News Bible of any bible
>>>>translation sticks the word animal in there. Now, any bible I've ever
>>>>studied or compared puts added words NOT from the original text into
>>>>italics, so the reader knows what has been inserted.
>>>>
>>>>I'm asking the RCC, now that someone has mentioned this error, if they
>>>would
>>>>like to at least italisize the addition of this word in the text.
>>>>
>>><SNIP FOR BREVITY>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Martyn Bevan
I have no intention of searching for the word "animal".
I have no reason to doubt that you are correct in criticising the "Good News
Bible".
But you attacked the Catholic Church unjustly, stating that they were
responsible for the error.
This has been pointed out so at least admit that you were wrong to blame an
innocent party.
Although I am an avid reader of this ng. and alt.religion.christian.rc, I
rarely post, as most of the topics are way beyond me. I'm sure there are
many out there like me.
Due to the constraints of time we readers learn to carry out our own form of
moderating what we choose to read, and I can assure you when we come across
someone who refuses to acknowledge a wrongfull attack, we simply don't
bother to read their contributions anymore.
So if just to protect your posts as being fair and worth reading, do the
decent thing.
Here is one more example of a Catholic Bible that does not use the word
"animal"
I'm not sure where you are from but you might be familiar with this one.
The Holy Bible
Translated from the original languages....... by members of the Catholic
Bible Association of America.......1952
Genesis 3 : 21
The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.
CAEL RHAD DUW, CAEL Y CYFAN
TO HAVE GOD'S BLESSING IS TO HAVE EVERYTHING
MARTYN
Hav'ah wrote in message <_6HD2.6$W76...@198.235.216.4>...
>>>>>(SNIP)
>>>>>
Serge Rancour
Hav'ah wrote in message
>I appreciate what you are saying. I would appreciate more, if you could
>find ONE more bible that puts "animal skins" in the genesis quote,
>outside of the Good News Bible. I've looked and looked. There is none.
<.....>
>Since the word has been added to the text, it is common courtesy to the
>reader to place additions like this in italics.
>
>That's what I'm asking. Why is this blatant addition of the word "animal"
>not italicised? Why is it even in there to begin with if it appears nowhere
>else?
<I'm probably going to regret getting involved in this, but....>
As I understand it, there are two approaches to Bible translation:
There's literal equivalence that tries to keep to the grammatical forms
and words of the original language document. The problem is that the grammar
is different for different languages, but this approach *tries* to minimize
this element.
The other way is dynamic equivalence or paraphrasing. It redoes the
style, grammar, and vocabulary of the original as if it were originally
written in English.
If I recall correctly, the Good News Bible is the second type of
translation. To insist that all "added words" be italicised would require
priniting the whole thing in italics.
<IIRC, as a third example, the KJV varies between the first and second
approach, but that would be another thread....>
>Hav'ah
-Serge
Hav'ah
Hav'ah
taxman. wrote in message
>From the Douay-Rheims Bible, Genisis 3:21:
>http://www.cybercomm.net/~dcon/drbible.html
>
>"21 And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife, garments of skins, and
>clothed them."
>
>Then I also have my New American Bible with Catholic Translation:
>
>"For the man and his wife the Lord God made leather garments, with which he
>clothed them."
>
>
>Hav'ah <ha...@sstsystems.net> wrote in message
>news:_6HD2.6$W76...@198.235.216.4...
>>Martyn:
>>
>>I appreciate what you are saying. I would appreciate more, if you could
>find
>>ONE more bible that puts "animal skins" in the genesis quote, outside of
>the
>>Good News Bible. I've looked and looked. There is none. However, you may
>>find one that I missed. I'd like to see it. Again, I maintain that the
>books
>>from which the Good News Bible evolved (Torah, Septuagint) DO NOT say
>>"animal". Nor does the KJV, nor any other bible. I have many bibles, some
>>extremely old.
>>
>>Since the word has been added to the text, it is common courtesy to the
>>reader to place additions like this in italics.
>>
>>That's what I'm asking. Why is this blatant addition of the word "animal"
>>not italicised? Why is it even in there to begin with if it appears
nowhere
>>else?
>>
>>>>>Hav'ah wrote in message ...
>>>>>>Hmmm,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Taxman
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I suppose you haven't heard about the manifesto coming out in 2000 by
>>the
>>>>>>RCC about the Inquistion, etc... I have a scan from the Globe & Mail.
>>>I've
>>>>>>sent it to you email (unless it bounces back).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And I'm saying that if God says that adam and Eve were clothed with
>skin
>>>>>>(ie: SKIN, like perhaps HUMAN SKIN) to assume that it's supposed to
>have
>>>>>>"animal" included is wrong. Only the Good News Bible of any bible
>>>>>>translation sticks the word animal in there. Now, any bible I've ever
>>>>>>studied or compared puts added words NOT from the original text into
>>>>>>italics, so the reader knows what has been inserted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm asking the RCC, now that someone has mentioned this error, if they
>>>>>would
>>>>>>like to at least italisize the addition of this word in the text.
>>>>>>
>>>>><SNIP FOR BREVITY>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Hav'ah
Is the Good News Bible not Catholic?
Hav'ah
Martyn Bevan wrote in message <7boor0$gm6$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>CAEL RHAD DUW, CAEL Y CYFAN
>
>TO HAVE GOD'S BLESSING IS TO HAVE EVERYTHING
>
>MARTYN
>Hav'ah wrote in message <_6HD2.6$W76...@198.235.216.4>...
>>>>>>(SNIP)
>>>>>>
>
>
>
>
Hav'ah
if the word "animal" occurs in no other bible, why has it been added here?
Hav'ah
Serge Rancour wrote in message ...
>
>Hav'ah wrote in message
>
>
>>I appreciate what you are saying. I would appreciate more, if you could
>>find ONE more bible that puts "animal skins" in the genesis quote,
>>outside of the Good News Bible. I've looked and looked. There is none.
>
><.....>
>>Since the word has been added to the text, it is common courtesy to the
>>reader to place additions like this in italics.
>>
>>That's what I'm asking. Why is this blatant addition of the word "animal"
>>not italicised? Why is it even in there to begin with if it appears
nowhere
>>else?
>
>
Serge Rancour
From: Hav'ah <ha...@sstsystems.net>
Newsgroups: tnn.religion.catholic
Date: Friday, March 05, 1999 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: Abominations of the Catholic Church
>I see what you are saying about the italics. So, then my question remains:
>if the word "animal" occurs in no other bible, why has it been added here?
>
>Hav'ah
>
>
>Serge Rancour wrote in message ...
<.....>
<Anything I'd have to say on the matter would be conjecture. The best I can
do is comment based on what I remember of an article on the subject I read a
few years back.>
To be sure, you'd have to be familiar with the original term from which
"skins" has been translated - in that context, it may be clear if it's
"animal skins" or "leather". It could be that the more literally-minded
translations only used one word since the original was only one word. The
Good New Bible translation may simply be more mindful of the modern reader
by including the term "animal". (Again, this is just one possibility. I'd
recommend that you corner a rabbi and ask him - there must be a Jewish
newsgroup around these parts...).
BTW, I'm pretty sure The Good News Bible is non-denominational.
The following site seems to confirm this:
http://netnet.net/~messiah/translat.html
It has a description of each of the more popular translations.
Another clue is the reference to the "Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha" texts on
the cover. If TGNB was Catholic, I believe it would call them the
"Deuterocanonicals" - with no mention of "Apocrypha".
-Serge
Martyn Bevan
That's the only reason I became involved in this thread !
I have no problem with your main argument as I've said before, I am simply
not qualified in any of the required disciplines.
But I have pointed out more than once that the Good News Bible is NOT a
Catholic translation.
This is the only reason why I have asked you to retract your attack on the
Catholic Church. Not because your premise is wrong, but because you accused
the Catholic Church as being responsible for something of which it is
innocent.
OS RHÔI BARCH TI GEI BARCH
IF YOU GIVE RESPECT YOU WILL RECEIVE IT
WELSH PROVERB
MARTYN
Hav'ah wrote in message ...
>>Hav'ah wrote in message <_6HD2.6$W76...@198.235.216.4>...
>>>Martyn:
><SNIP>
Hav'ah
who's bible it is and approach them with this problem. I do apologize
completely, but I did get it from a Catholic Church and it was the only
bible that appeared in the pews. And, I've been told by others that it IS
the catholic Bible and there is no other to be had. This confused me and
caused me to ask why it was that my friend's father has a leather catholic
bible, I called it an Adult's catholic bible, and was told there was no
sucjh thing. Okay, please tell me who's bible is it then? It has an
apocrypha, which I was also told made it very catholic. As a rude Jehovah's
Witness once told me when I asked why they didn't have "all" the bible books
in their Bible and was told, "Well. Then we'd be Catholic now, wouldn't we?"
So, based on everything I tried to find out about this Good News Bible,
everything I was told, even by catholics, is that it is a catholic bible.
So, please tell me who's bible it is. If it truly is not Catholic, then I
absolutely retract that the catholic religion ad libbed the word "animal".
The fact remains, however, that I must find the ones responsible for this
addition, because, regardless what people in general think, it DOES change
the meaningof the text, if you really know what that text is talking about,
which I do and can prove. It is an issue of great importance and needs to be
set straight. Please point me in the right direction that I may absolve the
catholic church of this blame, beause right now, it looks like the atholics
did this. You're telling me they didn't. I'm willing to believe you, if you
will tell me who's bible it really belongs to.
Thanks,
Hav'ah
Martyn Bevan wrote in message <7bsas3$qur$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Hav'ah
site after I post this reply to you. Thank you for helping me find the
peopple responsible for this error, as it DOES change the meaning,
especially when one comes to know that the passage is talking about the
birth of a human baby, which God had clothed with HUMAN skin - while still
in the womb (last organ to develop on the human is skin).
Martyn Bevan
Hav'ah wrote in message ...
>Well, Martyn, if it truly is NOT a Catholic Bible, then I must find out
>who's bible it is and approach them with this problem.<
Hava'ah,
The message from Serge will I'm sure be of help to you in tracking them
down.
I understand that it was produced by the "United Bible Societies". They are
a "world wide fellowship of national Bible Societies working in more than
180
countries. Their aim is to reach all people with the Bible or some part of
it, in a language they can understand" (quotation taken from the inside
cover of the "Good News Bible").
I don't know where the American Bible Society (which is a member) is based
but if it's any help the British Bible Society is based at Stonehill Green,
Westlea, Swindon. U.K. SN5 7DG
> I do apologize
>completely, <
No problem my friend, your good name is safe ! (at least as far as I'm
concerned anyway).
>but I did get it from a Catholic Church and it was the only
>bible that appeared in the pews. And, I've been told by others that it IS
>the catholic Bible and there is no other to be had. This confused me<
I'm sure it did, perhaps those who told you need to be shown their error.
>and
>caused me to ask why it was that my friend's father has a leather catholic
>bible, I called it an Adult's catholic bible, and was told there was no
>sucjh thing. Okay, please tell me who's bible is it then?<
It doesn't belong to any particular denomination it was undertaken as a
private translation by the "United Bible Societies".
It ought to be remembered that it does have some merit because it did reach
out to certain sections of society who found difficulty with the language
used by traditional versions which use a more ecclesiastic style of writing.
Serge has addressed the point about the Apocrypha so....<snip>
>So, based on everything I tried to find out about this Good News Bible,
>everything I was told, even by catholics, is that it is a catholic bible.
>So, please tell me who's bible it is.<
See above address
> If it truly is not Catholic, then I
>absolutely retract that the catholic religion ad libbed the word "animal".<
>The fact remains, however, that I must find the ones responsible for this
>addition, because, regardless what people in general think, it DOES change
>the meaningof the text, if you really know what that text is talking about,
>which I do and can prove. It is an issue of great importance and needs to
be
>set straight. Please point me in the right direction that I may absolve the
>catholic church of this blame, beause right now, it looks like the atholics
>did this. You're telling me they didn't. I'm willing to believe you, if you
>will tell me who's bible it really belongs to.<
See above info and address
It's time I think for me to let you get on with the main point of your post
now so I will butt out. But please try to remember that the Catholic Church
is not responsible for all the ills in creation, some yes, most maybe but
definitely not all.
God Bless
CAEL RHAD DUW, CAEL Y CYFAN
TO HAVE GOD'S BLESSING IS TO HAVE EVERYTHING
WELSH PROVERB
MARTYN
Hav'ah
after you informed me it is not catholic, and found a web site to help. I
then tried to track the location of the group who does the translation and
was told that they prefer to "remain anonymous". That really struck me as
odd. However, I have taken the address you've kindly provided and I will
write and tell them my concerns with this issue.
I do not uphold that all religions change everything. I do uphold, that all
religions change something, and sometimes that something should not have
been changed because it was just fine the way it was originally.
:-)
Hav'ah
Martyn Bevan wrote in message <7c3pp6$gaq$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...