M
martino
Guest
Alan, give us a scenario where love and faith would be at odds. This is the part that now has me confused I guess.
- Status
M
mark_a
Guest
Great point. Just remember that:
- this forum is not the Church
- many of us have similar issues, it’s not possible to be a perfect Catholic. Just look at the way the Jesuits and Franciscans talk about each other.
- posts about unresponsive, neglectful, uncaring, (or whatever) Church leadership is only one side of the story.
J
JimG
Guest
Is this thread really about annulments?
If so, then keep in mind that while love is primary, it does not change reality.
If so, then keep in mind that while love is primary, it does not change reality.
- A marriage was and is either valid from the beginning or not. * * Jesus taught that divorce is not acceptable and so the church cannot teach otherwise.
- One cannot be married to more than one person.
- The marriage tribunal is the church’s process for determining whether or not a marriage was null and void from the outset.
- Forgiveness is always possible. But forgiveness can’t undo a valid marriage.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
mark a:
I understand your point that this forum is not the Church, and that we haven’t heard from Church leadership on their side of any given story. Some of the things posted obviously could have another point of view. Some of them contain enough information that I don’t know how there can be another side unless they are outright lies. In some of those cases I have followed up with PM’s to the point that they are either sincere or good enough to fool me.
That said, I find that the general presumption is that no matter what anybody says, the Church is right and her actions are justified. Even when a person is not “blaming” the Church but describes a difficult situation and is asking for help, a common reply seems to be to acknowledge the situation is bad, but then to make sure the person knows the trouble is their own fault. This, in turn, makes the original poster defensive and then the responses become more offensive to compensate. I’ve seen this happen on several threads.
Alan
Dear mark a,
I understand your point that this forum is not the Church, and that we haven’t heard from Church leadership on their side of any given story. Some of the things posted obviously could have another point of view. Some of them contain enough information that I don’t know how there can be another side unless they are outright lies. In some of those cases I have followed up with PM’s to the point that they are either sincere or good enough to fool me.
That said, I find that the general presumption is that no matter what anybody says, the Church is right and her actions are justified. Even when a person is not “blaming” the Church but describes a difficult situation and is asking for help, a common reply seems to be to acknowledge the situation is bad, but then to make sure the person knows the trouble is their own fault. This, in turn, makes the original poster defensive and then the responses become more offensive to compensate. I’ve seen this happen on several threads.
Alan
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Dear Jim G,
There was a thread about an annulment situation that helped precipitate this thread, but I was trying to generalize it to a philosophical point I was trying to make about what I have seen about apologetic responses to situations, and possibly about the Church in general. I have a number of stories of my own, based on first hand information when I was very active in Church leadership, but unfortunately I am not at liberty to disclose them publicly and won’t be any time soon, so I can’t use them as examples. (Maybe I could come in under a better disguised screen name?)
Now that you mention it, I can think of a way for love to change “reality” as you’ve described it regarding an annulment. This may seem a little silly because it may sound like a stretch, but certainly no more of a stretch than getting “infallibility” out of “keys” and certainly not impossible for God. It also may not reflect the scenario previously under discussion.
When Jesus taught about divorce, he said that if a man divorces his wife and marries another, except for marital infidelity, he commits adultery against her. If both parties remarry, they both are committing adultery against the other, giving each other valid grounds for a real divorce. Now, Jesus saved the adultress from being stoned, and refused to condemn her even though as far as we know she never asked for forgiveness. He told her to go in peace and to sin no more. Well, in this hypothetical case, as soon as they are both remarried, their divorce is valid and no annulment is necessary. Bada boom, bada bing. Tribunal can go home and we can welcome the stray sheep back into the fold. Unfortunately, the Church doesn’t believe in divorce even though Jesus gave an exception, so we’ll have to change our outlook on that.
I have no doubt that a team of lawyers can use a complicated set of rules in many ways to either make it difficult or simple to get a stray sheep back into the fold. If they are good shepherds, they will find a way to put the sheep on their shoulders and carry it back if at all possible, rather than trying to make a lame sheep dance for readmission.
Oh, and I thank you and others for staying with me this long and keeping this discussion going. Whether or not you agree with me, it is helping me sort out my own beliefs and is of great benefit.
Alan
B
bear06
Guest
Alan,
What did Christ say about what would happen when he left us on earth?
You can’t seem to fathom that if the Church were not always right in her teachings on Faith and Morals whether spoken infallibly or not that Christ must’ve not kept his promise. If you were correct in your assumption that the Church is not infallible in Faith and Morals then we are left to wander this earth not knowing what is really from God and what is not. It certainly wouldn’t be the One, True Church if its teachings could lead people astray.
You might want to read Paul’s letters to Timothy. It talks much about faith and love together and the safeguarding of the transmission of the Faith.
What did Christ say about what would happen when he left us on earth?
You can’t seem to fathom that if the Church were not always right in her teachings on Faith and Morals whether spoken infallibly or not that Christ must’ve not kept his promise. If you were correct in your assumption that the Church is not infallible in Faith and Morals then we are left to wander this earth not knowing what is really from God and what is not. It certainly wouldn’t be the One, True Church if its teachings could lead people astray.
You might want to read Paul’s letters to Timothy. It talks much about faith and love together and the safeguarding of the transmission of the Faith.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Dear bear06,
Thank you for the reply.
What did Christ say about what would happen when he left us on earth? Do you mean…
John 14:26:
If so, then what do you mean to suggest? Doesn’t the Spirit live in each one of us? If so, then maybe a person who is educated in theology might be more able to discern the Spirit, but does that make him infallible where the rest of us are not? I have no status in the Church, so I am one of the little ones, am I not? I have also been called “childish” on this forum…
Matt 11:25:
Luke 10:21:
Why is it so impossible that my opinion is automatically wrong unless it agrees with the wise and learned Bible scholars?
You are right that I still do not get how the Church’s being fallible would automatically mean we have no guidance. Don’t we all have the holy Spirit? Why can’t the Church spend a little of the effort it expends on legalistics and spend more time on teaching about how to allow the Holy Spirit in. For example, contemplative prayer?
By the way, I reviewed the issue about Jesus leaving one exception to divorce, in just the passage Matt 5:31-32. In the NAB, it says “unless the marriage was unlawful” so it’s kind of vague. In 19 out of 19 other versions I checked, including the KJV, the exception was still for marital infidelity or other sexual wrongs. See them at:biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=matt+5%3A31-32&search=&version=ALL&language=english&optional.x=0&optional.y=0
I admit this is the first time I noticed the difference in the NAB version, so I’m not quite sure what to make of it. Perhaps other Catholic versions have it differently. My point was that if Jesus specifically gave an exception to the ban on divorce, why does the Church fail to acknowledge it?
CCC 2382:
Things like this are among the many reason I keep second-guessing Church teachings.
Thank you again, and I will go reread the letters to Timothy.
Alan
F
francisca
Guest
Alan Wichita,
Our love for God should be stronger than our love for our son/ daugher, and all things. So Abraham did the right thing when he chose to follow whatever God told him to.
Abraham is justified because He believed God. Not because he loved.
See, that God is the giver of life. He can restore life. But do you believe Him ?
Because if a man love his son more than his faith to God, he might betray God for his son. Suppose his son is a thief, but because he love his son more than God, he would give false evidence to the court for that kind of love is nothing but selfishness. This is not the great love God is talking about.
To truly love, man has to trust and hope in God (faith). Man has to believe that God loves him first.
Love is greater than faith and hope because GOD IS LOVE. So don’t wory if your faith is small, because God’s love is great. He is faithful and will not betray you no matter what. But do you believe such LOVE ?
Our love for God should be stronger than our love for our son/ daugher, and all things. So Abraham did the right thing when he chose to follow whatever God told him to.
Abraham is justified because He believed God. Not because he loved.
See, that God is the giver of life. He can restore life. But do you believe Him ?
Because if a man love his son more than his faith to God, he might betray God for his son. Suppose his son is a thief, but because he love his son more than God, he would give false evidence to the court for that kind of love is nothing but selfishness. This is not the great love God is talking about.
To truly love, man has to trust and hope in God (faith). Man has to believe that God loves him first.
Far away from the Church teaching. Ritual cleansing? Until the sheep dances the right tune ??? Cmon…
Our love is small and conditional. Love that is greater than our faith is God’s Love for us. Jesus said “There is no greater love than this, that a man die for his friends” (to save them). This is God’s love.
Love is greater than faith and hope because GOD IS LOVE. So don’t wory if your faith is small, because God’s love is great. He is faithful and will not betray you no matter what. But do you believe such LOVE ?
F
fix
Guest
That does not mean we each can infallibly interpret the Spirit.
Where is the Church legalistic?
The Church has always taught the Jesus was referring to issues of an invalid marriage.
J
JimG
Guest
Alan, I didn’t quite follow your reasoning in the case where you said that no annulment would be necessary, but I’m not expert in canon law on marriage, and I’m sure that there may be such cases. Something like the Pauline privelige comes to mind.
My own impression is that most tribunals in the U.S. go the extra mile to help applicants whenever possible, but I’ve had no personal experience with them.
Having worked in a bureaucracy myself, though not a church bureaucracy, I understand that there is always a tendency to go by the letter of the law even when a view of the larger picture would show it to be counterproductive. I’ve seen cases in which people following the minutiae of the regulations actually defeat the intent of the initial legislation. So I’m sure that can happen in church bureaucracies too.
When it comes to marriage, a great part of the problem in our current society seems to be that many people (at least initially) treat marriage as if it were nothing; while the church treats every marriage as if it were valid, binding, and permanent (as it is required to do.)
People then become upset when what to them was a trifle long ago dispensed with is treated so seriously by the church.
But the church must treat marriage seriously. It is probably the last remaining institution in todays world that does so.
My own impression is that most tribunals in the U.S. go the extra mile to help applicants whenever possible, but I’ve had no personal experience with them.
Having worked in a bureaucracy myself, though not a church bureaucracy, I understand that there is always a tendency to go by the letter of the law even when a view of the larger picture would show it to be counterproductive. I’ve seen cases in which people following the minutiae of the regulations actually defeat the intent of the initial legislation. So I’m sure that can happen in church bureaucracies too.
When it comes to marriage, a great part of the problem in our current society seems to be that many people (at least initially) treat marriage as if it were nothing; while the church treats every marriage as if it were valid, binding, and permanent (as it is required to do.)
People then become upset when what to them was a trifle long ago dispensed with is treated so seriously by the church.
But the church must treat marriage seriously. It is probably the last remaining institution in todays world that does so.
V
_veritas
Guest
I just would like to point out, as one of the Church Fathers taught (can’t remember which… Augustine?), that love is the “greatest” of the three virtues quite simply because it is only love that remains for all eternity!
Faith, the belief in something without actually “knowing” it, will no longer be necessary after death, because we will see God! It will be knowledge of God, not faith in God, that remains.
Hope, the belief that better things will come in the future, is also irrelevent after death. Whether heaven or hell, there is no more “hope” after death–either eternal bliss or eternal hellfire.
Love – now “God is love” and love remains throughout eternity, and in fact, becomes far far stronger in heaven than it could possibly be on earth! “God is love” – not “God is faith” or “God is hope”. Therefore, love *is *the highest, the most noble, the most beautiful of the virtues. BUT while we are on earth, Faith and Hope are just as necessary as love. Christ, both Himself by personal graces, and through the ministry of His Church (and her teachings and “rules” that you dislike) supply us with the means necessary to live out lives with all three virtues. Every Christian, in fact, is called to a life of holiness – a life of faith, hope and yes, love.
Thus, you can have seemingly conflicting Biblical passages, from Jesus Himself as well as from St. Paul etc.
Remember – the Catholic Church is a church of both/and teachings and perspectives – not necessarily “either/or.” (Both God and man. Both virgin and mother.) Many things that people have difficulty with about the Church are difficult because they see things as being in conflict; they see them as being mutally exclusive. Whenever you find yourself going “impossible” about the Catholic Church, look again with that in mind. To understand what the Church teaches, you have to look with the eyes of both faith and reason. Not just faith, and not just reason. BOTH/AND.
Also, regarding your confusion about Jesus descending “to hell” in the Apostle’s Creed: Church teaching agrees with what someone else pointed out, namely, that in this instance, the Church has always considered that Jesus descended more precisely “to the dead” (as is still said in many translations of the Apostle’s creed today), which is different from the eternal hellfire. As Dante showed so splendidly in his work “The Divine Comedy”, Jesus entered into the place where the “righteous ones” were sent to await the coming of the Messiah on earth. Thus, he “descended into hell/to the dead)”
All the Old Testament prophets, all the righteous pagans (Plato perhaps) and Gentiles, all the faithful Jews throughout history to that point, were in this place. It was not hell, it was not a place/state of punishment per se. It was simply “waiting” (as it is outside of time, this cannot be explained very well by us… I hope this gives you an idea of what is meant though).
I suppose you could relate this to the teaching of Purgatory, though it is unclear whether or not “purging” was a big part of this – they would be required to “wait”, not necessarily because of any sin they committed. So Purgatory is not a precise comparison. Same kind of thought though.
On a side note, as someone else’s signature says, St. Thomas Aquinas has a nice quote for us all to ponder – “Lord, in my love for the Truth, let me not forget the truth about Love”
+veritas+
Faith, the belief in something without actually “knowing” it, will no longer be necessary after death, because we will see God! It will be knowledge of God, not faith in God, that remains.
Hope, the belief that better things will come in the future, is also irrelevent after death. Whether heaven or hell, there is no more “hope” after death–either eternal bliss or eternal hellfire.
Love – now “God is love” and love remains throughout eternity, and in fact, becomes far far stronger in heaven than it could possibly be on earth! “God is love” – not “God is faith” or “God is hope”. Therefore, love *is *the highest, the most noble, the most beautiful of the virtues. BUT while we are on earth, Faith and Hope are just as necessary as love. Christ, both Himself by personal graces, and through the ministry of His Church (and her teachings and “rules” that you dislike) supply us with the means necessary to live out lives with all three virtues. Every Christian, in fact, is called to a life of holiness – a life of faith, hope and yes, love.
Thus, you can have seemingly conflicting Biblical passages, from Jesus Himself as well as from St. Paul etc.
Remember – the Catholic Church is a church of both/and teachings and perspectives – not necessarily “either/or.” (Both God and man. Both virgin and mother.) Many things that people have difficulty with about the Church are difficult because they see things as being in conflict; they see them as being mutally exclusive. Whenever you find yourself going “impossible” about the Catholic Church, look again with that in mind. To understand what the Church teaches, you have to look with the eyes of both faith and reason. Not just faith, and not just reason. BOTH/AND.
Also, regarding your confusion about Jesus descending “to hell” in the Apostle’s Creed: Church teaching agrees with what someone else pointed out, namely, that in this instance, the Church has always considered that Jesus descended more precisely “to the dead” (as is still said in many translations of the Apostle’s creed today), which is different from the eternal hellfire. As Dante showed so splendidly in his work “The Divine Comedy”, Jesus entered into the place where the “righteous ones” were sent to await the coming of the Messiah on earth. Thus, he “descended into hell/to the dead)”
All the Old Testament prophets, all the righteous pagans (Plato perhaps) and Gentiles, all the faithful Jews throughout history to that point, were in this place. It was not hell, it was not a place/state of punishment per se. It was simply “waiting” (as it is outside of time, this cannot be explained very well by us… I hope this gives you an idea of what is meant though).
I suppose you could relate this to the teaching of Purgatory, though it is unclear whether or not “purging” was a big part of this – they would be required to “wait”, not necessarily because of any sin they committed. So Purgatory is not a precise comparison. Same kind of thought though.
On a side note, as someone else’s signature says, St. Thomas Aquinas has a nice quote for us all to ponder – “Lord, in my love for the Truth, let me not forget the truth about Love”
+veritas+
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
+veritas+:
That is an interesting theory. If true, I wish Paul had been more clear about their being equal while on earth. It seemed to me he was pretty emphatic about one’s ability to have great faith to move mountains, and yet be nothing without love. Again, even giving away everything one owns without love is nothing.
This is exactly the kind of thing that makes me second guess everything the Church says. At any given moment, she may or may not mean what she says so you have to go through some bizarre gyrations to figure out what she supposedly meant. Is it any wonder I am confused?
Thank you for helping to clear up that “hell” thing.
Alan
Dear veritas,
That is an interesting theory. If true, I wish Paul had been more clear about their being equal while on earth. It seemed to me he was pretty emphatic about one’s ability to have great faith to move mountains, and yet be nothing without love. Again, even giving away everything one owns without love is nothing.
I’m not going to disagree with you, and unfortunately I have not seen the Divine Comedy. If Jesus did not descend into hell, then the Church needs to revise the Apostle’s Creed. I was taught the Apostle’s creed when I received my first communion over 35 years ago, and if it is wrong the Church has had plenty of time to fix it. I thought that when we professed a “creed” that meant that actually believed what we were saying, but apparently not even the Creed is without convoluted interpretations. Now my own children are learning it in school, and you’re telling me that it contains mistruths?
This is exactly the kind of thing that makes me second guess everything the Church says. At any given moment, she may or may not mean what she says so you have to go through some bizarre gyrations to figure out what she supposedly meant. Is it any wonder I am confused?
Thank you for helping to clear up that “hell” thing.
Alan
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I was not trying to find a way using canon law, because I know almost nothing about it. What I was trying to suggest is that the Church has a teaching on divorce that seems to be more strict than what Jesus taught. In 19 out of 20 Bible versions, Jesus allows divorce for sexual transgressions by the spouse. In the NAB, it simply makes vague reference to the marriage not being valid. I don’t know what was actually written way back when, nor do I know those languages. I have to wonder, however, why it is that so many versions, including KJV, specifically refer to sexual sins as reason for divorce and yet the Catholic Church does not accept that reason. Jesus made a habit of loosing sinners who were lawfully condemned, but here we are binding certain divorcees who are not held bound by Jesus. That’s where I wonder if we have strayed away from the “love” concept toward the “legalistic” side.
It can and does happen in the Church, at least at the parish and diocesan level. I’ve personally gotten beaten up for trying to work within channels and within my alleged authority, to do something about it. Worse yet is when the letter of the law contradicts itself. When I see this stuff flowing upwards and downwards between the parish and diocese it’s hard to believe it doesn’t happen at other levels. Disclaimer for those who have figured out who I am: the issues I’m bringing forth are based on my experiences before the current pastor was in place, and when I was raising them I did them with full knowledge and consent of the pastor then in place.
I have no disagreement with you, philosophically.
Alan
V
_veritas
Guest
It seems to me that many of your issues with the Church have to do with semantics, equivocation, and definition. You seem to be seeking to find out what the “real” meaning was of the words, and are confused by the apparent variations in “interpretation” and meaning by specific passages. (Please know that I am not trying to criticize you, it is an understandable position, and my father is much the same way)
Because of this, I might suggest that you look more closely into studying the original, or at least oldest, languages of the Bible – Greek, primarily.
The website www.greekbible.com is a great resource to discover the Bible in its original and/or earliest translated langauge. Using this resource is slightly tricky, your best bet is to have your English Bible right in front of you when you look up a specific passage. This is because the passge will display in Greek only–you translate individual words by clicking once on them. The various possible translations then pops up.
In this way, you can work your way through a passage word by word, seeing all the various translations of the word. (You quickly realize just how monumental the undertaking of translating is!)
This is as “raw” (so-to-speak) as the data gets… and is not for the timid. I think you will quickly realize how necessary an authority such as the Church is, with her understanding of Christ Himself from farther back than these texts themselves, for true interpretation of Scripture.
+veritas+
Because of this, I might suggest that you look more closely into studying the original, or at least oldest, languages of the Bible – Greek, primarily.
The website www.greekbible.com is a great resource to discover the Bible in its original and/or earliest translated langauge. Using this resource is slightly tricky, your best bet is to have your English Bible right in front of you when you look up a specific passage. This is because the passge will display in Greek only–you translate individual words by clicking once on them. The various possible translations then pops up.
In this way, you can work your way through a passage word by word, seeing all the various translations of the word. (You quickly realize just how monumental the undertaking of translating is!)
This is as “raw” (so-to-speak) as the data gets… and is not for the timid. I think you will quickly realize how necessary an authority such as the Church is, with her understanding of Christ Himself from farther back than these texts themselves, for true interpretation of Scripture.
+veritas+
J
JimG
Guest
There is one other caution that we have to observe as posters on a public forum, when people in effect “bring” their marriage cases to us.
That is that we can only know what the poster says. We have no (name removed by moderator)ut from any other parties, including any member of the church staff or marriage tribunal, who would be prohibited from revealing anything anyway.
So with the limited, and necessarily one-sided information presented in a public forum, it is nearly impossible to give any useful opinions, no matter how supportive we wish to be. People with marriage problems should really be encouraged to visit with a priest they trust or to communicate with the tribunal directly.
That is that we can only know what the poster says. We have no (name removed by moderator)ut from any other parties, including any member of the church staff or marriage tribunal, who would be prohibited from revealing anything anyway.
So with the limited, and necessarily one-sided information presented in a public forum, it is nearly impossible to give any useful opinions, no matter how supportive we wish to be. People with marriage problems should really be encouraged to visit with a priest they trust or to communicate with the tribunal directly.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
+veritas+:
That is too cool!
Alan
Hey, thanks, veritas!
That is too cool!
Alan
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Dear JimG,
You have a good point. Anyone who takes things said on this forum as a definitive answer from the Church seriously needs to understand what you are saying. If adults bring their problems to this forum, they should know they are getting advice from non-professionals, and maybe even people hostile to the Church. It works both ways. Anyone who asks any question or poses a scenario either hypothetical or ostensibly real, could be just jerking our chains.
Either way, they are good scenarios for us to discuss our different approaches to how to apply Christ’s love and truth to specific situations. Rather than keep this discussion abstract, I offer you such a scenario that I think shows people who, as far as I know in good faith, are defending the Church at the expense of a member who has sinned but now is trying to get back in. This is the “annulment” thread that partly encouraged me to start this thread. Not as a condemnation, but as an example of what I am talking about, please note that some posters have decided that this woman should have been banned. They may or may not be right, and from a “legal” viewpoint they may or may not be justified, but this woman was very dedicated to the Church and now she’s out, trying to get back in and is asking for advice. The most recent advice she got was that the Church was right to kick her out. For gosh sakes, why even offer an opinion?
The thread is long. Page 1 is at:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=13709&page=1&pp=100
page2:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=13709&page=2&pp=100
Alan
S
Steven_Merten
Guest
+veritas+:
I recieved an advertisement in the mail for a Greek Hebrew bible on disk. I was very excited and thought that this would be a great study tool. Then I read a little further and it said Greek Hebrew bible on disk, King James Verson. I thought what would I want with a Greek Hebrew bible on disk that had been translated from the King James Bible. Is the Greek Hebrew site you talk about from the original texts of the bible?
Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com
Hello veritas,
I recieved an advertisement in the mail for a Greek Hebrew bible on disk. I was very excited and thought that this would be a great study tool. Then I read a little further and it said Greek Hebrew bible on disk, King James Verson. I thought what would I want with a Greek Hebrew bible on disk that had been translated from the King James Bible. Is the Greek Hebrew site you talk about from the original texts of the bible?
Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com
V
_veritas
Guest
Steven Merten:
I know that is ambigious… but that’s the way the cookie crumbles when you are talking about bits of ancient writing.
First, it depends on what you mean by original texts. We have no “one” orginal Greek-language Bible. Instead, we have numerous copies, some whole and others only fragments, of the originals, of varying age. Some seem to be copies from as early as the 100s or 200s, but they are still copies.
Then, these are copies that are not exact copies (they were hand-copied after all) – and very little to go on as to which one is “most” accurate. (for example, in two different texts you might have two different Greek words used in a verse that mean similar things–but not the same word. Which is either the original word, or the closest to the original meaning?)
What all of this means is that over the centuries you have various edited compilations of “complete” Greek Bibles, synthesising the various books, pieces, fragments, and versions that you have in front of you into one “whole” Bible. As time develops, more fragments are discovered (the Dead Sea Scrolls being an example) and then the compilations that come after these discoveries incorporate these new findings.
So what does this mean practically speaking? It means there is more than one Greek Bible out there, and the different Greek Bibles have the potential to be slightly different in their content. You might go, well what’s the point then? Why use a Greek Bible as opposed to a Bible in my language?
Well, remember, the difference is that these Bibles are NOT “translated” Bibles – the language and text they are using (no matter what compilation) is as original as we can have. It just varies as to their choice of which copy/version of text to use. There is, believe it or not, very little variation when it comes right down to it, simply because most Greek Bible compilers have the same understanding as to which copies are most “probably” correct (ie, if you have 10 copies of the Gospel of Mark, and 8 of them have one word, and the other two have a different word, and the 8 are older than the other 2, chances are good–not for sure–that the 8 are more correct than the other 2 in that particular verse. This is simplifying the criteria used, but you get the idea). So with Greek Bible compilations, everyone is almost on the same page – far more so than you have with the actual Bible translations which attempt to change the words into a different language.
What your Bible seller was describing was probably that they have on CD the Greek Bible compilation that was used by the *translators *of the King James Bible … at least that is my guess (and hope?)
The www.greekbible.com website uses two sources for its Greek text of the Bible, one is a German group and the other is the United Bible Societies (an ecumenical group) based out of England, but which includes Catholics and Orthodox in its mission. (This is the website that was used by my New Testament professor last semester. According to him it is the best one to use first, as it lists more of the possible meanings for each of the Greek words.)
If you go to www.earlychristianwritings.com, for each book there are links to multiple Greek resources and texts/translations. There, you can find other Greek Bibles online if you really get stuck on a verse and want to compare one Greek Bible to another.
+veritas+
Sort of.
I know that is ambigious… but that’s the way the cookie crumbles when you are talking about bits of ancient writing.First, it depends on what you mean by original texts. We have no “one” orginal Greek-language Bible. Instead, we have numerous copies, some whole and others only fragments, of the originals, of varying age. Some seem to be copies from as early as the 100s or 200s, but they are still copies.
Then, these are copies that are not exact copies (they were hand-copied after all) – and very little to go on as to which one is “most” accurate. (for example, in two different texts you might have two different Greek words used in a verse that mean similar things–but not the same word. Which is either the original word, or the closest to the original meaning?)
What all of this means is that over the centuries you have various edited compilations of “complete” Greek Bibles, synthesising the various books, pieces, fragments, and versions that you have in front of you into one “whole” Bible. As time develops, more fragments are discovered (the Dead Sea Scrolls being an example) and then the compilations that come after these discoveries incorporate these new findings.
So what does this mean practically speaking? It means there is more than one Greek Bible out there, and the different Greek Bibles have the potential to be slightly different in their content. You might go, well what’s the point then? Why use a Greek Bible as opposed to a Bible in my language?
Well, remember, the difference is that these Bibles are NOT “translated” Bibles – the language and text they are using (no matter what compilation) is as original as we can have. It just varies as to their choice of which copy/version of text to use. There is, believe it or not, very little variation when it comes right down to it, simply because most Greek Bible compilers have the same understanding as to which copies are most “probably” correct (ie, if you have 10 copies of the Gospel of Mark, and 8 of them have one word, and the other two have a different word, and the 8 are older than the other 2, chances are good–not for sure–that the 8 are more correct than the other 2 in that particular verse. This is simplifying the criteria used, but you get the idea). So with Greek Bible compilations, everyone is almost on the same page – far more so than you have with the actual Bible translations which attempt to change the words into a different language.
What your Bible seller was describing was probably that they have on CD the Greek Bible compilation that was used by the *translators *of the King James Bible … at least that is my guess (and hope?)
The www.greekbible.com website uses two sources for its Greek text of the Bible, one is a German group and the other is the United Bible Societies (an ecumenical group) based out of England, but which includes Catholics and Orthodox in its mission. (This is the website that was used by my New Testament professor last semester. According to him it is the best one to use first, as it lists more of the possible meanings for each of the Greek words.)
If you go to www.earlychristianwritings.com, for each book there are links to multiple Greek resources and texts/translations. There, you can find other Greek Bibles online if you really get stuck on a verse and want to compare one Greek Bible to another.
+veritas+
P
Pax
Guest
Alan,
The discussion of the text in Matthew 5:32 concerning divorce because of sexual sin needs some additional perspective. Please note that each of the synoptic gospels were written to different audiences. For example Matthew was written primarily to the Jews while Mark was written to gentiles. As a result, they have some differences. It is noteworthy that Mark’s gospel when quoting Jesus on divorce does not include the exception for divorce due to unchastity or sexual sin. There is a reason that this difference exists.
Scripture is a “high context” set of documents. If we take Mark’s gospel we come to the conclusion that there is no exception and divorce is always forbidden. If we read Matthew we know there is an exception. Matthew included the exception because of Jewish understandings at the time of Jesus. If a women was involved in illicit sexual activity during the bethrothal period or returned to such activity after being married the Jews saw this as a reason for divorce. Jesus recognizes this situation for what it is, and some translations of Matthew’s gospel give recognition to it as well. The following translations should make this clear:
– Young’s Bible
Matthew 5:32 but I say to you, that whoever may put away his wife, save for the matter of whoredom, doth make her to commit adultery; and whoever may marry her who hath been put away doth commit adultery.
– New Jerusalem with Apocrypha
Matthew 5:32 But I say this to you, everyone who divorces his wife, except for the case of an illicit marriage, makes her an adulteress; and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
The Church recognizes the Jewish context of Matthew’s gospel and also sees the importance of no exceptions from Mark’s gospel. A marriage is either valid or invalid depending on the disposition and intent of the marital partners. The Church has been generous in granting annulments when the data supports them. The Church will appear less than generous when someone wants and believes they deserve an annulment but fails to get one.
Feelings influence our perspective and this can be difficult for people. The Church is not unsympathetic, but the Church cannot undo a valid marriage.
I hope this helps.
The discussion of the text in Matthew 5:32 concerning divorce because of sexual sin needs some additional perspective. Please note that each of the synoptic gospels were written to different audiences. For example Matthew was written primarily to the Jews while Mark was written to gentiles. As a result, they have some differences. It is noteworthy that Mark’s gospel when quoting Jesus on divorce does not include the exception for divorce due to unchastity or sexual sin. There is a reason that this difference exists.
Scripture is a “high context” set of documents. If we take Mark’s gospel we come to the conclusion that there is no exception and divorce is always forbidden. If we read Matthew we know there is an exception. Matthew included the exception because of Jewish understandings at the time of Jesus. If a women was involved in illicit sexual activity during the bethrothal period or returned to such activity after being married the Jews saw this as a reason for divorce. Jesus recognizes this situation for what it is, and some translations of Matthew’s gospel give recognition to it as well. The following translations should make this clear:
– Young’s Bible
Matthew 5:32 but I say to you, that whoever may put away his wife, save for the matter of whoredom, doth make her to commit adultery; and whoever may marry her who hath been put away doth commit adultery.
– New Jerusalem with Apocrypha
Matthew 5:32 But I say this to you, everyone who divorces his wife, except for the case of an illicit marriage, makes her an adulteress; and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
The Church recognizes the Jewish context of Matthew’s gospel and also sees the importance of no exceptions from Mark’s gospel. A marriage is either valid or invalid depending on the disposition and intent of the marital partners. The Church has been generous in granting annulments when the data supports them. The Church will appear less than generous when someone wants and believes they deserve an annulment but fails to get one.
Feelings influence our perspective and this can be difficult for people. The Church is not unsympathetic, but the Church cannot undo a valid marriage.
I hope this helps.
- Status