S
Schabel
Guest
Nope, He wanted us to have 73 books. There’s one big mistake; you’ve taken away from the Bible.
- Status
M
METROLINK13
Guest
Are YOu Sure you fail to provide any back up for what you Say
How do you know Roman Catholicism didnt add more books? provide something instead of making claims
The nation of Israel treated the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books with respect, but never accepted them as true books of the Hebrew Bible. The early Christian church debated the status of the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals, but few early Christians believed they belonged in the canon of Scripture. The New Testament quotes from the Old Testament hundreds of times, but nowhere quotes or alludes to any of the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical books. Further, there are many proven errors and contradictions in the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals. Here are a few websites that demonstrate these errors:
justforcatholics.org/a109.htm
biblequery.org/Bible/BibleCanon/WhatAboutTheApocrypha.htm
johnankerberg.org/ankerberg-articles/apocrypha.html
The Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books teach many things that are not true and are not historically accurate. While many Catholics accepted the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals previously, the Roman Catholic Church officially added the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals to their Bible at the Council of Trent in the mid 1500’s A.D., primarily in response to the Protestant Reformation. The Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals support some of the things that the Roman Catholic Church believes and practices which are not in agreement with the Bible. Examples are praying for the dead, petitioning “saints” in Heaven for their prayers, worshipping angels, and “alms giving” atoning for sins. Some of what the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals say is true and correct. However, due to the historical and theological errors, the books must be viewed as fallible historical and religious documents, not as the inspired, authoritative Word of God.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
What about the Book of Wisdom - Paul’s favourite OT book? This book prophesies about the Messiah, and was accepted by Matthew’s church: ‘For if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him, and deliver him (cf. Mt 27, 43) from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forebearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected’ (Wisdom 2, 18-20). The infant Church certainly considered this book divinely inspired, although the Protestant reformers rejected it.
The Book of Tobit is also prophetic in nature and inspired by the Holy Spirit, for we find a divine confirmation given by an angel of God. The angel Raphael confirms Tobit in his mission, instructs him to write, and promises that God will be with him (cf. Tobit 6, 12-21). This surely smacks of Isaiah.
Protestant scholars have contended that the “Apochrypha” contain no Messianic truths. Besides the Book of Wisdom, these mistaken exegetes are also shown how wrong they are in 2 Maccabees 7, 12, 22: ‘One cannot but choose to die at the hands of men and to cherish the hope that God gives of being raised again by him. But for you there will be no resurrection to life.’ This verse is connected with a following verse that alludes to the Virgin Birth:’ I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you (The Word) life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you (the Hypostatic Union of two natures in Christ was effected by the power of the Holy Spirit.). Therefore, the creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again (Resurrection), since you now forget yourselves (Paul teaches that we are crucified with Christ by dying to our sinful selves.) for the sake of his laws.’
I’m afraid I don’t have the space to comment on the four other books erroneously rejected by the Protestant reformers. But I’d like to add that the Septuagint was compliled with both the Protocanonical and Deuterocanonical books together. So the Bible that most of the Jews possessed included all the OT books found in the Catholic Bible. Moreover, the Jews did not have a fixed canon for a long time after Christianity even started. The Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes had their own separate canon. The Alexandrian Jews had a canon which included the seven dueterocanonical books of the Catholic Bible, the Apocrypha of the Protestant Bible. The Septuagint was widely distributed and read by the Jews in Jerusalem in the first century. Of the Old Testament books retained in the Protestant Bible, a third of them are not quoted or even alluded to in the New Testament. But for this reason Protestants have rejected the seven Deuterocanonical books in the Catholic Bible.
Yet we have references to the Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament: Mt 2, 16 / Wis 11, 7; Mt 6, 19-20 / Sirach 29, 11; Mt 7,12 / Tobit 4, 15; Mt. 7, 16,20 / Sirach 27, 6; Mt 9, / Judith 11, 19; Mt 24, 15 / 1 Macc 1, 54, 2 Macc 8, 17; Mt 24, 16 / 1 Macc 2,28; Mt 27, 43 / Wis 2, 18; Mk 4, 5,16-17 / Sirach 40, 15; Mk 9, 48 / Judith 16, 17; Lk 1, 42 / Judith 13, 18; Lk 1, 52 / Sirach 10, 14; Lk 2, 29 / Tobit 11, 9; Lk 13, 29 / Baruch 4, 37; Lk 21, 24 / Sirach 28, 18; Lk 24, 4; Acts 1, 10 / 2 Macc 3, 26; Jn 1, 3 / Wis 9, 1; Jn 3, 13 / Baruch 3, 29; Jn 4, 48; Acts 5, 12; 15, 12; 2 Cor 12, 12 / Wis 8, 8; Jn 5, 18 / Wis 2, 16; Jn 6 35-59 / Sirach 24, 21; Jn 10, 22 / 1 Mac 4, 59; Jn 10, 36 / 1 Macc 4, 36; Jn 15, 6 / Wis 4, 5. It would appear that the four Evangelists referred to the Deuterocanonical books when interpreting Scripture in light of Apostolic Tradition, long before the Jewish canon of Scripture. So much for Sola Scriptura! :tiphat:Because of space constraints, I’ll be brief. There are three more references to the “apochryphal” books in Acts, seven references in Romans, six references in 1 Corinthians, three references in Ephesians, two references in 1 and 2 Timothy, 4 references in Hebrews, five references in James, three references in 1 and 2 Peter, and thirteen references in Revelation. The Council of Trent added nothing. :nope:
This is off-topic, so let’s end it hear in this thread.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
M
METROLINK13
Guest
**Then there’s the Mary of the Bible. **
For anyone who has an interest in learning the truth about Mary, the only trustworthy account is to be found in the Scriptures, where information is presented by those who knew her personally and, more importantly, whose writings were under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Fewer than 90 Bible verses address the life of Mary. In them we find a wonderfully humble servant of the Lord who rejoices in Him as her Savior (Lk 1:47 [1]). Obviously her heart was not “immaculate” nor was she conceived without sin because her Son, her Savior, came not for the sinless but “to seek and to save that which was lost” (Lk 19:10 [2]). The Catholic Church seems to be confused over this issue of Mary’s sinlessness because it considers her to be the woman of Revelation 12 [3], “clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.” This specific imagery is reflected on innumerable statues of Mary around the world. Yet the Bible says this woman gave birth in pain and travail (Rv 12:2), and pain and labor are part of God’s judgment on sinners (Gn 3:15-16).
So either the (recently beatified) “infallible” Pope Pius IX, who engineered her immaculate conception into Church dogma, was wrong about Mary’s sinlessness, or the “infallible” Pope Pius XII and numerous other Catholic theologians were wrong about Mary being the “woman” of Revelation 12:1-2 [4].
Mary’s ministry was simply the birth and nurturing of the child Jesus. Once He reached adulthood, she played no influential part in His earthly service. It’s at the wedding feast of Cana, which began the public ministry of Jesus, that her last words are recorded. Fittingly, she tells the servants, “Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it” (Jn 2:5 [5]). There is no doubt that she is exemplary among biblical saints as a model of obedience and submission to the will of God, especially in the appointment to which she was called. In keeping with the words of John the Baptist,
When you compare what the apparitions around the world say and do in claiming to be Mary, you get, to borrow a phrase, a Mary “quite contrary” to the one presented in Scripture. In subtle and sometimes not so subtle ways the apparitions are given to self-aggrandizement and self-promotion—all to the devaluation of Jesus—and their instructions are often antibiblical and anti-Christ. The “Mary” who spoke to Father Gobbi, the founder of the Marian Movement of more than 100,000 priests, declared, **“Each of My statues is a sign of a presence of Mine and reminds you of your heavenly Mother. Therefore it must be honored and put in places of greater veneration .”**8
Consider Our Lady of Fatima: **“Say the Rosary every day to obtain peace for the world…Pray, pray, a great deal, and make sacrifices for sinners, for many souls go to hell because they have no one to make sacrifices for them…God wishes to establish in the world the devotion to My immaculate heart. If people do what I tell you, many souls will be saved and there will be peace.”**9
This is not the humble and submissive Mary of the Bible. The rosary invokes prayers to Mary ten times for every one for the Lord; [SIGN]Jesus is the Prince of Peace; only Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice saves souls from hell[/SIGN];
The Apostle Peter, a contemporary of Mary and regarded by Catholics as the first pope, wrote nothing about her. The Apostle Paul, through the Holy Spirit, gave more specific instruction in living the Christian life than any other writer in the Bible, yet made no mention of the alleged importance of devotions or reparations to Mary. In contrast to the apparitional Mary who claims to have been “conceived without sin,” Paul called himself “the chief of sinners,” yet God made him the most productive figure of the New Testament after Christ. The Apostle John, who wrote the last book of the Bible and was given the care of Mary by Jesus himself, says nothing about venerating her.
For anyone who has an interest in learning the truth about Mary, the only trustworthy account is to be found in the Scriptures, where information is presented by those who knew her personally and, more importantly, whose writings were under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Fewer than 90 Bible verses address the life of Mary. In them we find a wonderfully humble servant of the Lord who rejoices in Him as her Savior (Lk 1:47 [1]). Obviously her heart was not “immaculate” nor was she conceived without sin because her Son, her Savior, came not for the sinless but “to seek and to save that which was lost” (Lk 19:10 [2]). The Catholic Church seems to be confused over this issue of Mary’s sinlessness because it considers her to be the woman of Revelation 12 [3], “clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.” This specific imagery is reflected on innumerable statues of Mary around the world. Yet the Bible says this woman gave birth in pain and travail (Rv 12:2), and pain and labor are part of God’s judgment on sinners (Gn 3:15-16).
So either the (recently beatified) “infallible” Pope Pius IX, who engineered her immaculate conception into Church dogma, was wrong about Mary’s sinlessness, or the “infallible” Pope Pius XII and numerous other Catholic theologians were wrong about Mary being the “woman” of Revelation 12:1-2 [4].Mary’s ministry was simply the birth and nurturing of the child Jesus. Once He reached adulthood, she played no influential part in His earthly service. It’s at the wedding feast of Cana, which began the public ministry of Jesus, that her last words are recorded. Fittingly, she tells the servants, “Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it” (Jn 2:5 [5]). There is no doubt that she is exemplary among biblical saints as a model of obedience and submission to the will of God, especially in the appointment to which she was called. In keeping with the words of John the Baptist,
Search the Scriptures as you will and you will find no leadership role for Mary among the Apostles. She taught no doctrine. We never hear of the Apostles seeking her out for counsel. Other than the gospels, Mary is mentioned only once in the New Testament, where the Book of Acts tells us of her simple participation in a prayer meeting along with her sons. The teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin is also contradicted by many other verses (Mt 12:46; Mk 6:3 [7]; Jn 7:3,5 [8]; 1 Cor 9:5 [9]; Gal 1:19 [10]; Ps 69:8 [11]; etc.).
When you compare what the apparitions around the world say and do in claiming to be Mary, you get, to borrow a phrase, a Mary “quite contrary” to the one presented in Scripture. In subtle and sometimes not so subtle ways the apparitions are given to self-aggrandizement and self-promotion—all to the devaluation of Jesus—and their instructions are often antibiblical and anti-Christ. The “Mary” who spoke to Father Gobbi, the founder of the Marian Movement of more than 100,000 priests, declared, **“Each of My statues is a sign of a presence of Mine and reminds you of your heavenly Mother. Therefore it must be honored and put in places of greater veneration .”**8
Consider Our Lady of Fatima: **“Say the Rosary every day to obtain peace for the world…Pray, pray, a great deal, and make sacrifices for sinners, for many souls go to hell because they have no one to make sacrifices for them…God wishes to establish in the world the devotion to My immaculate heart. If people do what I tell you, many souls will be saved and there will be peace.”**9
This is not the humble and submissive Mary of the Bible. The rosary invokes prayers to Mary ten times for every one for the Lord; [SIGN]Jesus is the Prince of Peace; only Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice saves souls from hell[/SIGN];
The Apostle Peter, a contemporary of Mary and regarded by Catholics as the first pope, wrote nothing about her. The Apostle Paul, through the Holy Spirit, gave more specific instruction in living the Christian life than any other writer in the Bible, yet made no mention of the alleged importance of devotions or reparations to Mary. In contrast to the apparitional Mary who claims to have been “conceived without sin,” Paul called himself “the chief of sinners,” yet God made him the most productive figure of the New Testament after Christ. The Apostle John, who wrote the last book of the Bible and was given the care of Mary by Jesus himself, says nothing about venerating her.
J
juliamajor
Guest
Wow-you really don’t know anything about the deuteros.The reformers removed the texts- we added nothing.the texts were part of The Septuagint the Septuagint was the text the Church used.The book of sirach was so popular it was called"the Church Book " in early Christianity. instead of reading Propaganda read history. it will get you to a way better appreciation(which is actually growing in the Protestant community)Reformers removed them because they didn’t gel with their theology- not the opposite. And besides if the Church added The Deuteros at Trent how come the Orthodox have basically the same canon we have -even though we divided a good 500yrs earlier?
Historical errors- you got them in the OT. also. Daniel and Baruch apparently made the same historical boo- boo- Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchanezzar- he wasn’t-he was the son of Nabonidus-ooops -I guess that makes Daniel uncanonical!!Esther - lots of historical boo boos. Ecclessiastes, canticle of canticles - of dubious theology- even the rabbis saw a real problem with them.As far as the theology in Deuteros just because they aren’t in your canon doesn’t make them uncanonical.the implication being perhaps your theology is incorrect. Problem with the Kethuvim(writings) is that most of that wasn’t settled in canon until in the 100’s A.D. By then christianity was a real threat and by then Christians had used the Deuteros for awhile and much of a political and religious bias came into play.Why would Rabbis want books in their bible that were popular in the burgeoning Church.?Plus writings were picked so the difference between judaism and christianity would be more obvious to Gentiles(they didn’t get the dfference-(christianity was thought to be a sect like Essenes) I teach The Deuteros in my bible class and have found my students deeply appreciative of these works that really shine a light on the Intertestamental period that leads up to beginnings of christianity.They are invaluable to biblical scholars and are used persistently in commentaries.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Metrolink, that’s a wonderful job of cutting and pasting that you did. I applaud you. You may want to start giving credit to the author of that in the future.
But since you are such an expert, did the Gebira have any real power in ancient Israel.
Yes or no?
But since you are such an expert, did the Gebira have any real power in ancient Israel.
Yes or no?
M
METROLINK13
Guest
Yet we have references to the Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament: Mt 2, 16 / Wis 11, 7; Mt 6, 19-20 / Sirach 29, 11; Mt 7,12 / Tobit 4, 15; Mt. 7, 16,20 / Sirach 27, 6; Mt 9, / Judith 11, 19; Mt 24, 15 / 1 Macc 1, 54, 2 Macc 8, 17; Mt 24, 16 / 1 Macc 2,28; Mt 27, 43 / Wis 2, 18; Mk 4, 5,16-17 / Sirach 40, 15; Mk 9, 48 / Judith 16, 17; Lk 1, 42 / Judith 13, 18; Lk 1, 52 / Sirach 10, 14; Lk 2, 29 / Tobit 11, 9; Lk 13, 29 / Baruch 4, 37; Lk 21, 24 / Sirach 28, 18; Lk 24, 4; Acts 1, 10 / 2 Macc 3, 26; Jn 1, 3 / Wis 9, 1; Jn 3, 13 / Baruch 3, 29; Jn 4, 48; Acts 5, 12; 15, 12; 2 Cor 12, 12 / Wis 8, 8; Jn 5, 18 / Wis 2, 16; Jn 6 35-59 / Sirach 24, 21; Jn 10, 22 / 1 Mac 4, 59; Jn 10, 36 / 1 Macc 4, 36; Jn 15, 6 / Wis 4, 5. It would appear that the four Evangelists referred to the Deuterocanonical books when interpreting Scripture in light of Apostolic Tradition, long before the Jewish canon of Scripture. So much for Sola Scriptura! This is off-topic, so let’s end it hear in this thread.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
The writers of the Gospels quote from the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament) hundreds of times. The writers of the Gospels do not quote from the Deuterocanonical books even once. In the references you gave, few of them are even remotely similar. The few that are similar, studied in context, are not related to each other at all. It is clear that the human authors of the New Testament regarded the Deuterocanonical books differently from the Old Testament. Your argument is invalid, and is completely irrelevant to the concept of Sola Scriptura.
yes this is off topic but the bible says in **1 Peter 3:15 **But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you in meekness and fear.
2 Timothy 2:25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,
God Bless
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
The writers of the Gospels quote from the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament) hundreds of times. The writers of the Gospels do not quote from the Deuterocanonical books even once. In the references you gave, few of them are even remotely similar. The few that are similar, studied in context, are not related to each other at all. It is clear that the human authors of the New Testament regarded the Deuterocanonical books differently from the Old Testament. Your argument is invalid, and is completely irrelevant to the concept of Sola Scriptura.
yes this is off topic but the bible says in **1 Peter 3:15 **But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you in meekness and fear.
2 Timothy 2:25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,
God Bless
N
NotWorthy
Guest
OK, Metrolinks. You want context?
How about Judith. I worked this up one time for our class at Church.
How does it fit the context?
Just as Israel’s enemy will be defeated by a weapon brought forth by Judith, Satan (mankind’s enemy) will be defeated by a more powerful weapon brought forth by Mary (Jesus).
How about Judith. I worked this up one time for our class at Church.
Here , we have a quote that points forward to Luke 1:42, *“Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.” *
How does it fit the context?
Just as Israel’s enemy will be defeated by a weapon brought forth by Judith, Satan (mankind’s enemy) will be defeated by a more powerful weapon brought forth by Mary (Jesus).
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Incidentally, for all you “Mary Fans”, The Book of Judges has a similar incident that points us toward Mary (and both Judith and Judges points us back to Genesis 3:15, but that’s another thread).
G
Good_Fella
Guest
I wonder if you ever even examined these verses carefully at all. Your unqualified remarks make it appear so. Allow me to provide you a few examples by citation:
Do to no one that you yourself dislike. {Tobit 4, 15}
“Do to others whatever you would have them do to you.” {Mt 7,12}
Jesus Christ himself is quoting Tobit on the Golden Rule
The fruit of a tree shows the care it has had; so too does a man’s speech disclose the bent of his mind. {Sirach 27, 6}
“By their fruits you will no them…Every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit.” {Mt 7, 16-17, 20}
Jesus is citing Sirach. One must be wary of the speeches of false prophets. False men speak lies.
For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. {Wisdom 2, 18}
“He trusted in God; let him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, 'I am the Son of God.” {Mt 27, 43}
Our Lord’s enemies mocked Jesus with the assumption that God would save a just son of his from his adversaries.
He will send fire and worms into their flesh, and they shall burn and suffer forever.
{Judith 16, 17; cf. Isaiah 66, 24}
"Better for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes be thrown into Gehenna, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched. {Mk 9, 48}
Jesus alludes to the description of hell where the worm does not die and the fire is never extinguished with reference to Judith and Isaiah.
What do the Gospels say about the Blessed Virgin Mary with references to the Deuterocanonical Books? (On-topic
)Then Uzziah said to her: "Blessed are you, daughter, by the Most High God, above all the women on earth; and blessed be the Lord God, the creator of heaven and earth, who guided your blow at the head of the chief of our enemies (cf. Gen 3, 15). {Judith 13, 18}
Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the friut of your womb (the Lord God). {Lk 1, 42}
The parallel between Uzziah’s declaration and Elizabeth’s is very clear. Luke does refer to the Book of Judith, which also alludes to Genesis 3, 15. :yup:
The thrones of the arrogant God overturns and establishes the lowly in their stead.
{Sirach 10, 14}
“He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones and has lifted up the lowly.” {Lk 1, 52}
Mary’s Magnificat follows Sirach 10, 14-18.
God of my fathers, Lord of mercy, you have made all things by your word. {Wisdom 9, 1}
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be.
{Jn 1 1-3}
John drew on Wisdom and Proverbs in his prologue.
He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father. {Wisdom 2, 16}
For this reason the Jews tried all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath (judging the scribes and Pharisees as debased) but he also called God his own father, making himself equal to God. {Jn 5, 18}
John acquired much understanding of the Messiah by referring to Wisdom. All four evangelists wrote their gospels with occasional reference to the Deuterocanonical Books before they were omitted from the Hebrew canon after the first century. The apostles obviously believed these books were divinely inspired, although the Protestant reformers disagreed 1500 years later outside the Church.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
S
Schabel
Guest
Whew, there are MANY reasons I know this.
I just (well, a couple of months ago) finished reading Gary Michuta’s book Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger. You should read it; it’s complete, balanced, and historically sound.
How about these:
cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009sbs.asp
scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.htm
and of course, Mark Shea’s classic 5 myths about 7 books
First, this isn’t exactly true. They were accepted by many factions of the Jews. And many factions didn’t accept most of the protocanon, either. For instance, the Sadducees only accepted the Penteteuch.
Second, in what way do you consider the Jewish determination, especially after the condemnation of Christ, to be authoritative?
Really? It’s funny, but Gary M.'s book says differently. Do you have anything to back this up? "you fail to provide any back up for what you Say "
You’re quite wrong, as others have pointed out, and as some of my linked articles will attest to in excruciating detail.
However, what makes THIS a criterion for canonicity?
You DO know that many protocanonical books are not quoted in the NT as well, don’t you?
(Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum)
Will you now remove these books from your bible?
Hmmm … very similar to the lists of “errors” in the protocanon that are posted on athiest websites, I see.
Interesting that you would believe such a thing, when Luther redily admits to removing these books.
Also interesting is that the canon of the bible was decided authoritatively by the Councils of Hippo, Rome, and Carthage in the late 300s, and ratified by Pope Damasus in 382.
YES, and that’s why the “reformers” removed these books from the bible. In fact, Luther attempted to remove NT books, too, for the same reason.
Now that you know that you’ve been lied to by your sources, don’t you think you should explore this yourself?
G
guanophore
Guest
There is nothing in any of these passages that would indicate these are not Joseph’s sons from another marriage before Mary, and scripture clearly states that some of these brethren are the children of Mary the wife of Alphaeus/Clopas who may be the sister of Joseph, or the wife of a brother of the Virgin.
Catholic doctrine is true because it comes to us from the Apostles. Are you really thinking that those who walked with Him did not know if Mary had other children? The HS has made it clear that Mary is ever virgin. Perhaps you do not accept the Sacred Tradition of the Church as coming from the HS. You are trying to understand scripture but you have separated it from it’s context, the Catholic Church.
G
guanophore
Guest
Sorry, metrolink, but this does not work either. Not all the original manuscripts were written in Greek. The best translations we have happen to be in Greek, but that is not a good reason to base doctrine on them. The doctrine of Christianity comes from Jesus and the Apostles, not the NT.
G
guanophore
Guest
The Holy Writings are what is God-Breathed. this means the original autographs, not our translations. None of the origninals exist.
I don’t know where you are getting your information, but if you copy and paste here at CAF, you are supposed to cite your source. Also, this is erroneous. Inspiration does not mean “complete message”. this statement comes from a Sola Scriptura error.
Reformers took out some of the inspired texts, and 66 is not a complete number. Furhtermore, none of the writings we now have are in the original inspired language.
Right! That is one reason we cannot base our doctrine on the translated language only.
Yes, and this is Catholic history.
There is really no way to know if it has changed, since we don’t have the originals, but we believe by faith that God is able to watch over HIs Word to perform it.
This is important, and is relevant to the fact that you are trying to impose your modern understanding of “brother” into the text.
I think you need some study in reformed theology, and how the reformers wanted to change the books of the bible and the wording to make it sound less “Catholic”.
The Bible was never intended to be separated from the Sacred Tradition from whence it came.
G
guanophore
Guest
I think you are ripe for some study of your family history. Maybe you should take this discussion to a thread on the canon?
Are you copying again without references? This is considered plagiarism. Catholics don’t go by what those did who rejected Christ. Jesus and His apostles quoted from the Septuagint, which contained the deuteros.
This is a baseless and erroneous assertion. Try to prove that!
This is just a blatant falsehood. I am not accusing you of it, because I think you got it from somewhere else. Your source is misleading you.
Thank you for citing the source of the anti-Catholic drivel.
This is another blatant falsehood, as history will easily demonstrate.
Catholics don’t worship anyone but God, and all these other Catholic practices are in the scripture, and practiced by the Apostles.
M
METROLINK13
Guest
The short answer is “no” and that the Catholic Church errs in its interpretation here concerning Zech 12:10.Please go back to Zechariah 12, 10: Jesus was “an only son” and “firstborn” (consecrated to God) of the Virgin Mary. The prophet refutes the Protestant scholars who ineptly dabble in Greek and Hebrew linguistics.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
This Messianic prophecy deals with a time in the future (70 AD) when Israel will recognize that Jesus was (and is) her promised Messiah and when they realize that they crucified Him (“He came to His own, but His own recieved Him not”) they will mourn in the same way as one would “mourn for an only son.”
“Only son” in Hebrew means a place a pre-eminence. When God said to Abraham in Genesis 22:2 “Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac…” we know that Abraham had another son, Ishmael. But Isaac was the son of promise, and in God’s eyes he was the “only son.” AMEN
gotquestions.org/Jesus-siblings.htm:thumbsup:
G
Good_Fella
Guest
The Lord’s messenger said to her: “You are now pregnant and shall bear a son; you shall name him Ishmael, For the Lord has heard you, God has answered you. He shall be a wild mule of a man, his hand against everyone, and everyone’s hand against him; In opposition to all his kin shall he encamp.”The short answer is “no” and that the Catholic Church errs in its interpretation here concerning Zech 12:10.
This Messianic prophecy deals with a time in the future (70 AD) when Israel will recognize that Jesus was (and is) her promised Messiah and when they realize that they crucified Him (“He came to His own, but His own recieved Him not”) they will mourn in the same way as one would “mourn for an only son.”
“Only son” in Hebrew means a place a pre-eminence. When God said to Abraham in Genesis 22:2 “Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac…” we know that Abraham had another son, Ishmael. But Isaac was the son of promise, and in God’s eyes he was the “only son.” AMEN
{Genesis 16, 11-12}
Sarah noticed the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham playing with her son Isaac; so she demanded of Abraham: Drive out that slave and her son!" No son of that slave is going to share the inheritance with my son Isaac!" Abraham was greatly distressed, especially on account of his son Ishmael. But God said to Abraham: “Do not be distressed about the boy or about your slave woman. Heed the demands of Sarah, no matter what she is asking of you; for it is through Isaac that descendants shall bear your name.” {Genesis 21, 9-12}
Ishmael was the offspring of Hagar, Sarah’s maidservant, who was permitted by Abraham’s wife to be his concubine and bear him children in her stead because she was barren. Afterwards, Sarah demanded that Hagar and her son be expelled, for she felt he was not a legitimate child of her husband entitled to an inheritance with their son Isaac - their only child. ( Abraham married Keturah after Sarah died, his second wife, who bore six sons. But this is irrelevant.) So when God spoke to Abraham, he had only one legitimate son with him. Isaac was his “solitary” son, which is consistent with the Hebrew word ‘yahid’ - “only son”. The phrase “whom you love” further defines the meaning of “only son”. Isaac was the preferred beloved son of promise through whom God had promised to bless all the people of the earth (Genesis 12, 3; 22, 18). The Hebrew term ‘yahid’ for “only-begotten son” describes Abraham’s only legitimate child, Isaac, who was miraculously born of a sterile woman, Sarah. Indeed, the term also means that Isaac was unique, one of a kind, with no chance of being replaced. In this sense Isaac was the most precious, being Sarah’s only miraculous child. Zechariah is strictly concerned with Mary, a mother, although I question whether the prophet fully understood what he was saying. For God speaks to us through the prophets, whose words are realized after the foretold event by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit through Christ’s One Apostolic Catholic Church.
Sarah’s only appearance in the reading of the liturgy for masses in honour of Mary, the Mother of our Lord, is in the mass called The Blessed Virgin Mary, Chosen Daughter of Israel. Reference to Sarah points to Mary’s continuity in the New Covenant with the great Matriarch of Israel, Sarah, who through faith overcame barenness. Mary also conceived and bore a child miraculously because of her faith in God (Genesis 18, 14; Luke 1 35, 37-38). The point is, we have to consider the mother, not the father, in our reading of Zechariah. Sarah prefigures Mary, although the Blessed Virgin is also a type of Abraham. Luke draws out a few parallels between her and the patriarch. Like Abraham, Mary found favour with God (Genesis 18, 3; Luke 1, 30); she is a source of blessing for all nations and is blessed by them ( Genesis 12, 3; 18, 8; 22, 18; Luke 1, 42, 48); like Abraham, Mary is praised for her faith in the promise that she would give birth to a child miraculously ( Genesis 15, 16; Luke 1, 45).
In any event, Ishmael was the son of Hagar, the maidservant of Sarah, and Abraham’s concubine, born of the flesh and in bondage, to be expelled because he was an illegitimate child. Isaac, on the other hand, was born of the free woman, Sarah, the wife of Abraham, a legitimate child and only son of Sarah and Abraham (Mary and the Holy Spirit), who was rightfully entitled to his inheritance - a great nation. Both sons were of Abraham’s seed, but Ishmael was born of natural law, while Isaac was born by the grace of God. The Almighty granted both Sarah and Mary an only son by the power of the Holy Spirit. Sarah miraculously conceived and bore Isaac - her only son - who became the promised father of a great nation - Israel. Likewise, Mary, the “free spouse” of the Holy Spirit, who was free of any subjection to sin (Jn 8, 34) and a virgin by choice because of her love of God, miraculously conceived and bore her only son, Jesus, prefigured by Isaac, who is the “firstborn among many brethren” (Rom 8, 29). Zechariah foretold that Jesus would be an only son just as Isaac was the only son of Sarah. The difference is that Jesus was legitimate, unlike Ishmael, but nonetheless rejected (expelled) by his own people. Everyone’s hand was against Him.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
M
METROLINK13
Guest
The point is this, concerning Zechariah 12:10 which You say this verse clearly states thatThe Lord’s messenger said to her: "You are now pregnant and shall bear a son …unlike Ishmael, but nonetheless rejected (expelled) by his own people. Everyone’s hand was against Him.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
Now I don’t see that lets examine the verse again …Zech 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they(Israel) shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for [his] only [son], and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [his] firstborn. this verse is only describing the type of pain they/Isreal/the Jews would be in when they realize they rejected the messiah; and of course its prophetic message not to be forgotten but in no way does it imply that Jesus was an only son it says “…Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.” for example " He cried like a baby" from this sentence if i were to go ahead and say He was a baby. it would be an unproven fact to say the least the verse only says how he cried like a baby, it does not however say he was a baby.
same goes for Zech 12:10 it does not however say he was an only son just states how the Jews will mourn and they will mourn like if they had lost their only son, I have a son i dont ever want to experience mourning for him to be brief a horrible feeling.
And Gen 22:2 is good to show that not just because someone is referred to as an only son does it mean that they didnt have brothers or sisters, and yes Ishmael was not nearly as important as Isaac but he indeed was his brother from another mother in contrast James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas were definitely not nearly as important as Jesus but indeed they were his brothers from another father.
all that stuff you wrote about sarai’s similarities to mary are not giving any specific message it seems like a desperate measure to prove something thats not there we can’t force beliefs on scripture because we want to prove mary was a perpetual virgin.
God Bless you though.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
It is rather disgraceful of you to bless me in God’s name while changing a quote of mine and presenting it as an actual quote in your last reply, #236. This is how you quote me: “Jesus was an only son and firstborn consecrated to the Virgin Mary.” This is a deliberate distortion on your part, unless you were drinking, to try to discredit me. This is what I actually wrote in Reply #217, which you accurately quoted in your reply #234: “Jesus was an only son and firstborn (consecrated to God) of the Virgin Mary.” I am aware that a firstborn was consecrated to God, not to the mother of the child. May I ask why you misquoted me in such a distorted way?
Concerning Zechariah 12:10, there are two points of time reference: past and future. The past refers to Isaac, a type of Christ to be sacrificed by the Father, but who was spared because the true sacrifice would be accomplished by Christ in accord with the will of his heavenly Father. Isaac ( a type of Christ) was the only son of Israel’s Matriarch, Sarah ( a type of Mary, who is the Matriarch or Mother of the Church, the new Israel). Both sons were an only child - precious and loved as gracious gifts from God through the Holy Spirit - of the two great Matriarchs of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The future point of reference in the prophecy is primarily the time of the crucifixion of Christ (who was pierced by a spear while on the Cross) and the time of the Second Coming of Christ, when the Jews will finally realise that they killed their expected and beloved Messiah. The Jews will grieve and mourn over what they did to their Messiah at the time of the Apocalypse. In John 3, 16 we read: “God so loved the world that he gave his ‘only-begotten son’ (yahid).” The Hebrew term has more than one shade of meaning. It can mean “only” and by implication “beloved”: “This is my beloved (and only-begotten) son in whom I am well pleased” (Mt 3, 17). (Please see ‘The Strong’s Concordance of the Bible: Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary’, p.49, James Strong: 1980.) Abraham could very well have said the same thing about his son Isaac at the altar of the holocaust, the only son between the patriarch and matriarch of Israel. In fact, an only child is precious in a special way. Don’t try to tell us that God has more than one Son. Prophecies generally have more than one kind of meaning or perspective attached to them, and they must be taken in context with Scripture as a whole from Genesis to Revelation, unless you’re Jewish before Christ’s return. From the time of the apostles in Acts, the Church has interpreted the Old Testament in light of Sacred Tradition.
So it is irrelevant whether Ishmael was Abraham’s son. For the child was not the most beloved of all of Abraham’s children, including those borne by Keturah, his second wife. Ishmael was born of an Egyptian maidservant and concubine of Abraham, whereas Isaac, a prefigurement of Christ, was the only-begotten son of Abraham and his wife Sarah. We must take only Isaac into account when reading Zechariah. Only Muslims consider Ishmael a legitimate son of Abraham. They consider him the true son of promise fulfilled in the prophet Mohammad.
James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas have no connection with Zechariah’s prophecy or Abraham for that matter, since Isaac had no rivals that were borne by Sarah.Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
G
guanophore
Guest
I agree that scripture cannot “prove” the Marian doctrines. The only reason we can see these in scriputre is looking through the eyes of Sacred Tradition.
- Status