Roman Catholic and The Bible.

[RND]

What is it that we should focus on, the virgin or the son?

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

"The Scriptures indeed is a divine book but it is a dead letter, which has to be explained, and cannot exercise the action which the preacher can obtain." Our Priesthood, by Rev. Joseph Bruneau, S.D.D., p 155, B. Herder Company, 1911 ("nihil obstat" by M.F. Dinneen, S.S.,D.D. -Censor deputatus, "imprimatur" by James Cardinal Gibbons -Archbishop of Baltimore, "Re-Imprimatur" by Michael J. Curley -Archbishop of Baltimore).

"We confess that the Holy Scripture is imperfect, and a dead letter, until it is explained by the Supreme Pontiff, and allowed by him to be read by the laity." Roman Catholic Confessions for Protestants Oath, Article XXI, (Confessio Romano-Catholica in Hungaria Evangelicis publice praescripta te proposita, editi a Streitwolf), as recorded in Congressional Record of the U.S.A., House Bill 1523, Contested election case of Eugene C. Bonniwell, against Thos. S. Butler, Feb. 15, 1913.

"The belief in the Bible as the sole source of faith is unhistorical, illogical, fatal to the virtue of faith, and destructive of unity." The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIII, "Protestantism", Section III A - Sola Scriptura ("Bible Alone"), Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1912 by Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor, Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm

"The [first] objective [or formal] principle (of Protestantism) proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same, in distinction from the Roman Catholic view, which declares the Bible and tradition to be co-ordinate sources and rule of faith, and makes tradition, especially the decrees of popes and councils, the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible." The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIII, "Protestantism", Section I, 1 - Sola Scriptura ("Bible Alone"), Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1912 by Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor, Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm"

"The task of interpreting authentically the Word of God has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church." Vatican Council II, "Dei Verbum," ch. 2:10; ed. Fr. Austin Flannery, OP, Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Co., 1975, p. 755, (quoted in The Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 4: "The Book of Christians", Chapter 3: "True Faith Can Be Found Only in the Catholic Church").

[Jill]

.

[popeman]

Hello Karen,

Sorry I was gone but I was trying to save the world. Yep, I failed. I also thought that an Evangelical Protestant may question my Isaiah 7:14 thread and not an LDS Protestant. In reality, I rarely have problems with my LDS friends but those Evangelicals…wow, more than the wrath of God from them.

Why Isaiah 7:14? Well, Protestants are often on the bow of their ships telling the world “We have the true Scriptures. The inerrant Word-of-God. Not like Catholics who added Scripture to justify their doctrine”. Well, again going into a little history points to something less than truthful about Protestant Scripture and Isaiah 7:14 is a huge one (and supported with a variety of other verses, but I will stick to this one for now).

Isaiah 7:14 is Jewish Old Testament and naturally the New Testament makes up the basic Christian Bible. Unfortunately, disagreement starts with Catholics who state that 7 books and several other sections have been removed from the Bible due to the Protestant Reformation and disagreement with Catholic Christian doctrine. Catholics will historically look back to support the Bible with the Septuagint, the Jewish Greek OT Scriptures. Protestants will cite that they use only the Hebrew OT because it does not have the additional books/sections, ie, the assumption is pure and unadulterated.

The problem comes back to Isaiah 7:14 (Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel) and indirectly Karen got it without really knowing it. Karen cited two translations of this verse. One states that a “virgin” shall bring God amongst us and the other states that a “young woman” will do so. Well, Jews do not believe that a “virgin” will bring God amongst us, but a “young woman”. In Hebrew there are two very distinctive words for Virgin and Young Woman, betulah and almah, respectfully, leaving no room for grammatical /interpretative error. That is why in OT Isaiah 7:14 Jewish Hebrew Scripture (that which Protestants hang their hat on) you will never find the word “virgin”. Jewish scholars actually state that this Christian belief in a virgin is Greek mythology and they support it with Greek literature where Gods come to earth often through a virgin. Therefore, Hebrew Jews state that Greek Jews (outside Israel / Palestine where there were now more Jews than in their own country) were influenced wrongly by Greek mythology.

Unfortunately, a “virgin birth” of Jesus is monumentally pivotal doctrine to every Christian, Protestant and Catholic. During the Reformation this left Protestant scholars in a quagmire of theological/Scriptural honestly causing them to create a “hybrid” OT Bible. Yes, Protestants agree with the Hebrew text for most of everything except the part where there is no virgin birth, but they do like it that the virgin birth that is found in the Catholic Septuagint and not the Hebrew text. Protestants can not except the whole Septuagint because then many Catholic Christian doctrinal truths would have to be revisited, ie, Purgatory. So what do they do?

Easy. Protestants took take a part of the Hebrew OT text and a smidge of the Catholic OT text and they created their own “hybrid” OT with the appearance of a pseudo-Hebrew origin, yet it now still has a “virgin” birth that is critical to Christian doctrine.

That’s terrific. Now, Protestants today cry out “See! We have the true, inspired Word-of-God Bible. It was the Catholics that added books to the Bible. Did we change the Bible? Oh no, we simply corrected both the Jews and the Catholics incorrect thinking”! So, see Tom. That is why I questioned your sanity to attempt more threads when even historical/scriptural fact gets pushed aside for “their” interpretation. Oh oh, I see another argument coming on. Does anyone have that true NT Church that we see in Acts 15/Matt 18 that we can go visit so we can get a mandated judgment on this issue, too? That Church has be there somewhere because scripture also tells us that this Church is forever, always truthful and completely visible. Shavua Tov, Popeman

[RND]

Isaiah 7:14 is Jewish Old Testament and naturally the New Testament makes up the basic Christian Bible. Unfortunately, disagreement starts with Catholics who state that 7 books and several other sections have been removed from the Bible due to the Protestant Reformation and disagreement with Catholic Christian doctrine.

Jerome rejected the Apocrypha as non-canonical.

Catholics will historically look back to support the Bible with the Septuagint, the Jewish Greek OT Scriptures. Protestants will cite that they use only the Hebrew OT because it does not have the additional books/sections, ie, the assumption is pure and unadulterated.

That's true. The Tanakh scrolls never contained the apocrypha.

The problem comes back to Isaiah 7:14 (Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel) and indirectly Karen got it without really knowing it. Karen cited two translations of this verse. One states that a “virgin” shall bring God amongst us and the other states that a “young woman” will do so. Well, Jews do not believe that a “virgin” will bring God amongst us, but a “young woman”. In Hebrew there are two very distinctive words for Virgin and Young Woman, betulah and almah, respectfully, leaving no room for grammatical /interpretative error. That is why in OT Isaiah 7:14 Jewish Hebrew Scripture (that which Protestants hang their hat on) you will never find the word “virgin”. Jewish scholars actually state that this Christian belief in a virgin is Greek mythology and they support it with Greek literature where Gods come to earth often through a virgin. Therefore, Hebrew Jews state that Greek Jews (outside Israel / Palestine where there were now more Jews than in their own country) were influenced wrongly by Greek mythology.

Umm, that was my observation regarding Is 7:14. The Hebrew word `almah is used in Isaiah 7 bthuwlah is not. Yet, it is inconceivable to think that recognizing the proper use of a Hebrew word would indicate Protestants in general deny the virgin birth. That's called inflammatory.

Unfortunately, a “virgin birth” of Jesus is monumentally pivotal doctrine to every Christian, Protestant and Catholic. During the Reformation this left Protestant scholars in a quagmire of theological/Scriptural honestly causing them to create a “hybrid” OT Bible. Yes, Protestants agree with the Hebrew text for most of everything except the part where there is no virgin birth, but they do like it that the virgin birth that is found in the Catholic Septuagint and not the Hebrew text. Protestants can not except the whole Septuagint because then many Catholic Christian doctrinal truths would have to be revisited, ie, Purgatory. So what do they do?

And yet it is the "sabbath" that was really the Reformations Achilles Heel when it came to "sola scriptura." Not Marianisms. "Catholic Septuagint?" Were there even catholics around in 3BC when it was written?

"They [the Catholics] allege the change of the Sabbath into the Lord's day, as it seemeth, to the Decalogue; and they have no example more in their mouths than the change of the Sabbath. They will needs have the Church's power to be very great, because it hath dispensed with a precept of the Decalogue."--The Augsburg Confession, 1530 AD. (Lutheran), part 2, art. 7, in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, fourth edition, vol. 3, p. 64 [this important statement was made only thirteen years after Luther nailed his theses to the door and began the Reformation].

"The Scripture teaches: Remember that you sanctify the Sabbath day; you will labor six days and do all your work, but on the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God, etc., etc.; nevertheless the church has changed the Sabbath to the Lord's day by its own authority, concerning which you have no Scripture."--John Eck, 1533 AD., Enchiridion Locorum, et al. (Handbook of Common places Against the Lutherans), pp. 4-5. [John Eck (1486-1543), professor of theology at lngolstadt, was the outstanding Roman Catholic opponent of Martin Luther in debates and assemblies during Luther's lifetime].

When the Reformation presented an open Bible to the world, the Church of Rome needed something to withstand it. The Council of Trent was convened for this purpose (1545-1563), and it was not until their last session that they struck on the solution--to officially declare Tradition (what the Church says) to be greater than Scripture. And we are told that the fact that the Catholic Church had earlier changed Sabbath to Sunday--was the truth that convinced them that they had a right to vote this in: "Finally at their last opening on the 18th of January 1563, their last scruple was laid aside. The Archbishop of Reggio made a speech in which he openly declared that tradition stood above the Scriptures. The authority of the Church could therefore no longer be bound to the authority of the Scriptures--because the Church had changed Sabbath into Sunday--not by the command of Christ, but by its own authority. With this, to be sure, the last illusion [of Scriptural authority] was destroyed."--Heinrich Julius Holtzman, Kanon und Tradition (Scripture and Tradition), 1859 ed., p. 263 [In the discussion following his speech, it was officially stated "For this reason [the change of the Sabbath to Sunday], we have the right to bind the conscience of the people by tradition as well as Scripture. It [the change of the Sabbath] is the evidence, the mark, the sign of our authority in religious things." Holtzmann (1832-1910), the author of the above statement, was a respected theology professor at several German universities].

Easy. Protestants took take a part of the Hebrew OT text and a smidge of the Catholic OT text and they created their own “hybrid” OT with the appearance of a pseudo-Hebrew origin, yet it now still has a “virgin” birth that is critical to Christian doctrine.

That's funny. No shred a proof mind you, but funny none the less. There were no "Catholics" in the days when the Hebrew Torah was first translated into Greek.

That’s terrific. Now, Protestants today cry out “See! We have the true, inspired Word-of-God Bible. It was the Catholics that added books to the Bible. Did we change the Bible? Oh no, we simply corrected both the Jews and the Catholics incorrect thinking”!

Adding non-canonical books is certainly adding, I'll give you that.

So, see Tom. That is why I questioned your sanity to attempt more threads when even historical/scriptural fact gets pushed aside for “their” interpretation. Oh oh, I see another argument coming on. Does anyone have that true NT Church that we see in Acts 15/Matt 18 that we can go visit so we can get a mandated judgment on this issue, too? That Church has be there somewhere because scripture also tells us that this Church is forever, always truthful and completely visible. Shavua Tov, Popeman

Acts 15 and Matt 18? Is that the same church that graduated in to lighting the funeral pyres and torturing confession from "heretics?" I must have missed that commandment from Jesus when He said, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."

[RND]

Popeman, why do you get so angry with people that disagree with you regarding Catholicism? I mean honestly, if you are convinced of your beliefs, and you believe in all your heart that your belief system is rooted on truth, why would you get angry or even care what others think?

That just strikes me as odd.

[smcllr3]

Hello Karen,

Sorry I was gone but I was trying to save the world. Yep, I failed. I also thought that an Evangelical Protestant may question my Isaiah 7:14 thread and not an LDS Protestant. In reality, I rarely have problems with my LDS friends but those Evangelicals…wow, more than the wrath of God from them.

That's because neither you or your Mormon friends have trouble when a man or group of men tell you to believe contrary to the Bible. You see, when you gather around you teachers that tell you what you want to hear in order to tickle your ears, you have the tendency to mandate that that group of people is the Acts 15 Church, making the Word of God void.

Why Isaiah 7:14? Well, Protestants are often on the bow of their ships telling the world “We have the true Scriptures. The inerrant Word-of-God. Not like Catholics who added Scripture to justify their doctrine”. Well, again going into a little history points to something less than truthful about Protestant Scripture and Isaiah 7:14 is a huge one (and supported with a variety of other verses, but I will stick to this one for now).

Well that's pretty conceited. I don't feel I need to make everyone look wrong in order to sound right. Do you really think that the first thing Evangelical Christians feel they need to do is discredit the RCC before they start preaching their view? Trust me *Popeman* (edited by poster), the RCC is usually a very small bump in the road of evangelism. It sounds like you have to discredit Evangelicalism in order to make your doctrines seem right. Good luck with all that.

Isaiah 7:14 is Jewish Old Testament and naturally the New Testament makes up the basic Christian Bible. Unfortunately, disagreement starts with Catholics who state that 7 books and several other sections have been removed from the Bible due to the Protestant Reformation and disagreement with Catholic Christian doctrine. Catholics will historically look back to support the Bible with the Septuagint, the Jewish Greek OT Scriptures. Protestants will cite that they use only the Hebrew OT because it does not have the additional books/sections, ie, the assumption is pure and unadulterated.

Straw Man #1: Now *Popeman* (edited by poster), you know the Catholics don't except all the books in the Septuagint. That's a horrible attempt to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. So if Catholics along with Evangelicals don't except all of the Septuagint, then what do you suppose is the method of deciding what is canonical and what isn't? I know the answer and you know the answer mandated by the RCC. Now if we took this to the Church that you thought was the Acts 15 Church, I'd be wrong. If I took it to the Church that I thought was the Acts 15 Church, you'd be wrong. We could flip a coin but we run the risk of both being wrong. You could spout off that your Church has been here the longest and I could say that actually mine has and that there was just a long period of time that your Church was killing off my Church and that because my Church was unwilling to disobey our Lord and fight back and that because history is written by the victors, my Church doesn't have the prominent history that yours has; but we would still not have the answer as to what is canonical.

I think the best way is to believe in Jesus and also to those whom he has sent. Luke, for example says, "Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?" Now that makes me not really care what Isaiah 7:14 says when considering the virgin birth because the NT says Mary was a virgin no matter what Isaiah says. So it looks like my method of deciding what is canonical is not leaning on the Hebrew as much as you would like it to in order to prove your point. Too bad.

Unfortunately, a “virgin birth” of Jesus is monumentally pivotal doctrine to every Christian, Protestant and Catholic. During the Reformation this left Protestant scholars in a quagmire of theological/Scriptural honestly causing them to create a “hybrid” OT Bible. Yes, Protestants agree with the Hebrew text for most of everything except the part where there is no virgin birth, but they do like it that the virgin birth that is found in the Catholic Septuagint and not the Hebrew text. Protestants can not except the whole Septuagint because then many Catholic Christian doctrinal truths would have to be revisited, ie, Purgatory. So what do they do?

Easy. Protestants took take a part of the Hebrew OT text and a smidge of the Catholic OT text and they created their own “hybrid” OT with the appearance of a pseudo-Hebrew origin, yet it now still has a “virgin” birth that is critical to Christian doctrine.

Straw man #2: Actually Purgatory is all that you have that you think should be revisited. I've visited enough. And *Popeman* (edited by poster), my Bibles are an NKJV and an NASB. Now the history behind those don't go back to the reformation and both have foot notes that tell me the differences in the Greek and Hebrew texts and all the differences are very minor. The first time I heard this information that you think Evangelicals have never heard was by an evangelical teacher who showed why it is insignificant. So it's not some esoteric knowledge that Catholics and divisive Protestants posses. That may be a good thing to pull the wool over the eyes of your RCIA group though.

That’s terrific. Now, Protestants today cry out “See! We have the true, inspired Word-of-God Bible. It was the Catholics that added books to the Bible. Did we change the Bible? Oh no, we simply corrected both the Jews and the Catholics incorrect thinking”! So, see Tom. That is why I questioned your sanity to attempt more threads when even historical/scriptural fact gets pushed aside for “their” interpretation. Oh oh, I see another argument coming on. Does anyone have that true NT Church that we see in Acts 15/Matt 18 that we can go visit so we can get a mandated judgment on this issue, too? That Church has be there somewhere because scripture also tells us that this Church is forever, always truthful and completely visible. Shavua Tov, Popeman

Straw man #3: I have never taught that my version is more correct than a Catholic Bible. I never thought it was necessary, *Popemen* (edited by poster). You on the other hand are so offended that your authority is rejected by the thinkers that you have to discredit it somehow. Good luck with all that.

Talk at you later, Broseph.

[popeman]

Dear Tom,

[post deleted by darin 1/18 and user banned for 7 days]

[darinhouston]

It has been brought to my attention that my banning of popeman while failing to at least rebuke smlccrl3 for his reference to "popey" might seem to lack even-handness. I have no intentions to be even-handed in all cases and have not and do not intend to actively police this forum for such things, nor do I intend to justify the deletion of the post or banning of popeman (for 7 days) after warning on other bases.

This particular exchange was not the sole reason for the ban or deletion. However, the point brought to my attention is well made as to this particular exchange, and I suspect smlccrl3 would freely apologize for offending popeman by the use of the name "popey." Certainly, I agree it was a bit juvenile (as we call can be from times), and to be even-handed to our Catholic friends, I suppose an apology here may well be warranted. I must add, however, that making a sarcastic reference to such a nickname is in no way deserving of equal treatment in my opinion to the threat (real or not) of physical reprisals from popeman. So, I make no apologies to our Catholic friends for the disparate treatment.

[smcllr3]

Oh My! I'm Truly Sorry. I thought "juvenile" would come across more casual/familiar. Given the differences in doctrinal leanings and the less flattering history of the RCC, it's hard to respond in-kind to Popeman without sounding offended or defensive, which I'm not, nor am I trying to be offensive. I'm still not sure how it was offensive but I'm not above apologizing. Please forgive me.

Sam

[mdh]

Oh My! I'm Truly Sorry. I thought "juvenile" would come across more casual/familiar. Given the differences in doctrinal leanings and the less flattering history of the RCC, it's hard to respond in-kind to Popeman without sounding offended or defensive, which I'm not, nor am I trying to be offensive. I'm still not sure how it was offensive but I'm not above apologizing. Please forgive me.

Sam

Sam,

I was the one who suggested to Darin that he request an apology from you to Popeman. He has more than once made a point of correcting people that Popeman is his last name, not a nick-name. Clearly he was upset with the way you referred to him.

I may have mis-read how you meant what you said. But it came across to me as disrespectful. Since we at this forum try to encourage people with different views to participate, I feel it is important that we treat each other respectfully. I thought it was correct for Darin to delete the post from Popeman and ban him for a week, but thought it was worth a request to you to apologize for any disrespect.

Thank you for doing so!

In Christ,
Mike