| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Jesse Gomez" |
| Date: |
27 Nov 2003 03:12:25 AM |
| Object: |
Diffferences between Catholic & Protestant Bibles |
Besides the difference of numbers of books
is there any other difference between Catholic
and Protestant Bibles?
I. A serious difference is in the accuracy of translation.
a) Protestant preachers and Bishops have written volumes to point
out the errors in the King James Version and the Revised Version.
b) In a convention of ministers at St. Louis, Missouri, some years ago,
a Presbyterian minister urged the necessity of a new translation of
the Protestant Bible and held that there were no less than 30,000
errors.
c) Another difference is the titles of books:
1) "Canticle of Canticles" for "Solomon's Song"
2) "Apocalypse" for "Book of Revelation"
3) "First and Second Kings" for "First and Second Samuel" etc.
II. Proofs from the words of the Protestants themselves :
In "History of Literature" by Hallam:
"The translation of the Old and New Testaments by Luther is more
renowned for the purity of his German idiom than for it's adherence
to the original text. Simon has charged him with ignorance of Hebrew
and when we consider how late he came to a knowledge of that or the
Greek language, and the multiplicity of his employments, it may be
believed that his knowledge of them was far from extensive."
The Rev. Dr. Aked, a Baptist minister, writing in
"Appleton's Magazine" September 1908, said:
"In the pages of the Protestant Version of the Bible are to be found
historical errors, arithmetical mistakes, inconsistencies and manifold
contradictions, and, what is far worse, one finds that the most horrible
crimes are committed by men who plea, 'God said,' in justification of
their terrible misdeeds. Moreover, the English Bible is a version of
a version which is a translation of a translation. It has come down
through Hebrew, Greek and Latin into English. In all it's earlier stages
it was copied by hand from one manuscript to another by different
writers, a process certain to result in many mistakes."
The Rev. O.J. Nelson, of Bellingham, Washington says:
"Strictly speaking, none but the Catholic has an infallible Bible and
none but the Catholic can be rightly called an orthodox Christian....
There is only 1 Christian Church of real and consistent authority and
that is the Catholic Church."
Dr De Costa said:
"The Church of Rome stands before the English-speaking world and
Protestants everywhere as the solitary defender of the Bible in it's
integrity and entirety."
The Protestant Bible Critic, George Campbell says:
"The Vulgate may be pronounced, on the whole, a good and faithful
version."
Charles Butler, in his "Horae Biblicae" says:
"For the sacred writings which contain the Word of God, and for the
traditions of the wise and good respecting it, we are almost wholly
indebted, under Providence, to the zeal and exertion of the priests and
the monks of the Church of Rome."
Taken from: Q&A Bible Quizzes to a Street Preacher, (pp 18, 31-32)
Authored by: Fr. Chas. M. Carty & Rev. Dr. L. Rumble, M.S.C.
Published by: www.TanBooks.com
Copyright: Original 1976
.
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Diffferences between Catholic & Protestant Bibles |
27 Nov 2003 10:41:35 AM |
|
|
===>Ancient history, Jesse.
Both Catholics AND Protestants have published
revised translations since the ones you are referring to.
See the NEW AMERICAN BIBLE, the
NEW ENGLISH BIBLE, the WORLD ENGLISH
BIBLE, etc. There is even "YOUNG'S LITERAL".
What you don't realize is there are no originals,
and the manuscripts available are not consistent with one
another. The best that translators can do is to use the
most consistent language and footnote the variant
readings, of which there are many.
Libertarius
=============
Jesse Gomez wrote:
Besides the difference of numbers of books
is there any other difference between Catholic
and Protestant Bibles?
I. A serious difference is in the accuracy of translation.
a) Protestant preachers and Bishops have written volumes to point
out the errors in the King James Version and the Revised Version.
b) In a convention of ministers at St. Louis, Missouri, some years ago,
a Presbyterian minister urged the necessity of a new translation of
the Protestant Bible and held that there were no less than 30,000
errors.
c) Another difference is the titles of books:
1) "Canticle of Canticles" for "Solomon's Song"
2) "Apocalypse" for "Book of Revelation"
3) "First and Second Kings" for "First and Second Samuel" etc.
II. Proofs from the words of the Protestants themselves :
In "History of Literature" by Hallam:
"The translation of the Old and New Testaments by Luther is more
renowned for the purity of his German idiom than for it's adherence
to the original text. Simon has charged him with ignorance of Hebrew
and when we consider how late he came to a knowledge of that or the
Greek language, and the multiplicity of his employments, it may be
believed that his knowledge of them was far from extensive."
The Rev. Dr. Aked, a Baptist minister, writing in
"Appleton's Magazine" September 1908, said:
"In the pages of the Protestant Version of the Bible are to be found
historical errors, arithmetical mistakes, inconsistencies and manifold
contradictions, and, what is far worse, one finds that the most horrible
crimes are committed by men who plea, 'God said,' in justification of
their terrible misdeeds. Moreover, the English Bible is a version of
a version which is a translation of a translation. It has come down
through Hebrew, Greek and Latin into English. In all it's earlier stages
it was copied by hand from one manuscript to another by different
writers, a process certain to result in many mistakes."
The Rev. O.J. Nelson, of Bellingham, Washington says:
"Strictly speaking, none but the Catholic has an infallible Bible and
none but the Catholic can be rightly called an orthodox Christian....
There is only 1 Christian Church of real and consistent authority and
that is the Catholic Church."
Dr De Costa said:
"The Church of Rome stands before the English-speaking world and
Protestants everywhere as the solitary defender of the Bible in it's
integrity and entirety."
The Protestant Bible Critic, George Campbell says:
"The Vulgate may be pronounced, on the whole, a good and faithful
version."
Charles Butler, in his "Horae Biblicae" says:
"For the sacred writings which contain the Word of God, and for the
traditions of the wise and good respecting it, we are almost wholly
indebted, under Providence, to the zeal and exertion of the priests and
the monks of the Church of Rome."
Taken from: Q&A Bible Quizzes to a Street Preacher, (pp 18, 31-32)
Authored by: Fr. Chas. M. Carty & Rev. Dr. L. Rumble, M.S.C.
Published by: www.TanBooks.com
Copyright: Original 1976
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jesse Gomez" |
|
| Title: Re: Diffferences between Catholic & Protestant Bibles |
29 Nov 2003 12:21:29 PM |
|
|
In truth,
There is one correct Bible, the Douay Rheims which is an English
translation of the Latin Vulgate which was scripted word for word by the
highly skilled St Jerome. He was a scholar in Greek and Hebrew. The Douay
Rheims is the authorized copy of the Traditional Catholic Church but not the
Novus Ordo.
Jesse
--
Jesse Gomez Jr
In Beautiful Norway
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FC6293F.2DA0544C@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
===>Ancient history, Jesse.
Both Catholics AND Protestants have published
revised translations since the ones you are referring to.
See the NEW AMERICAN BIBLE, the
NEW ENGLISH BIBLE, the WORLD ENGLISH
BIBLE, etc. There is even "YOUNG'S LITERAL".
What you don't realize is there are no originals,
and the manuscripts available are not consistent with one
another. The best that translators can do is to use the
most consistent language and footnote the variant
readings, of which there are many.
Libertarius
=============
Jesse Gomez wrote:
Besides the difference of numbers of books
is there any other difference between Catholic
and Protestant Bibles?
I. A serious difference is in the accuracy of translation.
a) Protestant preachers and Bishops have written volumes to point
out the errors in the King James Version and the Revised
Version.
b) In a convention of ministers at St. Louis, Missouri, some years
ago,
a Presbyterian minister urged the necessity of a new translation
of
the Protestant Bible and held that there were no less than
30,000
errors.
c) Another difference is the titles of books:
1) "Canticle of Canticles" for "Solomon's Song"
2) "Apocalypse" for "Book of Revelation"
3) "First and Second Kings" for "First and Second Samuel" etc.
II. Proofs from the words of the Protestants themselves :
In "History of Literature" by Hallam:
"The translation of the Old and New Testaments by Luther is more
renowned for the purity of his German idiom than for it's adherence
to the original text. Simon has charged him with ignorance of Hebrew
and when we consider how late he came to a knowledge of that or the
Greek language, and the multiplicity of his employments, it may be
believed that his knowledge of them was far from extensive."
The Rev. Dr. Aked, a Baptist minister, writing in
"Appleton's Magazine" September 1908, said:
"In the pages of the Protestant Version of the Bible are to be found
historical errors, arithmetical mistakes, inconsistencies and manifold
contradictions, and, what is far worse, one finds that the most horrible
crimes are committed by men who plea, 'God said,' in justification of
their terrible misdeeds. Moreover, the English Bible is a version of
a version which is a translation of a translation. It has come down
through Hebrew, Greek and Latin into English. In all it's earlier stages
it was copied by hand from one manuscript to another by different
writers, a process certain to result in many mistakes."
The Rev. O.J. Nelson, of Bellingham, Washington says:
"Strictly speaking, none but the Catholic has an infallible Bible and
none but the Catholic can be rightly called an orthodox Christian....
There is only 1 Christian Church of real and consistent authority and
that is the Catholic Church."
Dr De Costa said:
"The Church of Rome stands before the English-speaking world and
Protestants everywhere as the solitary defender of the Bible in it's
integrity and entirety."
The Protestant Bible Critic, George Campbell says:
"The Vulgate may be pronounced, on the whole, a good and faithful
version."
Charles Butler, in his "Horae Biblicae" says:
"For the sacred writings which contain the Word of God, and for the
traditions of the wise and good respecting it, we are almost wholly
indebted, under Providence, to the zeal and exertion of the priests and
the monks of the Church of Rome."
Taken from: Q&A Bible Quizzes to a Street Preacher, (pp 18, 31-32)
Authored by: Fr. Chas. M. Carty & Rev. Dr. L. Rumble, M.S.C.
Published by: www.TanBooks.com
Copyright: Original 1976
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Diffferences between Catholic & Protestant Bibles |
29 Nov 2003 10:05:19 PM |
|
|
"Jesse Gomez" wrote:
In truth,
There is one correct Bible, the Douay Rheims which is an English
translation of the Latin Vulgate which was scripted word for word by the
highly skilled St Jerome. He was a scholar in Greek and Hebrew. The Douay
Rheims is the authorized copy of the Traditional Catholic Church but not the
Novus Ordo.
Whatever Bible you use.. there are serious differences between the ten commandments
of the Scriptures and the ten commandments in the catechisms of the Catholic Church.
Here are God's ten commandments, according to the Douay Rheims translation; do you
notice the differences from what is in your catechism?? ... and if so, who will you obey?
Exodus 20:1-17 Douay Rheims Translation:
~~The Ten Commandments~~
20:1. And the Lord spoke all these words:
20:2. I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the
land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
20:3. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
20:4. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor
the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in
the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the
waters under the earth.
A graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing, etc... All
such images, or likenesses, are forbidden by this
commandment, as are made to be adored and served; according
to that which immediately follows, thou shalt not adore
them, nor serve them. That is, all such as are designed for
idols or image-gods, or are worshipped with divine honour.
But otherwise images, pictures, or representations, even in
the house of God, and in the very sanctuary so far from
being forbidden, are expressly authorized by the word of
God. See Ex. 25.15, and etc.; chap. 38.7; Num. 21.8, 9; 1
Chron. or Paralip. 28.18, 19; 2 Chron. or Paralip. 3.10.
20:5. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the
Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the
fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth
generation of them that hate me:
20:6. And shewing mercy unto thousands to them that love
me, and keep my commandments.
20:7. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in
vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall
take the name of the Lord his God in vain.
20:8. Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day.
20:9. Six days shalt thou labour, and shalt do all thy
works.
20:10. But on the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord
thy God: thou shalt do no work on it, thou nor thy son, nor
thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor
thy beast, nor the stranger that is within thy gates.
20:11. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and
the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the
seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day,
and sanctified it.
20:12. Honour thy father and thy mother, that thou mayst be
longlived upon the land which the Lord thy God will give
thee.
20:13. Thou shalt not kill.
20:14. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
20:15. Thou shalt not steal.
20:16. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy
neighbour.
20:17. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; neither
shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his
handmaid, nor his ox, nor his *****, nor any thing that is
his.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Diffferences between Catholic & Protestant Bibles |
29 Nov 2003 10:31:01 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Jesse Gomez" wrote:
In truth,
There is one correct Bible, the Douay Rheims which is an English
translation of the Latin Vulgate which was scripted word for word by the
highly skilled St Jerome. He was a scholar in Greek and Hebrew. The Douay
Rheims is the authorized copy of the Traditional Catholic Church but not the
Novus Ordo.
Whatever Bible you use.. there are serious differences between the ten commandments
of the Scriptures and the ten commandments in the catechisms of the Catholic Church.
===>How is that relevant?
Or are you just pushing your SDA bias?
Here are God's ten commandments,
===>They are commandments ATTRIBUTED TO
the god YHWH, but obviously not that literally important,
since the Pentateuch itself presents alternate versions of
it, especially with regards the Sabbath. -- L.
===========================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Diffferences between Catholic & Protestant Bibles |
30 Nov 2003 11:18:25 AM |
|
|
"Libertarius" wrote:
Andrew wrote:
"Jesse Gomez" wrote:
In truth,
There is one correct Bible, the Douay Rheims which is an English
translation of the Latin Vulgate which was scripted word for word by the
highly skilled St Jerome. He was a scholar in Greek and Hebrew. The Douay
Rheims is the authorized copy of the Traditional Catholic Church but not the
Novus Ordo.
Whatever Bible you use.. there are serious differences between the ten commandments
of the Scriptures and the ten commandments in the catechisms of the Catholic Church.
===>How is that relevant?
It is relevant for Jesse and any other devout Catholic who wishes to live in harmony with God.
Here are God's ten commandments,
===>They are commandments ATTRIBUTED TO
the god YHWH, but obviously not that literally important,
I would think they would be of paramount importance since they are the only thing
that has been given to mankind that was written specifically by the Creator Himself.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Diffferences between Catholic & Protestant Bibles |
30 Nov 2003 05:01:51 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Libertarius" wrote:
Andrew wrote:
"Jesse Gomez" wrote:
In truth,
There is one correct Bible, the Douay Rheims which is an English
translation of the Latin Vulgate which was scripted word for word by the
highly skilled St Jerome. He was a scholar in Greek and Hebrew. The Douay
Rheims is the authorized copy of the Traditional Catholic Church but not the
Novus Ordo.
Whatever Bible you use.. there are serious differences between the ten commandments
of the Scriptures and the ten commandments in the catechisms of the Catholic Church.
===>How is that relevant?
It is relevant for Jesse and any other devout Catholic who wishes to live in harmony with God.
===>It is NOT relevant to the subject of this thread, which is
"Differences between Catholic & Protestant Bibles".
Those differences are what you are hiding from by bringing
up the issue of "catechisms".
Your Protestant "Bible" is an imitation of the REAL "Bible",
with many components missing from it!
Here are God's ten commandments,
===>They are commandments ATTRIBUTED TO
the god YHWH, but obviously not that literally important,
I would think they would be of paramount importance since they are the only thing
that has been given to mankind that was written specifically by the Creator Himself.
===>How did your "creator" forget what "was written specifically
by the Creator Himself" when, in the repeat version of the Ten
Commandments, "he" wrote:
"Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,
as the LORD your God commanded you.
Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD
your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your
son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant,
nor your female servant, nor your ox, nor your
donkey, nor any of your cattle, nor your stranger
who is within your gates, that your male servant
and your female servant may rest as well as you.
And remember that you were a slave in the land of
Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from
there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm;
therefore the LORD your God commanded you to
keep the Sabbath day."
Since when were YOU or any GENTILES slaves
"in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought
you out"????
Does this second version not imply that this
commandment pertains to the people of Israel only? -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Diffferences between Catholic & Protestant Bibles |
30 Nov 2003 08:54:34 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" wrote:
Andrew wrote:
Here are God's ten commandments,
===>They are commandments ATTRIBUTED TO
the god YHWH, but obviously not that literally important,
I would think they would be of paramount importance since they are the only thing
that has been given to mankind that was written specifically by the Creator Himself.
===>How did your "creator" forget what "was written specifically
by the Creator Himself" when, in the repeat version of the Ten
Commandments, "he" wrote:
If you had more respect for the Ten Commandments you would not be showing
such disrespect for God the Creator of heaven and earth by profanely taking His
name in vain, in implying that "He forgot" what He said.
Just before Moses died, and before the children of Israel entered the promised land,
Moses recapitulated the Ten Commandments, and all the circumstances connected
with the giving of the law. God did not here repeat His law as you have erroneously
implied.
Moses was given a copy of the Decalogue engraved by the finger of God Himself
upon two tables of stone..(Deut 9:10; Exodus 32:15, 16), this was enshrined in the
sanctuary, which was the visible center of Israel's worship. Israel was the people,
or nation, who were given the law and the oracles of God.... but the covenant was
also openly available to any and all of the Gentiles who would worship the true and
living God who made the heavens and earth (see Isaiah 56).
"Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,
as the LORD your God commanded you.
Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD
your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your
son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant,
nor your female servant, nor your ox, nor your
donkey, nor any of your cattle, nor your stranger
who is within your gates, that your male servant
and your female servant may rest as well as you.
And remember that you were a slave in the land of
Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from
there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm;
therefore the LORD your God commanded you to
keep the Sabbath day."
Since when were YOU or any GENTILES slaves
"in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought
you out"????
Does this second version not imply that this
commandment pertains to the people of Israel only? -- L.
No, as I said... Israel was the people, or nation, who were given the law and the oracles
of God.... but the covenant was also openly available to any and all of the Gentiles who
would worship THE true and living God who made the heavens and earth (Isaiah 56).
This is easily found whether you are using a Catholic or a Protestant Bible.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Diffferences between Catholic & Protestant Bibles |
01 Dec 2003 09:12:43 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Libertarius" wrote:
Andrew wrote:
Here are God's ten commandments,
===>They are commandments ATTRIBUTED TO
the god YHWH, but obviously not that literally important,
I would think they would be of paramount importance since they are the only thing
that has been given to mankind that was written specifically by the Creator Himself.
===>How did your "creator" forget what "was written specifically
by the Creator Himself" when, in the repeat version of the Ten
Commandments, "he" wrote:
If you had more respect for the Ten Commandments you would not be showing
such disrespect for God the Creator of heaven and earth by profanely taking His
name in vain, in implying that "He forgot" what He said.
Just before Moses died, and before the children of Israel entered the promised land,
Moses recapitulated the Ten Commandments, and all the circumstances connected
with the giving of the law. God did not here repeat His law as you have erroneously
implied.
===>But APPROVED of the changes made by Moses???
Moses was given a copy of the Decalogue engraved by the finger of God Himself
===>Which finger did he use to write it with?
upon two tables of stone..(Deut 9:10; Exodus 32:15, 16), this was enshrined in the
sanctuary,
===>Which version was "enshrined"???
which was the visible center of Israel's worship. Israel was the people,
or nation, who were given the law and the oracles of God.... but the covenant was
also openly available to any and all of the Gentiles who would worship the true and
living God who made the heavens and earth (see Isaiah 56).
===>You confuse the two historical periods by citing
Exodus and Isaiah in the same place. Isaiah 56 was
produced after the Exile experience and the identification
of the heretofore tribal deity YHWH with AHURA MAZDA,
the UNIVERSAL deity of Zoroastrianism.
"Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,
as the LORD your God commanded you.
Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD
your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your
son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant,
nor your female servant, nor your ox, nor your
donkey, nor any of your cattle, nor your stranger
who is within your gates, that your male servant
and your female servant may rest as well as you.
And remember that you were a slave in the land of
Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from
there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm;
therefore the LORD your God commanded you to
keep the Sabbath day."
Since when were YOU or any GENTILES slaves
"in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought
you out"????
Does this second version not imply that this
commandment pertains to the people of Israel only? -- L.
No, as I said... Israel was the people, or nation, who were given the law and the oracles
of God.... but the covenant was also openly available to any and all of the Gentiles who
would worship THE true and living God who made the heavens and earth (Isaiah 56).
===>THAT was MANY CENTURIES later, and by then the
Sabbath commandment had been changed (SEE Deuteronomy)
to refer to the Israelites. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Abigail Holtz" |
|
| Title: Re: Diffferences between Catholic & Protestant Bibles |
01 Dec 2003 11:24:49 PM |
|
|
In article <bqeae6$20gqr4$1@ID-97599.news.uni-berlin.de>,
andrew321@usa.net says...
:"Libertarius" wrote:
:> Since when were YOU or any GENTILES slaves
:> "in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought
:> you out"????
:> Does this second version not imply that this
:> commandment pertains to the people of Israel only? -- L.
:>
:
:No, as I said... Israel was the people, or nation, who were given the law and the oracles
:of God.... but the covenant was also openly available to any and all of the Gentiles who
:would worship THE true and living God who made the heavens and earth (Isaiah 56).
The covenant was (and remains) open to any Gentile who wished to convert
to Judaism, a la Ruth. It involves a bit more than simple worship,
especially if you're male, and traditionally rabbis will turn away a
potential convert three times to test their sincerity, but yes, the doors
are open. Otherwise, Gentiles have their own covenant. Judaism does not
require conversion in order for a person to be beloved of G-d, righteous,
"saved" (however you choose to define it) or anything else. It's not a
triumphalistic or exclusivist religion.
--
Best regards,
Abby
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thunder" |
|
| Title: Re: Diffferences between Catholic & Protestant Bibles |
04 Dec 2003 09:42:13 AM |
|
|
"Abigail Holtz" <phaedra_amara@excite.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a35adc7c31fa9a798969d@news-server.wi.rr.com...
In article <bqeae6$20gqr4$1@ID-97599.news.uni-berlin.de>,
andrew321@usa.net says...
:"Libertarius" wrote:
:> Since when were YOU or any GENTILES slaves
:> "in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought
:> you out"????
:> Does this second version not imply that this
:> commandment pertains to the people of Israel only? -- L.
:>
:
:No, as I said... Israel was the people, or nation, who were given the law
and the oracles
:of God.... but the covenant was also openly available to any and all of
the Gentiles who
:would worship THE true and living God who made the heavens and earth
(Isaiah 56).
The covenant was (and remains) open to any Gentile who wished to convert
to Judaism, a la Ruth. It involves a bit more than simple worship,
especially if you're male, and traditionally rabbis will turn away a
potential convert three times to test their sincerity, but yes, the doors
are open. Otherwise, Gentiles have their own covenant. Judaism does not
require conversion in order for a person to be beloved of G-d, righteous,
"saved" (however you choose to define it) or anything else. It's not a
triumphalistic or exclusivist religion.
Best regards,
Abby
Actually, the Sinaitic Covenant was given to
Gentiles. After all, *everyone* standing out
by Mt. Sinai when the Law was presented was
a Gentile. Yes, they may have been descendents
of Israel (Jacob) but they were Gentiles
nonetheless. "Judaism" did not start until
*after* the Law was given. Not a single person
*became* a Jew first before they became a member
of the Sinaitic Covenant.
Thunder
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Diffferences between Catholic & Protestant Bibles |
04 Dec 2003 10:29:24 AM |
|
|
"Thunder" wrote:
Actually, the Sinaitic Covenant was given to
Gentiles. After all, *everyone* standing out
by Mt. Sinai when the Law was presented was
a Gentile. Yes, they may have been descendents
of Israel (Jacob) but they were Gentiles
nonetheless. "Judaism" did not start until
*after* the Law was given. Not a single person
*became* a Jew first before they became a member
of the Sinaitic Covenant.
Thunder
WOW!!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Abigail Holtz" |
|
| Title: Re: Diffferences between Catholic & Protestant Bibles |
05 Dec 2003 12:20:57 AM |
|
|
In article <4PadnTlUOchFyFKiRVn-vA@comcast.com>,
says...
:
:"Abigail Holtz" <phaedra_amara@excite.com> wrote in message
:news:MPG.1a35adc7c31fa9a798969d@news-server.wi.rr.com...
:> In article <bqeae6$20gqr4$1@ID-97599.news.uni-berlin.de>,
:> says...
:> :"Libertarius" wrote:
:>
:> :> Since when were YOU or any GENTILES slaves
:> :> "in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought
:> :> you out"????
:> :> Does this second version not imply that this
:> :> commandment pertains to the people of Israel only? -- L.
:> :>
:> :
:> :No, as I said... Israel was the people, or nation, who were given the law
:and the oracles
:> :of God.... but the covenant was also openly available to any and all of
:the Gentiles who
:> :would worship THE true and living God who made the heavens and earth
:(Isaiah 56).
:>
:> The covenant was (and remains) open to any Gentile who wished to convert
:> to Judaism, a la Ruth. It involves a bit more than simple worship,
:> especially if you're male, and traditionally rabbis will turn away a
:> potential convert three times to test their sincerity, but yes, the doors
:> are open. Otherwise, Gentiles have their own covenant. Judaism does not
:> require conversion in order for a person to be beloved of G-d, righteous,
:> "saved" (however you choose to define it) or anything else. It's not a
:> triumphalistic or exclusivist religion.
:>
:> Best regards,
:>
:> Abby
:
:Actually, the Sinaitic Covenant was given to
:Gentiles. After all, *everyone* standing out
:by Mt. Sinai when the Law was presented was
:a Gentile.
What?
:Yes, they may have been descendents
:of Israel (Jacob) but they were Gentiles
:nonetheless.
What?
:"Judaism" did not start until
:*after* the Law was given.
What? Formal Judaism as a religion with ritual and ethical commandments
didn't begin until Sinai.
:Not a single person
:*became* a Jew first before they became a member
:of the Sinaitic Covenant.
Abraham had a covenant. He was circumcised. He was Jewish. Same goes
for Isaac, Jacob, and all his sons.
--
Best regards,
Abby
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thunder" |
|
| Title: Re: Diffferences between Catholic & Protestant Bibles |
08 Dec 2003 03:04:09 PM |
|
|
"Abigail Holtz" <phaedra_amara@excite.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a39b306bb37d4059896b9@news-server.wi.rr.com...
In article <4PadnTlUOchFyFKiRVn-vA@comcast.com>,
says...
:
:"Abigail Holtz" <phaedra_amara@excite.com> wrote in message
:news:MPG.1a35adc7c31fa9a798969d@news-server.wi.rr.com...
:> In article <bqeae6$20gqr4$1@ID-97599.news.uni-berlin.de>,
:> says...
:> :"Libertarius" wrote:
:>
:> :> Since when were YOU or any GENTILES
:> :> slaves "in the land of Egypt, and the
:> :> LORD your God brought you out"????
:> :> Does this second version not imply
:> :> that this commandment pertains to the
:> :> people of Israel only? -- L.
:> :>
:> :
:> : No, as I said... Israel was the people,
:> : or nation, who were given the law and
:> : the oracles of God.... but the covenant
:> : was also openly available to any and all
:> : of the Gentiles who would worship THE
:> : true and living God who made the heavens
:> : and earth (Isaiah 56).
:>
:> The covenant was (and remains) open to any
:> Gentile who wished to convert to Judaism,
:> a la Ruth. It involves a bit more than
:> simple worship, especially if you're male,
:> and traditionally rabbis will turn away a
:> potential convert three times to test their
:> sincerity, but yes, the doors are open.
Your emphasis of "especially if you're a male"
was of interest to me. See below for comments
on PATERNAL vs. MATERNAL inheritance.
:> Otherwise, Gentiles have their own covenant.
Yes, every living creature, including people,
participates in the unconditional Noahic Covenant.
:> Judaism does not require conversion in order
:> for a person to be beloved of G-d, righteous,
:> "saved" (however you choose to define it) or
:> anything else. It's not a triumphalistic or
:> exclusivist religion.
I don't agree with your assessment considering
the hateful garbage written in the Babylonian
Talmud. It's a wonder that the Moslems haven't
translated the Babylonian Talmud into English
and put it into the public domain. If they had,
the support for the state of Israel would have
dropped like a rock. Of course they have their
own hateful Qu'ran.
: Actually, the Sinaitic Covenant was given to
: Gentiles. After all, *everyone* standing out
: by Mt. Sinai when the Law was presented was
: a Gentile.
What?
Yes, see below.
:Yes, they may have been descendents
:of Israel (Jacob) but they were Gentiles
:nonetheless.
What?
Yes, see below.
:"Judaism" did not start until
:*after* the Law was given.
What? Formal Judaism as a religion with ritual and ethical commandments
didn't begin until Sinai.
Yes, see below.
: Not a single person *became* a Jew first
: before they became a member of the Sinaitic
: Covenant.
Abraham had a covenant. He was circumcised.
He was Jewish. Same goes for Isaac, Jacob,
and all his sons.
Abraham was NOT a Jew; his mother was NOT a
Jew. The same goes for Isaac, Jacob, and all
his sons. Abraham was a Hebrew. He is the
first person in the Bible called a Hebrew.
Jacob's sons were both Hebrews and Israelites.
While horses are animals, not all animals are
horses. Likewise, while most Jews are Hebrews
and Israelites, not all Hebrews and Israelites
were Jews.
The Abrahamic Covenants were made with Abraham
because Abraham's faith was credited to him as
"righteous." Abraham's concern was that he
would not have a *SON* of his own to inherit
his possessions. As a solution, the first of
the Covenants was an unconditional promise of
a land grant. It was to be an inheritance to
Abraham's promised SON (it turned out to be
his second son). The second Covenant was
conditional; it required the participants to
be "consecrated" to the Lord. Circumcision,
a distinctively male act, was the "sign" of
participation. Both of these covenants would
be passed down as an inheritance through the
male lineage. Notice that there is no tribe
of Dinah even though she was the daughter of
Israel (Jacob).
Later on, hundreds of years later (and many
generations), a subsequent Covenant was made
with the Israelites at Mt. Sinai. This time,
a conditional Covenant required the people
(at the time practicing the Bull Cult) to
keep 10 Commandments. The promise was that
IF they obeyed God fully and kept his Covenant,
out of all the NATIONS they would BECOME a
treasured possession, they would BECOME a
"holy NATION." In other words, they were one
of the nations, they were "Gentiles" that
would BECOME something else.
NOTE:
"Gentiles" is a word derived from the
Latin that means "Peoples" or "Nations."
In Roman civil affairs, "Gentiles" has
referred to all nations that were NOT
*Romans*. Consequently, in Roman civil
usage, the Israelites would have been
categorized as "Gentiles" or non-Romans.
The term has been adopted and modified
for Biblical usage. See Malachi 1:11.
Today, the word is a reference to
non-Jews. Meanwhile, Mormons use the
word to mean non-Mormons.
Judaism as it is defined today, is passed down
differently than Covenant inheritance. While the
inheritance of the Abrahamic Covenants was passed
down from the FATHER, a Jew is defined as someone
whose MOTHER is a Jew. IMHO, it is a mistake not
to recognize the difference. Apparently, based
upon today's definitions, what changed at Mt. Sinai
was more than the delivery of the Law, the whole
concept of who inherits what from whom had changed.
Apparently, Judaism is inherited from the MOTHER
while the Abrahamic Covenant inheritance comes
through the FATHER. Therefore it can only be
assumed that Judaism did not begin until after
Mt. Sinai because Abrahamic Covenant inheritance
is passed down differently. Yes, Judaism had
incorporated their historical experiences such as
the observation of circumcision and the Passover.
However, Judaism as a religion began with the Law.
You can't separate Judaism from the Law.
Of course I totally disagree with TODAYS
definitions of who is a Jew, but it is not my
personal understanding that is important. What
is at stake is the wrongful displacement of
people from the land in Israel because of an
erroneous assumption. We cannot just assume
rightful inheritance just because someone claims
it. Who is entitled to the land promised to
Abraham? The rightful and legal inheritance
must pass through the paternal lineage, not
through the maternal lineage. Therefore, if one
is to lend a hand of support to the occupation
of the land of Israel, it is imperative to
determine who has rightful claim to the land.
Ask any Orthodox Jew. Jews, by definition, are
from a maternal lineage. Therefore, just based
upon being Jewish is insufficient reason for
anyone to claim the paternal inheritance of the
land. There are Christians, Moslems, and yes
Atheists, that may unknowingly possess rightful
paternal inheritance to the land. Instead,
those with only a religious claim to maternal
lineage may be displacing those who may have
rightful inheritance. Even if one can show
that they have Jewish ancestry, it is
insufficient with the racists of Israel. For
example, Messianic Jews such as Jews for Jesus
are being denied immigration into the promised
land.
http://www.anti-racism.supanet.com/rac/israel.htm
IMHO, all Christians should withhold their
support for the State of Israel until Israel
at least welcomes the immigration of Messianic
Jews.
Thunder
.
|
|
|
| User: "Abigail Holtz" |
|
| Title: Re: Diffferences between Catholic & Protestant Bibles |
08 Dec 2003 11:22:49 PM |
|
|
In article <o66dnSqcho7SekmiRVn-sw@comcast.com>,
says...
:
:"Abigail Holtz" <phaedra_amara@excite.com> wrote in message
:news:MPG.1a39b306bb37d4059896b9@news-server.wi.rr.com...
:> In article <4PadnTlUOchFyFKiRVn-vA@comcast.com>,
:> says...
:> :
:> :"Abigail Holtz" <phaedra_amara@excite.com> wrote in message
:> :news:MPG.1a35adc7c31fa9a798969d@news-server.wi.rr.com...
:> :> In article <bqeae6$20gqr4$1@ID-97599.news.uni-berlin.de>,
:> :> says...
:> :> :"Libertarius" wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :> Since when were YOU or any GENTILES
:> :> :> slaves "in the land of Egypt, and the
:> :> :> LORD your God brought you out"????
:> :> :> Does this second version not imply
:> :> :> that this commandment pertains to the
:> :> :> people of Israel only? -- L.
:> :> :>
:> :> :
:> :> : No, as I said... Israel was the people,
:> :> : or nation, who were given the law and
:> :> : the oracles of God.... but the covenant
:> :> : was also openly available to any and all
:> :> : of the Gentiles who would worship THE
:> :> : true and living God who made the heavens
:> :> : and earth (Isaiah 56).
:> :>
:> :> The covenant was (and remains) open to any
:> :> Gentile who wished to convert to Judaism,
:> :> a la Ruth. It involves a bit more than
:> :> simple worship, especially if you're male,
:> :> and traditionally rabbis will turn away a
:> :> potential convert three times to test their
:> :> sincerity, but yes, the doors are open.
:
:Your emphasis of "especially if you're a male"
:was of interest to me. See below for comments
:on PATERNAL vs. MATERNAL inheritance.
Well, I intended it merely to mean that (previously uncircumcised) male
converts to Judaism must be circumcised, while all that is required for a
female convert is immersion in a mikvah. Some sociologists speculate that
this may be a reason that there are so many more female converts than
males.
:> :> Otherwise, Gentiles have their own covenant.
:
:Yes, every living creature, including people,
:participates in the unconditional Noahic Covenant.
Hmm. I've never thought about the animals being part of it. It's an
ethical covenant; Jewish tradition does not believe that animals have the
ability to make moral choices, and therefore they are not capable of
behaving ethically or unethically.
:> :> Judaism does not require conversion in order
:> :> for a person to be beloved of G-d, righteous,
:> :> "saved" (however you choose to define it) or
:> :> anything else. It's not a triumphalistic or
:> :> exclusivist religion.
:
:I don't agree with your assessment considering
:the hateful garbage written in the Babylonian
:Talmud. It's a wonder that the Moslems haven't
:translated the Babylonian Talmud into English
:and put it into the public domain. If they had,
:the support for the state of Israel would have
:dropped like a rock. Of course they have their
:own hateful Qu'ran.
Oh good grief, do you believe that Christian propaganda? Check out some
of the websites debunking it before you go spreading it. Have you
actually READ the Talmud Bavli? Certain rabbis (generally in MINORITY
OPINIONS, it might be noted, and therefore not binding) held opinions
that were less than admirable, but their comments are far outweighed by
the rest of the Talmud, and CONTEXT (always important) makes it clear
that their opinions are not held by the majority.
:> : Actually, the Sinaitic Covenant was given to
:> : Gentiles. After all, *everyone* standing out
:> : by Mt. Sinai when the Law was presented was
:> : a Gentile.
:>
:> What?
:
:Yes, see below.
:
:> :Yes, they may have been descendents
:> :of Israel (Jacob) but they were Gentiles
:> :nonetheless.
:>
:> What?
:
:Yes, see below.
:
:
:> :"Judaism" did not start until
:> :*after* the Law was given.
:>
:> What? Formal Judaism as a religion with ritual and ethical commandments
:> didn't begin until Sinai.
:
:
:Yes, see below.
:
:> : Not a single person *became* a Jew first
:> : before they became a member of the Sinaitic
:> : Covenant.
:>
:> Abraham had a covenant. He was circumcised.
:> He was Jewish. Same goes for Isaac, Jacob,
:> and all his sons.
:
:Abraham was NOT a Jew;
That would be news to him.
:his mother was NOT a
:Jew.
Matrilineal descent is not the only way to become Jewish. Abraham and
Sarah were the first Jews...they were also the first converts, a fact of
which we are formally and ritually reminded every time someone converts.
:Judaism as it is defined today, is passed down
:differently than Covenant inheritance. While the
:inheritance of the Abrahamic Covenants was passed
:down from the FATHER, a Jew is defined as someone
:whose MOTHER is a Jew.
Wrong. Jewishness was inherited from the father originally, as
everything was inherited from the father. During the period of Roman
occupation, rape of Jewish women was commonplace (and therefore the
identity of the child's father was often unknown). In response, descent
was officially changed to matrilineal. Priestly lineage, tribal
affiliation, royal descent, etc, remain patrilineal.
For that matter, the term "Jew" did not come into usage until LONG after
Sinai -- until there was a kingdom of Judah. To decide that membership
in the Abrahamic covenant and Judaism are determined by separate rules of
descent simply because they use the words "Hebrew" vs. "Jew" and because
of the changing rules of matri- and patrilineal descent is...well, about
as reliable as a conspiracy theory.
<snip rest>
:Even if one can show
:that they have Jewish ancestry, it is
:insufficient with the racists of Israel. For
:example, Messianic Jews such as Jews for Jesus
:are being denied immigration into the promised
:land.
That's because they're not Jewish. We don't agree on much, but the fact
that "Jews for Jesus" are not Jewish is the one thing we can all agree
on. And having Christians claim we're wrong about that produces the
unique situation of non-Jews telling Jews who is a Jew. Frankly, you
have neither the standing nor the right to instruct us in that matter.
--
Best regards,
Abby
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: Diffferences between Catholic & Protestant Bibles |
11 Nov 2004 08:20:58 PM |
|
|
Someone is confusing "Jew" (family line, culture and heritage) with the
religion of Judaism. Albert Einstein, an athiest, was a Jew, for an example.
"Abigail Holtz" <phaedra_amara@excite.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a3f1817bec4ea3b9896d0@news-server.wi.rr.com...
In article <o66dnSqcho7SekmiRVn-sw@comcast.com>,
says...
:
:"Abigail Holtz" <phaedra_amara@excite.com> wrote in message
:news:MPG.1a39b306bb37d4059896b9@news-server.wi.rr.com...
:> In article <4PadnTlUOchFyFKiRVn-vA@comcast.com>,
:> says...
:> :
:> :"Abigail Holtz" <phaedra_amara@excite.com> wrote in message
:> :news:MPG.1a35adc7c31fa9a798969d@news-server.wi.rr.com...
:> :> In article <bqeae6$20gqr4$1@ID-97599.news.uni-berlin.de>,
:> :> says...
:> :> :"Libertarius" wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :> Since when were YOU or any GENTILES
:> :> :> slaves "in the land of Egypt, and the
:> :> :> LORD your God brought you out"????
:> :> :> Does this second version not imply
:> :> :> that this commandment pertains to the
:> :> :> people of Israel only? -- L.
:> :> :>
:> :> :
:> :> : No, as I said... Israel was the people,
:> :> : or nation, who were given the law and
:> :> : the oracles of God.... but the covenant
:> :> : was also openly available to any and all
:> :> : of the Gentiles who would worship THE
:> :> : true and living God who made the heavens
:> :> : and earth (Isaiah 56).
:> :>
:> :> The covenant was (and remains) open to any
:> :> Gentile who wished to convert to Judaism,
:> :> a la Ruth. It involves a bit more than
:> :> simple worship, especially if you're male,
:> :> and traditionally rabbis will turn away a
:> :> potential convert three times to test their
:> :> sincerity, but yes, the doors are open.
:
:Your emphasis of "especially if you're a male"
:was of interest to me. See below for comments
:on PATERNAL vs. MATERNAL inheritance.
Well, I intended it merely to mean that (previously uncircumcised) male
converts to Judaism must be circumcised, while all that is required for a
female convert is immersion in a mikvah. Some sociologists speculate that
this may be a reason that there are so many more female converts than
males.
:> :> Otherwise, Gentiles have their own covenant.
:
:Yes, every living creature, including people,
:participates in the unconditional Noahic Covenant.
Hmm. I've never thought about the animals being part of it. It's an
ethical covenant; Jewish tradition does not believe that animals have the
ability to make moral choices, and therefore they are not capable of
behaving ethically or unethically.
:> :> Judaism does not require conversion in order
:> :> for a person to be beloved of G-d, righteous,
:> :> "saved" (however you choose to define it) or
:> :> anything else. It's not a triumphalistic or
:> :> exclusivist religion.
:
:I don't agree with your assessment considering
:the hateful garbage written in the Babylonian
:Talmud. It's a wonder that the Moslems haven't
:translated the Babylonian Talmud into English
:and put it into the public domain. If they had,
:the support for the state of Israel would have
:dropped like a rock. Of course they have their
:own hateful Qu'ran.
Oh good grief, do you believe that Christian propaganda? Check out some
of the websites debunking it before you go spreading it. Have you
actually READ the Talmud Bavli? Certain rabbis (generally in MINORITY
OPINIONS, it might be noted, and therefore not binding) held opinions
that were less than admirable, but their comments are far outweighed by
the rest of the Talmud, and CONTEXT (always important) makes it clear
that their opinions are not held by the majority.
:> : Actually, the Sinaitic Covenant was given to
:> : Gentiles. After all, *everyone* standing out
:> : by Mt. Sinai when the Law was presented was
:> : a Gentile.
:>
:> What?
:
:Yes, see below.
:
:> :Yes, they may have been descendents
:> :of Israel (Jacob) but they were Gentiles
:> :nonetheless.
:>
:> What?
:
:Yes, see below.
:
:
:> :"Judaism" did not start until
:> :*after* the Law was given.
:>
:> What? Formal Judaism as a religion with ritual and ethical
commandments
:> didn't begin until Sinai.
:
:
:Yes, see below.
:
:> : Not a single person *became* a Jew first
:> : before they became a member of the Sinaitic
:> : Covenant.
:>
:> Abraham had a covenant. He was circumcised.
:> He was Jewish. Same goes for Isaac, Jacob,
:> and all his sons.
:
:Abraham was NOT a Jew;
That would be news to him.
:his mother was NOT a
:Jew.
Matrilineal descent is not the only way to become Jewish. Abraham and
Sarah were the first Jews...they were also the first converts, a fact of
which we are formally and ritually reminded every time someone converts.
:Judaism as it is defined today, is passed down
:differently than Covenant inheritance. While the
:inheritance of the Abrahamic Covenants was passed
:down from the FATHER, a Jew is defined as someone
:whose MOTHER is a Jew.
Wrong. Jewishness was inherited from the father originally, as
everything was inherited from the father. During the period of Roman
occupation, rape of Jewish women was commonplace (and therefore the
identity of the child's father was often unknown). In response, descent
was officially changed to matrilineal. Priestly lineage, tribal
affiliation, royal descent, etc, remain patrilineal.
For that matter, the term "Jew" did not come into usage until LONG after
Sinai -- until there was a kingdom of Judah. To decide that membership
in the Abrahamic covenant and Judaism are determined by separate rules of
descent simply because they use the words "Hebrew" vs. "Jew" and because
of the changing rules of matri- and patrilineal descent is...well, about
as reliable as a conspiracy theory.
<snip rest>
:Even if one can show
:that they have Jewish ancestry, it is
:insufficient with the racists of Israel. For
:example, Messianic Jews such as Jews for Jesus
:are being denied immigration into the promised
:land.
That's because they're not Jewish. We don't agree on much, but the fact
that "Jews for Jesus" are not Jewish is the one thing we can all agree
on. And having Christians claim we're wrong about that produces the
unique situation of non-Jews telling Jews who is a Jew. Frankly, you
have neither the standing nor the right to instruct us in that matter.
--
Best regards,
Abby
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Diffferences between Catholic & Protestant Bibles |
05 Dec 2003 06:05:08 PM |
|
|
Thunder wrote:
"Abigail Holtz" <phaedra_amara@excite.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a35adc7c31fa9a798969d@news-server.wi.rr.com...
In article <bqeae6$20gqr4$1@ID-97599.news.uni-berlin.de>,
andrew321@usa.net says...
:"Libertarius" wrote:
:> Since when were YOU or any GENTILES slaves
:> "in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought
:> you out"????
:> Does this second version not imply that this
:> commandment pertains to the people of Israel only? -- L.
:>
:
:No, as I said... Israel was the people, or nation, who were given the law
and the oracles
:of God.... but the covenant was also openly available to any and all of
the Gentiles who
:would worship THE true and living God who made the heavens and earth
(Isaiah 56).
The covenant was (and remains) open to any Gentile who wished to convert
to Judaism, a la Ruth. It involves a bit more than simple worship,
especially if you're male, and traditionally rabbis will turn away a
potential convert three times to test their sincerity, but yes, the doors
are open. Otherwise, Gentiles have their own covenant. Judaism does not
require conversion in order for a person to be beloved of G-d, righteous,
"saved" (however you choose to define it) or anything else. It's not a
triumphalistic or exclusivist religion.
Best regards,
Abby
Actually, the Sinaitic Covenant was given to
Gentiles. After all, *everyone* standing out
by Mt. Sinai when the Law was presented was
a Gentile. Yes, they may have been descendents
of Israel (Jacob) but they were Gentiles
nonetheless. "Judaism" did not start until
*after* the Law was given. Not a single person
*became* a Jew first before they became a member
of the Sinaitic Covenant.
Thunder
===>That is SILLY!
"Gentiles" are the "Peoples" or "Nations"
(from the from Latin gent-, gens nation)
OTHER THAN those said to have been
descended from the legendary
Israel (Jacob). -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thunder" |
|
| Title: Re: Diffferences between Catholic & Protestant Bibles |
08 Dec 2003 03:23:05 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FD11D34.8A905A49@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Thunder wrote:
"Abigail Holtz" <phaedra_amara@excite.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a35adc7c31fa9a798969d@news-server.wi.rr.com...
In article <bqeae6$20gqr4$1@ID-97599.news.uni-berlin.de>,
andrew321@usa.net says...
:"Libertarius" wrote:
:> Since when were YOU or any GENTILES slaves
:> "in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought
:> you out"????
:> Does this second version not imply that this
:> commandment pertains to the people of Israel only? -- L.
:>
:
:No, as I said... Israel was the people, or nation, who were given the
law
and the oracles
:of God.... but the covenant was also openly available to any and all
of
the Gentiles who
:would worship THE true and living God who made the heavens and earth
(Isaiah 56).
The covenant was (and remains) open to any Gentile who wished to
convert
to Judaism, a la Ruth. It involves a bit more than simple worship,
especially if you're male, and traditionally rabbis will turn away a
potential convert three times to test their sincerity, but yes, the
doors
are open. Otherwise, Gentiles have their own covenant. Judaism does
not
require conversion in order for a person to be beloved of G-d,
righteous,
"saved" (however you choose to define it) or anything else. It's not
a
triumphalistic or exclusivist religion.
Best regards,
Abby
Actually, the Sinaitic Covenant was given to
Gentiles. After all, *everyone* standing out
by Mt. Sinai when the Law was presented was
a Gentile. Yes, they may have been descendents
of Israel (Jacob) but they were Gentiles
nonetheless. "Judaism" did not start until
*after* the Law was given. Not a single person
*became* a Jew first before they became a member
of the Sinaitic Covenant.
Thunder
===>That is SILLY!
"Gentiles" are the "Peoples" or "Nations"
(from the from Latin gent-, gens nation)
OTHER THAN those said to have been
descended from the legendary
Israel (Jacob). -- L.
"Gentiles" is a word derived from Latin that
means "Peoples" or "Nations." In Roman civil
affairs, "Gentiles" has referred to all nations
that were not *Romans*. Consequently, in Roman
civil usage, the Israelites would have been
categorized as "Gentiles" or non-Romans.
I used the term as one of those that belonged
to the nations *before* they were made into
a "holy nation."
Exodus 19:5-6
5. Now therefore, if ye will obey my
voice indeed, and keep my covenant,
then ye shall be a peculiar treasure
unto me above all people: for all the
earth is mine:
6. And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of
priests, and an holy nation. These
are the words which thou shalt speak
unto the children of Israel.
In other words God was calling the Israelites,
12 tribes out of many NATIONS, to keep his
covenant. At the time the Israelites stood
on the plain below Mt. Sinai, the 12 tribes
were still not made into the very distinct
"holy nation" referenced in vs. 6.
The English term, "GENTILE," has been adopted
and modified for Biblical usage. Below is
a later reference to Jews among GENTILES
(non-Jews). Obviously, this took place much
after Mt. Sinai.
Malachi 1:11
11: For from the rising of the sun even
unto the going down of the same my
name shall be great among the GENTILES;
and in every place incense shall be
offered unto my name, and a pure
offering: for my name shall be great
among the heathen, saith the LORD of
hosts.
Thunder
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Diffferences between Catholic & Protestant Bibles |
30 Nov 2003 07:14:49 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" wrote:
Your Protestant "Bible" is an imitation of the REAL "Bible",
with many components missing from it!
Your catechism gives an imitation of the REAL "Ten Commandments",
with many components missing from it... even if you use a Catholic Bible!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Diffferences between Catholic & Protestant Bibles |
30 Nov 2003 07:32:45 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Libertarius" wrote:
Your Protestant "Bible" is an imitation of the REAL "Bible",
with many components missing from it!
Your catechism gives an imitation of the REAL "Ten Commandments",
===>Which "Ten Commandments" is the "real" one?
Exodus 20?
Deuteronomy 5?
The "Sabbath" commandment in Deuteronomy 5
clearly shows that it was meant for the ISRAELITES!
with many components missing from it... even if you use a Catholic Bible!
===>So, what?
Ever since the writing of the so-called "New Testament",
Christians have been changing what was in the Hebrew
scriptures.
One of the most blatant ones is Isaiah 7:14,
falsely quoted in MATTHEW.
Also, why is it "my" catechism?
You falsely ASSume I am a Catholic.
And by doing so, you are dodging the issue in question:
i.e. that the book you use is falsely claimed to be the
"BIble", which was created by the Church (not MY Church)
and contained books Protestants discarded. It is an
ERSATZ "BIBLE".
Not ALL "Cola" is COCA Cola! -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Abigail Holtz" |
|
| Title: Re: Diffferences between Catholic & Protestant Bibles |
01 Dec 2003 07:15:54 PM |
|
|
In article <3FCA76DF.4ECBE69A@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>,
Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net says...
:
:
:Andrew wrote:
:
:> "Libertarius" wrote:
:> >
:> > Andrew wrote:
:> > > "Jesse Gomez" wrote:
:> > > > In truth,
:> > > >
:> > > > There is one correct Bible, the Douay Rheims which is an English
:> > > > translation of the Latin Vulgate which was scripted word for word by the
:> > > > highly skilled St Jerome. He was a scholar in Greek and Hebrew. The Douay
:> > > > Rheims is the authorized copy of the Traditional Catholic Church but not the
:> > > > Novus Ordo.
:> > >
:> > > Whatever Bible you use.. there are serious differences between the ten commandments
:> > > of the Scriptures and the ten commandments in the catechisms of the Catholic Church.
:> >
:> > ===>How is that relevant?
:>
:> It is relevant for Jesse and any other devout Catholic who wishes to live in harmony with God.
:
:===>It is NOT relevant to the subject of this thread, which is
:"Differences between Catholic & Protestant Bibles".
:Those differences are what you are hiding from by bringing
:up the issue of "catechisms".
:Your Protestant "Bible" is an imitation of the REAL "Bible",
:with many components missing from it!
:
:> > > Here are God's ten commandments,
:> >
:> > ===>They are commandments ATTRIBUTED TO
:> > the god YHWH, but obviously not that literally important,
:>
:> I would think they would be of paramount importance since they are the only thing
:> that has been given to mankind that was written specifically by the Creator Himself.
:>
:
:===>How did your "creator" forget what "was written specifically
:by the Creator Himself" when, in the repeat version of the Ten
:Commandments, "he" wrote:
:
:"Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,
:as the LORD your God commanded you.
:Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
:but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD
:your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your
:son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant,
:nor your female servant, nor your ox, nor your
:donkey, nor any of your cattle, nor your stranger
:who is within your gates, that your male servant
:and your female servant may rest as well as you.
:And remember that you were a slave in the land of
:Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from
:there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm;
:therefore the LORD your God commanded you to
:keep the Sabbath day."
:
: Since when were YOU or any GENTILES slaves
:"in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought
:you out"????
:Does this second version not imply that this
:commandment pertains to the people of Israel only? -- L.
From a Jewish perspective, it certainly does. In fact, technically under
Jewish law, while Gentiles working for Jews must be given the day off,
Gentiles in general are prohibited from fully observing the Sabbath.
Exodus 31:16-17
Stone Tanach
"The Children of Israel shall observe the Sabbath, to make the Sabbath an
eternal covenant for their generations. Between Me and the Children of
Israel it is a sign forever..."
The Sabbath is "a sign" between Israel and G-d. Hopefully this will
not sound offensive, but for someone who is not a member of the Covenant,
observing it is like wearing a wedding ring when you're not married.
And, as I recall, Paul forbids his followers to observe it.
G-d made a covenant with Noah, binding him to seven laws, and in return
promising never again to try to destroy humanity. As all human beings
are children of Noah from a biblical perspective, they are binding on all
humanity. The Children of Israel, who are party to a later covenant,
have more specific laws to follow, but those laws are not applicable to
the rest of humankind.
These Seven Universal Laws are:
Avodah Zarah: Prohibition on idolatry.
Birchat HaShem: Prohibition on blasphemy and cursing the Name of G-d.
Shefichat Damim: Prohibition on murder.
Gezel: Prohibition on robbery and theft.
Gilui Arayot: Prohibition on immorality and forbidden sexual relations.
Ever Min HaChay: Prohibition on removing and eating a limb from a live
animal.
Dinim: Requirement to establish a justice system and courts of law to
enforce the other 6 laws.
As you can see, from a Jewish perspective (unless you regard Jesus as an
idol, which some Jews do) Christianity is a perfectly acceptable Gentile
religion under the Noachide laws.
BUT none of those laws include keeping the Sabbath. The Ten Commandments
are not universal -- just as the commandments in Leviticus are
not universal.
--
Best regards,
Abby
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Blessings of God's Holy Sabbath are for ALL Nations |
01 Dec 2003 08:57:01 PM |
|
|
"Abigail Holtz" wrote:
The Sabbath is "a sign" between Israel and G-d. Hopefully this will
not sound offensive, but for someone who is not a member of the Covenant,
observing it is like wearing a wedding ring when you're not married.
Yes, but this *Covenant relashionship* is offered to all who will..."commit themselves to the Lord
and serve him and love his name, who will worship Him and not desecrate the Sabbath day of rest"
The Blessings of God's Holy Sabbath are for ALL Nations:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Isaiah 56:2-8~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Blessed are those who are careful to do this. Blessed are those who honor my Sabbath days of rest
by refusing to work. And blessed are those who keep themselves from doing wrong. “And my bless-
ings are FOR THE GENTILES TOO, when they commit themselves to the Lord. Do not let them
think that I consider them second-class citizens. And my blessings are also for the eunuchs. They are
as much mine as anyone else. For I say this to the eunuchs who keep my Sabbath days holy, who
choose to do what pleases me and commit their lives to me: I will give them—in my house, within
my walls— memorial and a name far greater than the honor they would have received by having sons
and daughters. For the name I give them is an everlasting one. It will never disappear!
"I will also bless the Gentiles who commit themselves to the Lord and serve him and love his name, who
worship him and do not desecrate the Sabbath day of rest, and who have accepted his covenant. I will
bring them also to my holy mountain of Jerusalem and will fill them with joy in my house of prayer. I will
accept their burnt offerings and sacrifices, because my Temple will be called a house of prayer for ALL
nations. For the Sovereign Lord, who brings back the outcasts of Israel, says: I will bring others, too,
besides my people Israel."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Isaiah 56:2-8~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Who IS the LORD that we are to love, serve, worship and keep holy His Sabbath?
It is none other than Jesus Christ, who declared that HE is the "Lord of the Sabbath." (Mt 12:8)
Let us serve Him, honor Him, love Him and keep His commandments always! Amen?
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Blessings of God's Holy Sabbath are for ALL Nations -- IF COMMITTED! |
02 Dec 2003 10:25:54 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Abigail Holtz" wrote:
The Sabbath is "a sign" between Israel and G-d. Hopefully this will
not sound offensive, but for someone who is not a member of the Covenant,
observing it is like wearing a wedding ring when you're not married.
Yes, but this *Covenant relashionship* is offered to all who will..."commit themselves to the Lord
and serve him and love his name, who will worship Him and not desecrate the Sabbath day of rest"
The Blessings of God's Holy Sabbath are for ALL Nations:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Isaiah 56:2-8~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Blessed are those who are careful to do this. Blessed are those who honor my Sabbath days of rest
by refusing to work. And blessed are those who keep themselves from doing wrong. “And my bless-
ings are FOR THE GENTILES TOO, when they commit themselves to the Lord.
===>THERE is your answer.
By "committing yourself", you become a CONVERT.
That means CIRCUMCISION, etc.
Thousands of people have done that.
An entire nation of Turkic people (KHAZARS)
and their king and leaders did that.
But you don't sound like YOU are prepared
to do that!
I have friends who were born Gentile
and "committed themselves". Now they are
Jewish!
As Abigail said, you want to wear the ring without getting
married.
Go see a rabbi and COMMIT yourself, if your wish.
Libertarius
==============
.
|
|
|
| User: "Abigail Holtz" |
|
| Title: Re: Blessings of God's Holy Sabbath are for ALL Nations -- IF COMMITTED! |
02 Dec 2003 11:23:16 AM |
|
|
In article <3FCCBD12.80920672@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>,=20
Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net says...
:
:
:Andrew wrote:
:
:> "Abigail Holtz" wrote:
:> >
:> > The Sabbath is "a sign" between Israel and G-d. Hopefully this will
:> > not sound offensive, but for someone who is not a member of the Covena=
nt,
:> > observing it is like wearing a wedding ring when you're not married.
:> >
:>
:> Yes, but this *Covenant relashionship* is offered to all who will..."com=
mit themselves to the Lord
:> and serve him and love his name, who will worship Him and not desecrate =
the Sabbath day of rest"
:>
:> The Blessings of God's Holy Sabbath are fo=
r ALL Nations:
:>
:> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Isaiah 56:2-8~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=
~~~~~~~~~~~
:>
:> "Blessed are those who are careful to do this. Blessed are those who hon=
or my Sabbath days of rest
:> by refusing to work. And blessed are those who keep themselves from doi=
ng wrong. =93And my bless-
:> ings are FOR THE GENTILES TOO, when they commit themselves to the Lord.
:
:=3D=3D=3D>THERE is your answer.
:By "committing yourself", you become a CONVERT.
:That means CIRCUMCISION, etc.
:Thousands of people have done that.
:An entire nation of Turkic people (KHAZARS)
:and their king and leaders did that.
:But you don't sound like YOU are prepared
:to do that!
:I have friends who were born Gentile
:and "committed themselves". Now they are
:Jewish!
:
:As Abigail said, you want to wear the ring without getting
:married.
:
: Go see a rabbi and COMMIT yourself, if your wish.
<chuckle>=20
Now, now, Libertarius -- we haven't proselytized for close to two=20
millennia. =20
And we're supposed to DISCOURAGE converts, not encourage them. =20
Plus, even though I'm enjoying this debate with the boy, the issue is=20
actually moot -- Christians DON'T keep the Sabbath, and to the best of my=
=20
knowledge (with the possible exception of early Jewish Christians) they=20
never have. So, it's not a practical problem.
But this really has pointed up the differences in the way we read the=20
Bible!
--=20
Shalom,
Abby
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Blessings of God's Holy Sabbath are for ALL Nations -- IF COMMITTED! |
02 Dec 2003 12:53:36 PM |
|
|
Abigail Holtz wrote:
In article <3FCCBD12.80920672@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>,
Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net says...
:
:
:Andrew wrote:
:
:> "Abigail Holtz" wrote:
:> >
:> > The Sabbath is "a sign" between Israel and G-d. Hopefully this will
:> > not sound offensive, but for someone who is not a member of the Covenant,
:> > observing it is like wearing a wedding ring when you're not married.
:> >
:>
:> Yes, but this *Covenant relashionship* is offered to all who will..."commit themselves to the Lord
:> and serve him and love his name, who will worship Him and not desecrate the Sabbath day of rest"
:>
:> The Blessings of God's Holy Sabbath are for ALL Nations:
:>
:> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Isaiah 56:2-8~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
:>
:> "Blessed are those who are careful to do this. Blessed are those who honor my Sabbath days of rest
:> by refusing to work. And blessed are those who keep themselves from doing wrong. “And my bless-
:> ings are FOR THE GENTILES TOO, when they commit themselves to the Lord.
:
:===>THERE is your answer.
:By "committing yourself", you become a CONVERT.
:That means CIRCUMCISION, etc.
:Thousands of people have done that.
:An entire nation of Turkic people (KHAZARS)
:and their king and leaders did that.
:But you don't sound like YOU are prepared
:to do that!
:I have friends who were born Gentile
:and "committed themselves". Now they are
:Jewish!
:
:As Abigail said, you want to wear the ring without getting
:married.
:
: Go see a rabbi and COMMIT yourself, if your wish.
<chuckle>
Now, now, Libertarius -- we haven't proselytized for close to two
millennia.
And we're supposed to DISCOURAGE converts, not encourage them.
===>I only meant to point out to him where he went wrong in
interpreting Isaiah, ignoring that little word.
Anyway, I get the impression Andrew would be strongly discouraged!
Plus, even though I'm enjoying this debate with the boy, the issue is
actually moot -- Christians DON'T keep the Sabbath, and to the best of my
knowledge (with the possible exception of early Jewish Christians) they
never have. So, it's not a practical problem.
===>Well, SOME do keep Sabbath.
My SDA relatives do, and there is a subgroup of
Unitarians in Transylvania (yes, there is such a place
and yes, there was a man dubbed "Dracula" there at one
time) who worshipped on the Sabbath and kept all of the
Jewish holidays. I even have a copy of their old prayer
book, some of which is in HEBREW! There might still be
a few of them around, but they mostly merged back to
the Unitarian Church or became SDAs or fully Jewish.
But this really has pointed up the differences in the way we read the
Bible!
===>That is not unusual at all!
Don't even people who are practicing the Jewish religion
also read the TANAKH (not "The Bible") in many different
ways? ;-) -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Abigail Holtz" |
|
| Title: Re: Blessings of God's Holy Sabbath are for ALL Nations -- IF COMMITTED! |
02 Dec 2003 02:58:29 PM |
|
|
In article <3FCCDFB0.8122ECF1@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>,
Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net says...
:
:
:Abigail Holtz wrote:
:
:> In article <3FCCBD12.80920672@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>,
:> Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net says...
<snip>
:> :As Abigail said, you want to wear the ring without getting
:> :married.
:> :
:> : Go see a rabbi and COMMIT yourself, if your wish.
:>
:> <chuckle>
:>
:> Now, now, Libertarius -- we haven't proselytized for close to two
:> millennia.
:>
:> And we're supposed to DISCOURAGE converts, not encourage them.
:
:===>I only meant to point out to him where he went wrong in
:interpreting Isaiah, ignoring that little word.
I know, I was just teasing you. The idea of a non-Jew proselytizing
(which I know you weren't really doing) for Judaism struck me funny.
:Anyway, I get the impression Andrew would be strongly discouraged!
Me too. But that's okay. Hard as it will be, I think we'll manage to
survive without him. <wink>
:> Plus, even though I'm enjoying this debate with the boy, the issue is
:> actually moot -- Christians DON'T keep the Sabbath, and to the best of my
:> knowledge (with the possible exception of early Jewish Christians) they
:> never have. So, it's not a practical problem.
:
:===>Well, SOME do keep Sabbath.
:My SDA relatives do, and there is a subgroup of
:Unitarians in Transylvania (yes, there is such a place
:and yes, there was a man dubbed "Dracula" there at one
:time) who worshipped on the Sabbath and kept all of the
:Jewish holidays. I even have a copy of their old prayer
:book, some of which is in HEBREW! There might still be
:a few of them around, but they mostly merged back to
:the Unitarian Church or became SDAs or fully Jewish.
That's amazing! I never knew.
While one might hope that those so inclined became fully Jewish, I fear
that if they did have conversionary leanings but were Christian, they
might have become so-called "messianic Jews."
Unfortunately, the messianics get the bulk of their membership from
Christians who are attracted to Judaism. (Less than 30% of them have
even a Jewish grandparent, a fact which even the messianics themselves
admit.) It makes for a difficult situation -- traditionally, we are not
supposed to encourage conversion, but that leaves potential converts
vulnerable to messianic groups who will "convert" them and then tell them
they're Jewish. This can lead to somewhat tragic situations when they
want to marry a Jew, emigrate to Israel, etc.
Hopefully, they went with the SDAs or the Unitarians instead. Or
converted.
:> But this really has pointed up the differences in the way we read the
:> Bible!
:>
:
:===>That is not unusual at all!
:Don't even people who are practicing the Jewish religion
:also read the TANAKH (not "The Bible") in many different
:ways?
Certainly. And we enjoy different readings of Torah in general, whether
it's the Tanakh or any other Jewish writings. The Talmudic rabbis said
that the Torah had 70 different faces, all of them equally legitimate.
"Bible," by the way, is used for the Tanakh -- that's what the Greeks
called it long before the New Testament, and it emphasizes (although most
people today probably don't recognize it) that it is a collection of
writings, a library, if you will, not a single book.
But I was talking about the way we read it in order to translate. Look
at how Andrew's translation was so desperate to point up the universalist
aspect of Isaiah 56, even at the price of ignoring or adding words, in
order to support the Christian idea that their covenant is the same as
ours or superceded it. Such a reading would not even have occurred to me
while reading the Hebrew, even though the universalism is there, albeit
more subtly.
But to a Christian translator, who, I assume, was also reading the
Hebrew, and who had started out with the idea that the Covenant was for
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
