Anti-Semitism In France!

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

On a Christian Church about a mile from my house, they have a sign on which they put a different saying every week. This week it says:

A Child is like a Mirror.

It is a reflection of what it sees.

I think Ron sees many of us as a reflection, because he constantly accuses many of us of exactly what he does.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

The decision as to which books went into the Bible was made by a commision appointed by Constantine. Some books that are in the Jewish Old Testament were left out of the Christian Old Testament and vice versa.

Correct me if I am wrong, but after Constantine declared that all Romans would become Christians, wasn't the Roman Catholic Church the only Christian Church in town (except maybe for the Greek Othodox Church)?

[green 6]

Yep, the original church split into the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church at some point during the third century CE. The Protestant split came a long, long time later - over a thousand years later. Carlene could give you the exact dates and more information, I am sure. She really knows her church history!

[Ron Cusano 0]

There is a lot that you have written here that I want to respond to but I just got home (almost 11:00 pm). Let me say this quickly! I am not a Martin Luther fan because he was a tremendous anti-semite. More tomorrow!

More from that site Luther was not content even to let the matter rest there, and proceeded to cast doubt on many other books of the Bible which are accepted as canonical by all Protestants. He considered Job and Jonah mere fables, and Ecclesiastes incoherent and incomplete. He wished that Esther (along with 2 Maccabees) "did not exist," and wanted to "toss it into the Elbe" river.

12) Although the New Testament does not quote any of these books directly, it does closely reflect the thought of the deuterocanonical books in many passages. For example, Revelation 1:4 and 8:3-4 appear to make reference to Tobit 12:15:

• Revelation 1:4 Grace to you . . . from the seven spirits who are before his throne. {see also 3:1, 4:5, 5:6}
  Revelation 8:3-4 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.
  {see also Revelation 5:8} Tobit 12:15 I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One.

St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:29, seems to have 2 Maccabees 12:44 in mind. This saying of Paul is one of the most difficult in the New Testament for Protestants to interpret, given their theology:

• 1 Corinthians 15:29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? 2 Maccabees 12:44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.

This passage of St. Paul shows that it was the custom of the early Church to watch, pray and fast for the souls of the deceased. In Scripture, to be baptized is often a metaphor for affliction or (in the Catholic understanding) penance (for example, Matthew 3:11, Mark 10:38-39, Luke 3:16, 12:50). Since those in heaven have no need of prayer, and those in hell can't benefit from it, these practices, sanctioned by St. Paul, must be directed towards those in purgatory. Otherwise, prayers and penances for the dead make no sense, and this seems to be largely what Paul is trying to bring out. The "penance interpretation" is contextually supported by the next three verses, where St. Paul speaks of Why am I in peril every hour? . . . I die every day, and so forth.

As a third example, Hebrews 11:35 mirrors the thought of 2 Maccabees 7:29:

• Hebrews 11:35 Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life.
  2 Maccabees 7:29 Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God's mercy I may get you back again with your brothers. {a mother speaking to her son: see 7:25-26}
  
  
  
  If nothing else, you are getting me to read more of the bible and scholarly works on it.

[wavydaby 1]

The biggest thing is that Luther set the tone for support/non support for books to be in the non-Catholic bibles. His arguements are the ones mostly used to support those decisions

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

The biggest thing is that Luther set the tone for support/non support for books to be in the non-Catholic bibles. His arguements are the ones mostly used to support those decisions

If it hadn't been for Luther, all Christians might be called Roman Catholics today.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Well, they say truth is stranger than fiction. Or, "You just can't make this stuff up". I just checked my e-mail and another of Tina's Uncles has passed away. That makes two uncles for her and one aunt for me this year.

Now, there is the logistical problem of Tina being in Brooklyn taking care of her mother and me being in Florida. We will have to work things out, somehow. I'll see you people in a while, I guess.

Happy Posting,

TOM

[Ron Cusano 0]

I don't know how much weight Martin Luther had with that regard back them. He may have wanted this but nothing was decided bedcasue of him. Theologians today make a good case for exclusion for a number of reasons . ..

1: The do not meet the criteria for inclusion in canon that was used to

include the other books of the Bible.

2: They were never included by the Jewish council, and the Jews were

gived the obligation by God of preserving the Old Testament (unto

them the Jews, were committed the oracles of God)

3: Much of what is contained in there other books is inconsistant with

the whole of scripture.

4: The Catholic church is the only one to include these books into their

canon.

5: If I remember correctly, there were many historical inaccuracies

contained in these books.

The biggest thing is that Luther set the tone for support/non support for books to be in the non-Catholic bibles. His arguements are the ones mostly used to support those decisions

[Ron Cusano 0]

As I mentioned before, Martin Luther, whom I am not a big fan of, my have wanted these things, although I have never heard that claim before. I do know that he had absolutly no say in which books were considered canon.

More from that site Luther was not content even to let the matter rest there, and proceeded to cast doubt on many other books of the Bible which are accepted as canonical by all Protestants. He considered Job and Jonah mere fables, and Ecclesiastes incoherent and incomplete. He wished that Esther (along with 2 Maccabees) "did not exist," and wanted to "toss it into the Elbe" river.

12) Although the New Testament does not quote any of these books directly, it does closely reflect the thought of the deuterocanonical books in many passages. For example, Revelation 1:4 and 8:3-4 appear to make reference to Tobit 12:15:

• Revelation 1:4 Grace to you . . . from the seven spirits who are before his throne. {see also 3:1, 4:5, 5:6}
  Revelation 8:3-4 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.
  {see also Revelation 5:8} Tobit 12:15 I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One.
  
• Because something seems to make reference to something else, is certainly not a good argument to include them into canon. There are certain criteria that must be met, and these book fall short.

St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:29, seems to have 2 Maccabees 12:44 in mind. This saying of Paul is one of the most difficult in the New Testament for Protestants to interpret, given their theology:

• 1 Corinthians 15:29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? 2 Maccabees 12:44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.

This passage of St. Paul shows that it was the custom of the early Church to watch, pray and fast for the souls of the deceased. In Scripture, to be baptized is often a metaphor for affliction or (in the Catholic understanding) penance (for example, Matthew 3:11, Mark 10:38-39, Luke 3:16, 12:50). Since those in heaven have no need of prayer, and those in hell can't benefit from it, these practices, sanctioned by St. Paul, must be directed towards those in purgatory. Otherwise, prayers and penances for the dead make no sense, and this seems to be largely what Paul is trying to bring out. The "penance interpretation" is contextually supported by the next three verses, where St. Paul speaks of Why am I in peril every hour? . . . I die every day, and so forth. It is not difficult to explain at all. During the time of Paul's missionary journeys, he extablished new flegling churchs all over the Middle East and Asia Minor. Quite ofter, these baby church's once left on thier own, would get into doctronial trouble, which Paul addresses and admonishes them in many of his letters. The church at Corinth was one on these churchs. Theologians believe one of the following three things is what was taking place -

1: Living Belivers were being baptised for Believers who had previously

died, because they did not get the chance to be baptised.

2: Believers were being baptised in anticipation of the ressurrection

of the dead.

3: New converts were being baptised to replace those who had

died from within the church.

Paul mentions this only in passing and it is never again spoken of,

and was certainly not a common practice of the early church. "Purgatory" is not mentioned anywhere in scripture and makes a mockery of what Paul said, - "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord". Purgatory is a concept that cannot be supported by scripture and is only taught by the Catholic church.

The clear teaching of scripture is that salvation, or being saved, come not from any things or good works that you do, but rather by the grace of the Lord through the atoning death of the saviour. We obtain this grace ONLY by believing, and accepting God's free gift of salvation. (Epheasians 2: 8-9) We can't earn our way into heaven, otherwise Jesus died in vain. Believing is about the only thing you can do, without doing anything. We must come to this belief before we die, and if we do, we are present with the Lord immediately after death. Believing is THE ONLY WAY to receive eternal life ( John 3:16 - 18 )

Purgatory, praying for the salvation of the dead, praying to the saints and Mary for intercession, infant baptism and other doctrines, are dogma of the Catholic church only, and cannot be supported by scripture.

contained in these books.

As a third example, Hebrews 11:35 mirrors the thought of 2 Maccabees 7:29:

• Hebrews 11:35 Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life.
  2 Maccabees 7:29 Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God's mercy I may get you back again with your brothers. {a mother speaking to her son: see 7:25-26}
  
  
  
  If nothing else, you are getting me to read more of the bible and scholarly works on it.
  
• I am glad that you are getting into reading the Bible. Please remember something. The Catholic church does not accept the literal understanding of scripture. The intrepret scripture allogorically, meaning "it can mean anything they think it means, because the Catholic church has the right to make it's own canon law". Also, the Catholic Bible is a paraphrased Bible, meaning it is not a word for word translation, rather it contains what the writer, the Catholic Church, says it means. In effect, it pretty much makes it's own Bible. If you want to fully understand what the Bible is saying, I suggest you get a word-for-word translation and decide for yourself what is being said.

[lisah25 3]

Well, they say truth is stranger than fiction. Or, "You just can't make this stuff up". I just checked my e-mail and another of Tina's Uncles has passed away. That makes two uncles for her and one aunt for me this year.

Now, there is the logistical problem of Tina being in Brooklyn taking care of her mother and me being in Florida. We will have to work things out, somehow. I'll see you people in a while, I guess.

Happy Posting,

TOM

I'm so sorry - what a crummy year!

[wavydaby 1]

Ron,

I guess thats where we differ. I have studied three different languages, French, German and Latin. Latin for 8 years. In studing those languages, expecially with the latin, you learn that sometimes that foreign language does not have a specific english word to translate to. Sometimes with a word, you can turn it in to a whole phrase or a word that means mostly like it. I had a rather "unique" professor (private school, not Catholic) in high school Latin. He gave us a rather "common insult". I can not remember the exact Latin, (Nonconcubarium Illegitimus) but I remember the phrase. Us, being the good little high school students we were translated the phrase as, "Do not allow the illegitimate sons cast you downtrodden."

Which was not incorrect. However, the actual meaning that those "whipper-snappers" meant was "Don't let the bastards get you down."

What I am trying to say is that sometimes you may get a literal translation, some times not.

Translation of something is a interpretive science. you can give someone a dictionary and a document to translate and give someone else the exact same material, and you can come up with different translations that may or may not get the "essence" of the original meanings across.

[Ron Cusano 0]

You are 100% Correct! And we also have to remember that what meant something in the King's English back when the King James version was translated, could be very hard to comprehend using todays English. And that is where the Strongs Concordance is so valuable. Remember, not we are speaking about single words, not phrases or sentences. Therefore, in a literal translation, we have the added insurance to be able and research individual words, as in a dictionary. You can't do this with a paraphrased Bible because it is not a word-by-word translation, and you have to take the writers word for what he thinks the meaning is. They may be good as a "starter" Bible for someone who has comprehension problems, but they can be riddled with inconsistancies and problems.

Ron,

I guess thats where we differ. I have studied three different languages, French, German and Latin. Latin for 8 years. In studing those languages, expecially with the latin, you learn that sometimes that foreign language does not have a specific english word to translate to. Sometimes with a word, you can turn it in to a whole phrase or a word that means mostly like it. I had a rather "unique" professor (private school, not Catholic) in high school Latin. He gave us a rather "common insult". I can not remember the exact Latin, (Nonconcubarium Illegitimus) but I remember the phrase. Us, being the good little high school students we were translated the phrase as, "Do not allow the illegitimate sons cast you downtrodden."

Which was not incorrect. However, the actual meaning that those "whipper-snappers" meant was "Don't let the bastards get you down."

What I am trying to say is that sometimes you may get a literal translation, some times not.

Translation of something is a interpretive science. you can give someone a dictionary and a document to translate and give someone else the exact same material, and you can come up with different translations that may or may not get the "essence" of the original meanings across.

[wavydaby 1]

Remember, not we are speaking about single words, not phrases or sentences. .

Ya lost me.. we are talking about single words and phrases....

Please clarify

[Ron Cusano 0]

I'm sorry! What I was trying to say was we are talking about single words, NOT phrases or sentences.

Ya lost me.. we are talking about single words and phrases....

Please clarify

[wavydaby 1]

But see.. there in lies my problem. You can translate single word for word or look at a sentence and translate it, and get different meanings.

I havent done any research on the way the Strong Concordance was translated as opposed to the others. Unfortunatly, I am going to be swamped all weekend.

This will probably be my last post til Sun nite.

Although.. I will be nit picky on this one... We arent supposed to work or shop or do anything but pray on the Sabbeth.. and at one point, everything was closed in SC and GA on Sundays because of this. But we changed the law. Many Right Wing Christians were very against this. Some small towns in SC still have the "blue laws" as they were called.

Was it wrong to change it to open stores? What is your oppinion?

NOT BEING sarcastic.. but please show verses to support opinion.

thanks....