₦airaland Forum

Dantedasz:
Don't get hot under the collar. You quoted me first. I am pointing out how Mariology spills into Mariolatry. You should understand that over the decades the Catholic church has evolved according to the whims and caprices of individual Pope's.
I ask you what do you understand by the term immaculate conception?
Is it not elevation of Mary to a sinless level and as such a vessel for salvation. These practices have their origin in Roman pagan worship of the mothers of their gods.

mariology does not spill into mariolatry, if you bothered to read up the link you provided you would have noticed that some of the popes listed there also condemned manifestations of Marian thought they deemed unwholesome.

Catholic theology does not develop under the whim of the pope, the Pope most times is simply a spokesperson for the church, each of the words he expands upon are those already accepted by the church, he isn't creating doctrine, he is stating what the church already believes, as peter was like a spokesman for the apostles.


The pope didn't elevate Mary to sinless status Mary was always sinless, if you managed to read up Augustine and Ephrem who lived over 1500 years ago you would know that from the early church Mary was already considered sinless, the same line of thought is developed in the church for centuries, the popes job is just to speak what the church already believes.

A Orthodox Christian will also agree that Mary is sinless and yet their doctrine isn't influenced by any Pope in Rome, they got theirs from the early church
Again not pagan, just Christian

Dantedasz:
I hope you will not run away when I show you links showing papal support over the ages for Mariology .
These are worship of statues,art,music,rosary as well as places of worship dedicated to the mother of the Christos. You may call it veneration while I call it worship,it is just a matter of semantics. Catholics even have days dedicated to worshipping Mary or the second Eve as you have elevated her.
I know you will not follow this link because you are stuck on your beliefs but her is Mariology and the Pope's over the decades. Happy reading.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariology_of_the_popes

You must either lack comprehension, or just out to deceive.


Is mariolatry and mariology the same thing? Are you you so quick to condemn that you misrepresent others?

Mariolatry is worship of Mary and that is totally condemned in Catholicism.

Mariology on the other hand is a branch of Christian theology that studies the place of Mary in salvation story.


Abeg stop confusing two different issues just to gain points in an e-discussion, if you don't know about it then make research and learn before you come gun blazing trying to condemn others on issues you don't understand.

Suspect33:
catholism is more like a cult, I plead with catholics to seek God for themselves then they would see the deception in catholism, I was once a catholic too

do you even know the meaning of a cult?

Ihedinobi3:
@Ubenedictus, I will beg your indulgence because I am going to cut to the heart of the matter. I apologize if that offends you but I really cannot afford the time and energy for the piecemeal responses that you may want and for all the historical research that answering each specific point requires especially since I am not trained in history.

To begin with, the claim the Bible makes and which Christians believe is that it is the Word of God, God's Oracle, God's Truth or God's Testimony.

That statement is what this thread is attacking on the basis of historical arguments that I believe are very flawed. I have already given my reasons for believing so. Now I will give my reasons for believing that the Bible's claim about itself is true. In my arguments, I think that you will also find your own counterarguments answered in one way or another.

The same way that the only person who can tell you that some testimony attributed to them is really from them is that person themselves, it is only God Himself Who decides what the Bible is or what the Canon is. No human or angelic council can do that. It cannot be voted on or be pronounced upon in any way. If any book belongs to the Canon, it will be known from the identifying feature - whatever it may be - that God Himself put upon it to make sure that nobody who really cares to know will be confused about it. That is only to be expected since we evil humans who will deliberately mislead other people into believing falsehoods about ourselves can still be responsible enough to make sure that people we care about don't get misled into believing that something that is not from us is really from us and something that is really isn't. God Who is Perfect and perfectly loving toward His Creatures must therefore be even more responsible in His Own Actions regarding His Testimony. The books that He inspired must therefore contain some innate witness within themselves that makes it clear to everyone who reads them that these books really came from Him.

Therefore, no human or angelic council of any sort is qualified or necessary to decide what the Canon is or "set it" in any way.

For this reason, I cannot accept that the Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures (which, by the way, were in use for more than a thousand years and the last of which was written more than four hundred years before the Lord Jesus Christ came and died for our sins) was "not set until after the apostles had died". The Canon was set as each book was written because of God's unique "signature", if you will, in each one of them.

Now, because human history from the Garden of Eden until Eternity begins is all about Truth, that is, about the question, "what is Truth?", it only follows that Satan and humans will be invested in distorting whatever God's own Answer to that question may be. We possess a free will, the very Image of God, and therefore can choose what we want to believe. But we also have something in us that demands Truth, that is, a Conscience. For that reason, while we may reject God's Truth, we must provide ourselves with some rationale for doing so. That is what leads to the distortions and total or complete inventions of belief systems of our own that have nothing to do with God, forcing our consciences to embrace the Lie in one form or another.

That is how many versions of the Bible whether in historical manuscripts or in contemporary translations exist with not a few of them conflicting with each other on one point or the other.

Regardless of this desire on the part of the majority of human beings to distort God's Truth, God's Truth is still preserved in the world because of others who not only want to know it in its pure form but want to keep it accessible to others who may come to seek it. This is how God counteracts the power of the Lie. So, in every generation, there have been true believers equipped with the abilities and resources required to either reclaim the Truth from increasingly elaborate distortions that the Enemy and his agents have tried to mire it in. Some of them, like Jerome, had tremendous work to do in doing so and, being weak humans like the rest of us, often caved to the pressure to just leave well enough alone but each one went far enough to preserve a shining witness to God's Testimony for others to know that work still needed to be done. Their mistakes - when they made any - must then be separated from their successes. That Jerome, for example, did quote some of the Apocrypha as Scripture - if indeed he did for I admit no such thing having too little expertise in history to have any kind of expert opinion on that - does not therefore mean that they were part of the Bible. It only means that he did quote them as Scripture - if, like I said, your claims that he did are in fact true.

Why did God not prevent anyone from corrupting the Scriptures though? It is a fair question because obviously God can and He loves us and wants us to know the Truth or else the Bible is lying about Him, that is, He would be lying about Himself if the Bible is truly His Testimony. The answer to that question is that we have a free will. All sane human beings (the overwhelming majority of human beings) do. Therefore, each of us has a God-given right to decide what to do with God's Testimony. We can receive it in humility. We can ignore it. Or we can actively try to destroy it like King Jehoiakim of Judah tried to do in Jeremiah 36:21-26. Active physical destruction of the Bible has been attempted multiple times in human history but it is not the only way that people have actively attempted to destroy the Scriptures. They have tried too to add or remove or change material in them so that those who read their production will be misled into believing lies masked as Truth. This is hardly novel since Satan himself has been doing that since the beginning of human history, that is, presenting the lie as the truth to try to deceive those who want to be listening to God.

God allows this to make sure that every human choice about him is clearly demonstrated in the eyes of men and angels. But He is also God and He does have people who love His Truth and He commits Himself to helping them to preserve it, covering their weaknesses with His Strength so that His Testimony is preserved pure in the earth. There has never been a time in human history when such people did not exist. Nor has there ever been a time in human history when their opposite didn't either. So at all times throughout human history, both the pure Testimony of God and the adulteration, distortions and outright invented alternatives have always existed together so that everyone can choose what side they want to be on.

For this reason, the age of any given material says very little about whether or not it is God's Testimony. So, the argument that the Septuagint pre-existed the Masoretic Text counts for exactly nothing...not to mention that in some of the material discovered in the Qumran Caves you mentioned which are older than the Septuagint (if memory serves me right), the Masoretic Text was witnessed to rather emphatically.

Finally, what is God's Signature in the Scriptures? How can anyone know what is Scripture and what isn't if we cannot judge by human authority or popular appeal? It is this: God is Spirit, therefore, every Scripture will contain His Essence, that is, they will necessarily possess His Inspiration and thus be spiritual in themselves. This is something that cannot be ascertained by physical or material investigation of any kind. The same way that our eyes need help to be able to detect certain lights like infrared and ultraviolet, our minds must be helped (with the tool or faculty of free will faith) in order to perceive the spiritual quality of the Scriptures. Every living human is able to tell that Scripture is Scripture (if they have preserved that faculty of free will faith in themselves) but not everyone can understand what is written in it. For unbelievers, if they care, they will find the Gospel in the Bible and be led to Salvation. Other than that, not much else in the Bible will make sense to them since it is spiritually discerned. For the neophyte believer, they may learn some fundamental truths of the Bible. But only if they submit to a fellow believer who possesses a teaching gift and training will they learn more than that. The Scriptures only yield themselves to faith and growing faith. Otherwise, they are opaque to those who try to read them.

This is why it is such a stumbling block. When those who will not submit to God discover His Testimony, they have only two possible reactions: ignore it or try to destroy it. Many have done or tried to do one or the other. But nobody has ever seen God's Truth and failed to know Its Uniqueness.

So, all the history in this debate is an interesting intellectual exercise and had I the time I would have enjoyed butting heads with you over what really did happen and what each event really meant. But I don't have the time and the history is beside the point. The point is that the Bible is really its own defence against all the efforts that have been made to destroy it. So, PastorAIO is wrong and in quite a few points so are you.

the only thing you forgot to do is address my points, no, you just repeat whatever you think of the Bible and expect others to agree because you said so.



I will respond to your rather long post in a detailed manner latter. Just as your earlier submission, your current reading is rather simplistic and I will agrue erroneous.


I'll get back to this.

It almost seems you think the Bible fell down from heaven, worst you imagine rather incorrectly that every book is immediately recognized as inspired immediately it is written which unfortunately is untrue or just ignorant....

OLAADEGBU:
Where did 'The Passion of Christ' by Mel Gibson end?

can't you read the title of the movie? Does it include the birth or the preaching? The movie is titled the passion, of course it will contain just the passion

Lektu3:
you see why i can never attain catholic church

I guess you believe it is OK to judge 1.2 billion people based on the actions of a few.

Dantedasz:
Mariolatory which is the worship of Mary and her images and the elevation of Mary to equality with Jesus her son has its origins in ancient Roman idolatry worship of goddesses such as Astarte,Ashtoreth,Juno, and Isis in which the gods were believed to have mother's.
When the Roman Emperor Constantine became a Christian and made Christianity the official Roman religion many of the Roman idolatry practices were adopted and absorbed into Christianity at the first council of Nicaea in AD 325.
At the council of Ephesus in AD 431 convened by the Roman Emperor Theodosius 'll the Bishops decreed that Mary could be called the "Christotokos" birth giver of Christ.
All these doctrines were later insertions of the Romans into Christianity.

the worship of Mary was and is condemned by the Catholic church, it was never adopted in the church whether before or after Constantine. The veneration of Mary and the saints though are legitimate Christian practices and are part of the Christian church before Constantine...

Glycolysis:
Nice write up...
But if we are to go with the view that the woman is mary,don't it defile the believe of the immaculate conception of mary believed dearly by the Roman catholics ?

Let's go to to verse 2 of that revelation 12;

"And she being with child cried,travailing in birth ,& pained to be delivered "

So,as you can see from that verse,the woman was in pain to be delivered ,but thier is a believe among the catholics that Mary was born without sins ( the immaculate conception of Mary) ,therefore she would not experience or did not experience the pain of child birth ..

I will bring up more "pictures" as we proceeds on these..


What do you think sir ?

If we are to go with the view of the woman being the Israel;then that verse will make more meaning to that verse 2.
Bible has it that the Israelites has always being tormented,subjected to all kind of pains & suffering,hoping for the delivery of the messiah they have heard of prophesied by the prophets..

Jesus was delivered as an isrealite,which you & I were told....or know.

What do YOU think on these as well ?

Again, if we are to go with the church of God as the woman,don't the church of God,which are usually referred to as Christians, start after the birth of Christ ?
The woman cannot be the "church of God" because the true church of God actually started during/after the missionary works of Jesus Christ, which are the true believers we see today .

What do YOU think on these too ?

AND NO,IF CAN'T BE THREE,EVEN IF THIER SEEM TO BE A SIMILARITIES....THIER IS A SUBTLE DIFFERENCES THAT MAKES ONE FITS THE REVELATION 12 ,100%...

Good morning ......

not really, Jesus was immaculately conceived yet he experienced pain and died, his mum been immaculately conceived does not mean she didn't experience pain.

Glycolysis:
You don't need to like me..

Great input from you...
Jesus got our human nature , felt the pains we felt & was tempted as we are always tempted,only that he did not inherit the sinful nature ( adamic nature ) of the fallen man.

Am actually learning from you...

Please what do you understand about the immaculate conception of Mary & how that relate to Jesus ..

Oh sorry,do you actually believe in the immaculate conception of Mary ?

Funny question on my part to ask,when I knew from the outset that you're a Roman catholic..but I will still appreciate your respond here since I'm dealing with just an individual.

please remind me how the immaculate conception relates to this topic, why not open a thread for that.

solite3:
can a son exist before his mother? if the son existed before the mother it means he is not really the son of the woman.
This is so simple! Jesus is both man and God correct
Mary is the mother of Jesus correct
Mary is the mother of God incorrect
why?
the origin of Jesus humanity is from Mary but his divinity has no origin.


Micah 5:2
But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

your logic seems to be, if Mary gave birth to Jesus who is both God and man then mary is the mother of God.

to show you this reasoning is wrong!

John 8:57
Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

John 8:58
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.


The news followed your reasoning if Jesus was less than fifty it would have mean Abraham pre- existed christ.
yes Abraham pre-existing christ in the flesh but in Spirit as God he was existing before Abraham.


Jesus was aware of his pre-existence of Abraham.

so Jesus clearly separate his divinity from his humanity by that statement.

Jesus also challenge the Jews who called him the son of David, again separating his his heavenly sonship from his earthly sonship something the rcc would have called heresy.

hence mary is the mother of christ in the flesh not of God.

have you ever heard of a woman who gave birth to her creator before?


These are singular event in histe, never happened before and will never happen again.

That it has no comparison doesn't make it untrue.

Keep jumping in Nestorianism.

Funny enough orthodoxy confirms the following doctrines as correct.

Mary as mother of God vis a vis the hypostatic Union.

Perpetual virginity of Mary.

Communion of saints!

Just to name a few.

blueAgent:
God said he will turn Satan to ashes and you are saying that Satan will not die.

abeg help me quote your translation

JMAN05:
Jerome never viewed those books are canonical. He in fact used the word "Apocrypha" for those books to denote its lack of inspiration. There other latter "church fathers" that viewed those writings as not authoritative.

lastly, not canonical does NOT mean not scripture, a book can be not canonical and still be scripture, the canon sometimes simply refers to the books used in the liturgy.


For example in the Russian Orthodox church the book of revelation is not canonical (it is never read in the divine liturgy) but it is scripture and may be read by any Russian Orthodox Christian as scripture.

solite3:
that passage does not have mutiple interpretation.

then you must be the only Christian who believe the earthly lsrael is the mother to all who believe in Jesus


For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the MOTHER of us all. Gal 4:25-26
.
Then Paul tell us about the Jerusalem in heb

you are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels [which surrounds and protects it], to the general assembly and church of the firstborn” (vs. 22-23).



The mother of believer is not Hagar who is Israel, the mother of belivers is Sarah which is the church that much is very clear.

the church did not superseded Israel, which early church? Paul never taught that.

go back and read Galatians 4 from 22, the old Israel from Sinai is Hagar it has been superseded by the Sarah the new Israel which is the church.

it has already been settled that that passage did not refer to mary.

Mary is the figure of the church in what way? Mary had no promenence in the bible apart from giving birth to christ, I wonder where all these fables came out from.

then you must read the Bible without understanding, the church is a mother to all believer who form Jesus' body mystically and mary gave birth to that same body physically now glorified, she is a figure of the church.

the church and Israel have their proper place no one can replace the other.

and Israel is certainly not the mother of believers

hence the Roman Catholic Church carried out one of the most gruesome killings of christians.

this statement must be born out of ignorance, do you have an idea how many Catholics you Protestants murdered just to perpetuate your heresy. In England alone not to add other kingdoms.

If you think that Protestants were saints during the so called Reformation then you were either brainwashed or just plain ignorant, because there were blood on both sides.

By the way who told you the church is Roman catholic church.

the church at Jerusalem remains the first church.
Roman catholic church was organized by the Roman government to be used against Christianity, the ecumenical movement and other effort made by the Vatican to unite other denominations are all deception and a headway to the one world religion.
Roman Catholic Church is the church of the antichrist.

you can go to Jerusalem and ask the patriarch of Jerusalem and he will tell you that Christianity spread out of Jerusalem to Antioch and then Rome and that since the apostles Peter and Paul died and taught in Rome, Rome had the primacy among all the churches from the 1 st century downwards. So yes the Catholic church is the early church.

OLAADEGBU:
And that explains why most of the Jesus' films scripted by Roman Catholics always ends with the crucifixion of Christ. Breaking News, Jesus is risen and He's alive.

who doesn't know? I bet you haven't watch all Jesus film scripted by Catholics.

blueAgent:
So how does that justify the worship and veneration of Mary?

adoration belongs to God ALONE, I don't give it to Mary or anyone.

The last time I checked a dictionary, to venerate means to show respect and or honor to a person or thing.

We respect our president, our parents, our elders, we show them honor? I believe the right question should be: why should I not respect the mother of my saviour, the obedient handmaiden of God, with whose agreement the incarnation was worth?

Ehiscotch:
Most African clergies are funny and inexplicably annoying.
How can you force people to pay their tithes? Making something that should come voluntarily, compulsory.

Why haven't you asked the government to develop healthcare, education, roads, power, railway?

If God created us to singularly live on earth and just worship him, I think he'd have just kept us in heaven instead.

Uganda is an underdeveloped country and you think their priority right now should be erecting more church structures?

This is why a whole lot of Christians get it wrong. You pay your tithe, offering, sow seed, work in church, pray all day, read your Bible but never practise a thing it says.

The average Christian would rather "pay tithe to church for things not to be tight" than to "love thy neighbor as thyself".

The Germans are a thousand kilometers ahead of Uganda, and I'm almost certain that clause would still be optional.

I am not against paying tithes.

it is not optional in Germany, so far you are registered with a religion the government will remove the religious tax. You have to officially repudiate your religion if you want to escape the tax

Youlyn:
But I still don't understand why pray to saints or Mary when Jesus said He's the only way.
The early apostles Never prayed to Mary, so where did the church learn it from.

Nb: The angel Gabriel only saluted Mary and was not praying to her.

we don't pray TO the saints, we ask them to pray for us and/or join us in prayers, the same as asking a pastor or a fellow Christian to pray for you, the difference is that in this case the person praying for you is truly righteous.

Jesus is the only way and all prayers are directed through Jesus, fellow Christians are intercessors, they join us in prayers and help us in prayers.


Lastly we don't know what the apostles didn't do, it is impossible to prove a negative, the Bible doesn't record every thing the apostles did, but we certainly have records of what those the apostles taught did, we have records from the early church of what the apostles practiced and the communion of saints is part of it.

JMAN05:
OK, thanks for the detail proof. I will do more research on that. I never knew he made a change. I ll check it out.

please do.

OLAADEGBU:
Why then do you have your crucifix with Jesus hanging on it?

because we preach a Christ and him crucified, images are teaching tools. What I preach is what you'll see around me.

solite3:
I understand that the end view is not Israel but the church. also remember God has not forgotten his people, he will fulfill his promise which he made.

the bible always refers to the church is the wife of Christ not the mother of Christ because it was the church was made from Christ and will be united with Christ but child came from the woman.
so it cannot be the church neither is it mary but israel.

that is why mosesalex is correct that the passage has more than one interpretation but you guys were more interested in contradicting him than thinking.

The text can point to the old Israel bringing forth the Messiah admist great hardship... But if you look closely it is also about the church the new Israel as the mother of believers especially at the end...the old Israel has been superseded by the church. The early Christian church were happy to use either interpretation because both are derived from the passage along with a third interpretation which is actually the literal interpretation.

The Woman all through out scripture according to Jesus, Paul in gal 4:4, God in gen 3:15, the young woman that conceives in Isaiah, all is literally Mary who gives birth to one son who is to rule the entire world and who ascended to God's right hand... That is the third interpretation of the passage and the early church understood it in the sense that Mary is a figure of the church and the church is a type of Israel so that in on vision all coincides.


But again, you are Protestants and prefer to reason like aborted children who thinks it is a virtue to reject all those that came before them and think Jesus lied when he promised to be with the church all ages.

For

Glycolysis:
The way catholics interpret Bible verses in shocking !
Very very shocking that you wonder if these people don't even understand that bible can be studied & understood ,without allowing any pope or church fathers do the interpretation for you..
Many souls have lost it under these denomination

Why will I want to interpret the bible on my own, is scriptures now open to personal interpretation?


No sir, I would rather interpret the scripture in the spirit in which they are written in, they are documents addressed to the church, I have the witness of the early Christians as to how the early Christians understood what the apostles wrote and thought, I also know how it has been interpreted all through antiquity and I know how the church continues to interpret it today.

That same church that Jesus and his apostles taught and established both with words and letter, that same church that has been teaching the gospel through the centuries, that same church that is the pillar and bulwark of truth which Christ promised to be with for all age.

Why will I hold your personal interpretation above the consistent understanding of the Christian church from all antiquity..?. The Bible says know from whom you have learned... I'll take the consistent witness of the church before your personal interpretation any day anytime.

Thanks all for the prayers, sorry I haven't been active here.

Youlyn:
Is Mary Omnipresent?

Christians all over the world can pray to God at the same time and He can hear them all because God is omnipresent. Mary and all the saints are not omnipresent and cannot hear the prayers of all those praying ‘Hail Mary, Pray for us’, ‘Saint Michael, Pray for us’, etc at the same time. Even the devil assigns subordinates to operate in different regions because he can’t be everyone at the same time.
If this is a known truth, while are Catholics still praying to Mary, Angels and Saints?

Looking at it from a deep spiritual point of view, the Mary Catholics say they are honoring is not actually the Mary mother of Jesus. This is a diversion to the worship of Queen of Heaven, a goddess described in Jeremiah 7:18, 44:17-25. Catholics also called Mary Queen of Heaven, using the same title.

None of the early apostles performed a special devotion to Mary as practiced in the catholic church today. If the early apostles never paid any special devotion to Mary before going to heaven, then we don't need it.
We must know that the Bible says ‘Thou art inexcusable o man’ (Rom. 2:1). Therefore, ignorance is not an excuse, especially when you have the Bible at your disposal. Study to show thyself approved (2 Timothy 2:15).
Let no one deceive you that you must practice a special devotion to Mary before you can make heaven.

Mary played a vital role in our salvation by bringing the child Jesus to earth, just like John came to prepared the way for Jesus. They have completed their work and are currently enjoying the reward of their labour. Right now, Jesus is all you need and will ever need to make heaven at last. John 14:6.
If you are in doubt, ask your reverend father if Mary is Omnipresent like God.

I pray God open the eyes of our catholic brethren to this truth.
We shall know the truth and the truth shall make us free.
I pray we all make heaven at last in Jesus name.

This is a carnal question. Let me explain.


The saints are in heaven! Heaven is not a physical place it is a spiritual reality, when we pray we partake in heavenly things we are so to speak in heaven before God, the saints and angels. The saints don't need to be everywhere to hear you and participate in your life, each time you pray you are right on mount Zion in their very presence


Heb 12
22 But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

Do you understand it now? You have arrived before God, his angels and his saints, they don't even need omnipresence to hear you, you are right around the heavenly bandwidth, the new Jerusalem that is above



Heb
12 Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, 2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3 Consider him who endured such opposition from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.



They don't even need permission or omnipresence to be part of our lives, the saints all surround us, we are all on the same heavenly bandwidth, space and time are just words they don't exist in the heavenly Jerusalem.


Next time meditate on what it means that eyes have not seen nor ears heard or the heart of men conceived.

OLAADEGBU:
You still don't get it. Jesus is no longer hanging on the cross. He's alive, He's risen, He's gone to prepare a place for us and He's coming back again. The 'Jesus' you worship remains dead, still hanging on the cross.

I never said he is still hanging on a tree, you seem to have comprehension problems.


Paul also knew that Jesus was alive and risen and he will come back again yet he preached Christ and him crucified...so do I.

Ihedinobi3:
I'll admit the possibility of such a riot, not because I think that it really happened but because I'm not a historian and cannot have an opinion on specific historical events without some getting into.

Yes, my source was simplistic but not unreliable.

I must beg your indulgence: I will probably be taking a while with my answers because I may get too busy. I am not entirely certain that I will be able to carry on for the long term either. Please bear with me either way.

You can read about it




Augustine to Jerome. Written in A.D. 403

To my venerable lord Jerome, my esteemed and holy brother and fellow presbyter: Augustine sends greetings in the Lord.

Never since I began to write to you, and to long for your writing in return, have I met with a better opportunity for our exchanging communications than now, when my letter is to be carried to you by a most faithful servant and minister of God, who is also a very dear friend of mine, namely, our son Cyprian, deacon. Through him I expect to receive a letter from you with all the certainty which is in a matter of this kind possible. For the son whom I have named will not be found wanting in respect of zeal in asking, or persuasive influence in obtaining a reply from you; nor will he fail in diligently keeping, promptly bearing, and faithfully delivering the same. I only pray that if I be in any way worthy of this, the Lord may give His help and favour to your heart and to my desire, so that no higher will may hinder that which your brotherly goodwill inclines you to do.

As I have sent you two letters already to which I have received no reply, I have resolved to send you at this time copies of both of them, for I suppose that they never reached you. If they did reach you, and your replies have failed, as may be the case, to reach me, send me a second time the same as you sent before, if you have copies of them preserved: if you have not, dictate again what I may read, and do not refuse to send to these former letters the answer for which I have been waiting so long. My first letter to you, which I had prepared while I was a presbyter, was to be delivered to you by a brother of ours, Profuturus, who afterwards became my colleague in the episcopate, and has since then departed from this life; but he could not then bear it to you in person, because at the very time when he intended to begin his journey, he was prevented by his ordination to the weighty office of bishop, and shortly afterwards he died. This letter I have resolved also to send at this time, that you may know how long I have cherished a burning desire for conversation with you, and with what reluctance I submit to the remote separation which prevents my mind from having access to yours through our bodily senses, my brother, most amiable and honoured among the members of the Lord.

In this letter I have further to say, that I have since heard that you have translated Job out of the original Hebrew, although in your own translation of the same prophet from the Greek tongue we had already a version of that book. In that earlier version you marked with asterisks the words found in the Hebrew but wanting in the Greek, and with obelisks the words found in the Greek but wanting in the Hebrew; and this was done with such astonishing exactness, that in some places we have every word distinguished by a separate asterisk, as a sign that these words are in the Hebrew, but not in the Greek. Now, however, in this more recent version from the Hebrew, there is not the same scrupulous fidelity as to the words; and it perplexes any thoughtful reader to understand either what was the reason for marking the asterisks in the former version with so much care that they indicate the absence from the Greek version of even the smallest grammatical particles which have not been rendered from the Hebrew, or what is the reason for so much less care having been taken in this recent version from the Hebrew to secure that these same particles be found in their own places. I would have put down here an extract or two in illustration of this criticism; but at present I have not access to the manuscript of the translation from the Hebrew. Since, however, your quick discernment anticipates and goes beyond not only what I have said, but also what I meant to say, you already understand, I think, enough to be able, by giving the reason for the plan which you have adopted, to explain what perplexes me.

For my part, I would much rather that you would furnish us with a translation of the Greek version of the canonical Scriptures known as the work of the Seventy translators. For if your translation begins to be more generally read in many churches, it will be a grievous thing that, in the reading of Scripture, differences must arise between the Latin Churches and the Greek Churches, especially seeing that the discrepancy is easily condemned in a Latin version by the production of the original in Greek, which is a language very widely known; whereas, if any one has been disturbed by the occurrence of something to which he was not accustomed in the translation taken from the Hebrew, and alleges that the new translation is wrong, it will be found difficult, if not impossible, to get at the Hebrew documents by which the version to which exception is taken may be defended. And when they are obtained, who will submit, to have so many Latin and Greek authorities pronounced to be in the wrong? Besides all this, Jews, if consulted as to the meaning of the Hebrew text, may give a different opinion from yours: in which case it will seem as if your presence were indispensable, as being the only one who could refute their view; and it would be a miracle if one could be found capable of acting as arbiter between you and them.

[b]A certain bishop, one of our brethren, having introduced in the church over which he presides the reading of your version, came upon a word in the book of the prophet Jonah, of which you have given a very different rendering from that which had been of old familiar to the senses and memory of all the worshippers, and had been chanted for so many generations in the church. Thereupon arose such a tumult in the congregation, especially among the Greeks, correcting what had been read, and denouncing the translation as false, that the bishop was compelled to ask the testimony of the Jewish residents (it was in the town of Oea). These, whether from ignorance or from spite, answered that the words in the Hebrew manuscripts were correctly rendered in the Greek version, and in the Latin one taken from it. What further need I say? The man was compelled to correct your version in that passage as if it had been falsely translated, as he desired not to be left without a congregation -- a calamity which he narrowly escaped. From this case we also are led to think that you may be occasionally mistaken. You will also observe how great must have been the difficulty if this had occurred in those writings which cannot be explained by comparing the testimony of languages now in use.[/b]

At the same time, we are in no small measure thankful to God for the work in which you have translated the Gospels from the original Greek, because in almost every passage we have found nothing to object to, when we compared it with the Greek Scriptures. By this work, any disputant who supports an old false translation is either convinced or confuted with the utmost ease by the production and collation of manuscripts. And if, as indeed very rarely happens, something be found to which exception may be taken, who would be so unreasonable as not to excuse it readily in a work so useful that it cannot be too highly praised? I wish you would have the kindness to open up to me what you think to be the reason of the frequent discrepancies between the text supported by the Hebrew codices and the Greek Septuagint version. For the latter has no mean authority, seeing that it has obtained so wide circulation, and was the one which the apostles used, as is not only proved by looking to the text itself, but has also been, as I remember, affirmed by yourself. You would therefore confer upon us a much greater boon if you gave an exact Latin translation of the Greek Septuagint version: for the variations found in the different codices of the Latin text are intolerably numerous; and it is so justly open to suspicion as possibly different from what is to be found in the Greek, that one has no confidence in either quoting it or proving anything by its help.

I thought that this letter was to be a short one, but it has somehow been as pleasant to me to go on with it as if I were talking with you. I conclude with entreating you by the Lord kindly to send me a full reply, and thus give me, so far as is in your power, the pleasure of your presence.

Ihedinobi3:
Some points of departure in Britannica from your deposition, PastorAIO:

1. "The name Septuagint (from the Latin septuaginta, “70”) was derived later from the legend that there were 72 translators, 6 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel, who worked independently to translate the whole and ultimately produced identical versions. Another legend holds that the translators were sent to Alexandria by Eleazar, the chief priest at Jerusalem, at the request of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 BCE), though its source, the Letter of Aristeas, is unreliable. Despite the tradition that it was perfectly translated, there are large differences in style and usage between the Septuagint’s translation of the Torah and its translations of the later books in the Old Testament. In the 3rd century CE Origen attempted to clear up copyists’ errors that had crept into the text of the Septuagint, which by then varied widely from copy to copy, and a number of other scholars consulted the Hebrew texts in order to make the Septuagint more accurate."
Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Septuagint

So, your version of the legend is weird and your later assertion that the Septuagint was the original Scripture of Christianity perhaps on the strength of this legend is problematic. Also, it is clear that the Septuagint had problems and scholars used Hebrew texts to compensate. Origen, incidentally, is a church father.

this doesn't touch aio's argument, of course after years of copying by hand copyist errors will creep in needing correction and Origen a Christian scholar is credited for attempting to clear up such copyist errors, even the Hebrew scripture suffers from the same copyist errors as did the Vulgate and they are corrected by comparing different copies and translations.

2. "In addition to all the books of the Hebrew canon, the Septuagint under Christian auspices separated the minor prophets and some other books and added the extra books known to Protestants and Jews as apocryphal and to Roman Catholics as deuterocanonical."
Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Septuagint

So, it's not like the Septuagint always had those extra books. It was at the hands of men of the Church visible that they were added.

here the Britannica is either simplistic or just incorrect, the quram cave discovery showed us that the canon read by certain Jews were much bigger than the Hebrew canon, in fact the Hebrew Canon was not set until after the apostles had died, both the Ethiopians Jews, the Alexandrian Jews and even certain Jews in Palestine even some in the Talmud used an extended canon including the deuterocanonical books. On this the Britannica is incorrect. The church didn't manufacture those books and add to the Septuagint, they were part of it and was already in use by the Jews.

3. "The Christian church received its Bible from Greek-speaking Jews and found the majority of its early converts in the Hellenistic world. The Greek Bible of Alexandria thus became the official Bible of the Christian community, and the overwhelming number of quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures in the New Testament are derived from it. Whatever the origin of the apocryphal books in the canon of Alexandria, these became part of the Christian Scriptures, but there seems to have been no unanimity as to their exact canonical status. The New Testament itself does not cite the Apocryphal books directly, but occasional traces of a knowledge of them are to be found. The Apostolic Fathers (late 1st–early 2nd century) show extensive familiarity with this literature, but a list of the Old Testament books by Melito, bishop of Sardis in Asia Minor (2nd century), does not include the additional writings of the Greek Bible, and Origen (c. 185–c. 254) explicitly describes the Old Testament canon as comprising only 22 books."
Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/The-Christian-canon

So, there was a more complex situation than you represent in your argument.

it isn't exactly complex when you realise that whole churches also rejected certain new testament books and to them they weren't canonical but the decider in the early church was usually a council and the councils upheld all the new testament books in our current bible and the deuterocanonical books too. That is how you know what the decision is on any issue.

4. "The story of the Greek translation of the Pentateuch is told in the Letter of Aristeas, which purports to be a contemporary document written by Aristeas, a Greek official at the Egyptian court of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 BCE). It recounts how the law of the Jews was translated into Greek by Jewish scholars sent from Jerusalem at the request of the king.

This narrative, repeated in one form or another by Philo and rabbinic sources, is full of inaccuracies that prove that the author was an Alexandrian Jew writing well after the events he described had taken place. The Septuagint Pentateuch, which is all that is discussed, does, however, constitute an independent corpus within the Greek Bible, and it was probably first translated as a unit by a company of scholars in Alexandria about the middle of the 3rd century BCE.

The Septuagint, as the entire Greek Bible came to be called, has a long and complex history and took well over a century to be completed. It is for this reason not a unified or consistent translation. The Septuagint became the instrument whereby the basic teachings of Judaism were mediated to the pagan world, and it became an indispensable factor in the spread of Christianity.

The adoption of the Septuagint as the Bible of the Christians naturally engendered suspicion on the part of Jews. In addition, the emergence of a single authoritative text type after the destruction of the Temple made the great differences between it and the Septuagint increasingly intolerable, and the need was felt for a Greek translation based upon the current Hebrew text in circulation."

Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/Early-versions

A clearer picture of the issue.

5. "Jerome produced three revisions of the Psalms, all extant. The first was based on the Septuagint and is known as the Roman Psalter because it was incorporated into the liturgy at Rome. The second, produced in Palestine from the Hexaplaric Septuagint, tended to bring the Latin closer to the Hebrew. Its popularity in Gaul was such that it came to be known as the Gallican Psalter. This version was later adopted into the Vulgate. The third revision, actually a fresh translation, was made directly from the Hebrew, but it never enjoyed wide circulation. In the course of preparing the latter, Jerome realized the futility of revising the Old Latin solely on the basis of the Greek and apparently left that task unfinished. By the end of 405 he had executed his own Latin translation of the entire Old Testament based on the “Hebrew truth” (Hebraica veritas).

Because of the canonical status of the Greek version within the church, Jerome’s version was received at first with much suspicion, for it seemed to cast doubt on the authenticity of the Septuagint and exhibited divergences from the Old Latin that sounded discordant to those familiar with the traditional renderings. St. Augustine feared a consequent split between the Greek and Latin churches. The innate superiority of Jerome’s version, however, assured its ultimate victory, and by the 8th century it had become the Latin Vulgate (“the common version”) throughout the churches of Western Christendom, where it remained the chief Bible until the Reformation."

Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/Versions-after-the-4th-century

Perhaps there were riots. Perhaps Jerome and Augustine had words. But I wonder if you exaggerated the actual events.



I think I'll stop at this point. Other duties call. If it is necessary, I may continue this examination and comparison in the future.

Cheers.

Ihedinobi3:
'Locked up until they finished' is rather weird. The whole thing was also presented as some sort of possible reason why the Septuagint must have been so special to "the Church".

pastoraio relates the story exactly as it is passed on...added to that the Septuagint I believe was approved by the sahendrin and the high priest at the time unlike the masoretic text which was made after the fall of Jerusalem without high priest or sahendrin.

What's the alternative? The Bible just magically appears on all mantelpieces and shelves with an angel standing right next to it to make sure we all know it came from God?



It contradicts the idea that the Septuagint was as big an authority for the Church as you represented in your argument.

it was! If you would take the time to read up the early Christians, they just like the apostles adopted the Septuagint.

It certainly clarifies the issue. The Septuagint had problems and was no miracle. Chances are that those who cared then knew that the Septuagint was no miracle and therefore used it carefully. So, while the emerging monolithic Roman tradition at the time may have made an idol out of it contending with Jews too for their own reasons, that was not necessarily the story of the Christian Church.



I don't think you and I have enough history on this forum to warrant the thought. The reason I pointed it out is that small exaggerations and inflections and minor overstatements and understatements in an argument tend to add up to a very convincing but false argument. In this case, you are attacking the reliability of the Bible as the true Word of God and you did it so cleverly that an unprepared believer could be significantly damaged by your efforts.

the Septuagint does have its issues... Every translation does but it is the old testament scripture of the early church except the church of Rome that later adopted the Vulgate... But that doesn't detract from the fact that the early Christians had serious problems with the Hebrew text.

Here is Justin


“But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the [Septuagint] translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying” (~150 A.D., Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Chapter LXXI)



He is not for from the truth, several prophesies about Jesus just disappear in the masoretic text, what happened?


https://theorthodoxlife.files./2012/03/lxx_vs_mt3.jpg




I unlike pastoraio believe the Bible is reliable and is the word of God, but sincerely I do so because I believe God has preserved his word in his church, because sincerely all we have are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies, that have been edited and corrected and emended, and the masoretic text which the Protestant churches adopted against the advice of Christian antiquity is sadly even more recent than the Septuagint and seems to has Jewish bias and prejudice against Christ. In that point I agree with aio it is politically motivated, lastly an unprepared believer should go and study, there is no point hiding in a cocoon.

Ihedinobi3:
The part in blue seems to be a flat out falsehood and in my thinking it is the single most important falsehood in this argument:

"Masoretic text, (from Hebrew masoreth, “tradition”), traditional Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible, meticulously assembled and codified, and supplied with diacritical marks to enable correct pronunciation. This monumental work was begun around the 6th century AD and completed in the 10th by scholars at Talmudic academies in Babylonia and Palestine, in an effort to reproduce, as far as possible, the original text of the Hebrew Old Testament. Their intention was not to interpret the meaning of the Scriptures but to transmit to future generations the authentic Word of God. To this end they gathered manuscripts and whatever oral traditions were available to them."

Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Masoretic-text

What I perceive to be the real aim of this argument is to call the Bible into question on the basis of cleverly twisted historical events woven to disguise the major falsehood it seeks to perpetrate, namely, that the Bible we have today may not be quite the same as what existed before the Septuagint but is rather the product of different schemes/agenda/beliefs held by different groups.

Regardless whether the legend about the creation of the Septuagint is true or not, the Septuagint was known to have problems in translation. Scholars tended to use existing Hebrew texts to correct it a lot. This was during the 3rd Century AD (see the link) which was a long time after the destruction of the Temple. That means that contrary to your argument, Hebrew manuscripts survived from which a more correct translation of the Hebrew Bible could be made.

Those were the source of the Masoretic Text. And till date, it has proved completely reliable in preserving the truths of the Old Testament.

this is rather simplistic dear....

For over 400 years the Jewish leaders were busy editing the masoretic text abi over 4 centuries, moreso it was edited not only from existing manuscripts but also from Jewish tradition... What does that tell you?

The issue gets interesting if you read the story from the writings of the early Christians, they accuse the Jews of constantly editing their scripture to rid it of allusion to Jesus. Justin's dialogue with typho is a good place to start and it is dated pretty early, so that the early church adopts the Septuagint very early. The only exception to this in the early church was Jerome who loved the Hebrew Bible and lived in Palestine.

So yes if the early Christian writing is anything to go by then pastoraio is right, the Hebrew edited Bible is religiously motivated to promote Judaism, the Septuagint on the otherhand gives the churches what they wanted... The choice of what version depends on what is been promoted.


Now let me give an example, in the first century the early Christian st Stephen was killed by the Jews, his account is found in act of the apostles, stepping is recorded to have quoted scripture at the time


Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them (Acts 7:43 KJV).


He was quoting the book of AmosAmos 5:26 in most translations, you will find that the quotation doesn’t match:

You also carried Sikkuth your king and Chiun, your idols, the star of your gods, which you made for yourselves (NKJV). Aka masoretic text

Compare the above with the Latin Vulgate:

But you carried a tabernacle for your Moloch, and the image of your idols, the star of your god, which you made to yourselves (Douay-Rheims translation of the Vulgate).

And then with the Septuagint:

Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Raephan, the images of them which ye made for yourselves (Sir Lancelot Brenton translation of the Septuagint).


What did you notice.

The masoretic text is different from what the early Christian st Stephen quoted, the Septuagint is actually much closer, and the Vulgate which Jerome translated from the "Hebrew" is closer to what Stephen quoted.

So how come the Septuagint is aligned, the Vulgate translated from the Hebrew is aligned but the masoretic text is off... Remember the Septuagint was standardized in the 1st century, the Vulgate in the 4th century, the masoretic text in the 10 century... Guess which one is off?


Even the dead sea Hebrew scrolls are sometimes closer to the Septuagint than the masoretic text....


To be continued

PastorAIO:
My general view of legends is that they are not factual. That's why we call them legends and not History. However I'm curious as to where 'my' version of the legend is 'weird' or even where it contradicts your version. I don't recall saying anything in my telling of the legend that contradicts your version of the legend above.
About being the original scripture of Christianity, the fact is that the LXX is the version most quoted in the New Testament and it is used also as the basis of some Christian doctrines. For example, the Virgin Birth, and the identification of Jesus with divinity via the use of the phrase 'I Am'/Ego Eimi.
This is the basis of my saying that LXX is a fundamental scripture of Christianity. Nothing to do with the Legend which is a story, that it may or may not surprise you to realise but, I don't believe it happened.



You continue to miss one of my main points that I've made over and over again on NL. The entire thing is the product of 'the hands of men of the Church visible' and of other people too, ALL MEN, and All very very very VISIBLE. From Genesis to Revelation. All the different versions only tell us that humans are a diverse bunch.



Thank you for filling out the details, however nothing you say above contradicts anything I said previously.



Okay, however nothing you've said above contradicts anything I've said previously. Remember you said that the OP was a 'false argument'. I'm waiting for a refutation.



Perhaps perhaps perhaps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUVT1NZtZPo

The words between Jerome and Augustine are well documented.

Augustine to Jerome. Written about A.D. 394

... I beseech you not to devote your labour to the work of translating into Latin the sacred canonical books, unless you follow the method in which you have translated Job, viz. with the addition of notes, to let it be seen plainly what differences there are between this version of yours and that of the Septuagint,
http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate2.html

Perhaps I over-exaggerated, but perhaps you just want to seem like you're rebutting me when in fact you are not actually presenting anything that rebuts what I've written. I wonder why you would wonder so much that I was exaggerating. Have you heard contrary reports? Or are you just predisposed to resist anything I say whether you know it to be true or not.




Okay, but a few rebuttals would be quite nice. Thanks

on the issue of riots, you are actually correct I believe, Augustine I think records a riot based on Jerome and his translation, the word that caused the riot was pretty inconsequential but it was enough to cause a riots and Jerome and Augustine weren't exactly charitable about the issue... Add that to Jerome's temper.


Anyway I am preparing a response to ihedonobi, his sources were simplistic in their rendering of events.

So it is now a crime for a priest to go swimming in a party organized by his work place with all other workers present?



What did he do wrong abeg? Snap a pic with a female colleague while in a work organized pool?


Abeg shift jor!

OLAADEGBU:
The New did not end with Jesus being crucified, He died, rose, ascended up to heaven and is coming back again.

he ascended and yet we still preach Christ and him crucified, folly to the Jews and scandal to olaadegbu