Re: You may be a Fundy God-Hating troll if:
- From: Donald L McDaniel <orthocross2006@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 13:41:28 -0800
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 04:42:49 -0800, hh wrote
(in article <1143463369.731302.273210@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):
Donald L McDaniel wrote:
But within the Greek, Petros is known to be common slang for "Rockhead"
(stupid person), so with this contextual insight, what is Matthew 16:18
This is what happens when leaving out the CONTEXT of the translation.
Sorry, but I'm trying to sort it out *in* context.
Jesus was NOT a Greek speaker...
Proof? FWIW, there's reason to believe that he spoke Latin, too.
I forget the exact chapter & verse, but within the Protestant version
of the bible, one of the Gospels mentions that Jesus had brothers and
sisters. But the very same verse in the same gospel in the Catholic
version of the bible does not mention this. Which version is correct,
and why? Keeping in mind the fallability of man...
The Eastern Orthodox Church (the Eastern Wing of the Universal, or
"Catholic", Church) teaches that the words translated as "brother" and
"sister' are ARBITRARY designations, and do not necessarily reflect the
actual meaning of the Hebrew/Aramaic words originally written.
The Greek words translated as "brothers and sisters" in English Protestant
Bibles is HIGHLY dependant on CONTEXT to understand its actual meaning in
this instance, since Koine Greek is a highly-inflected and contextual
language, and not a very "literal" one, as English is. That is, when English
speakers say "brothers and sisters" they ALMOST ALWAYS mean "the immediate
children of both our parents (that is, our siblings)". But Greek speakers
use the word to variously mean "brothers and sisters of the womb" or
"cousins", or "half-brothers", depending on the CONTEXT of the statement at
any one time.
This is where the Catholic/Protestant division begins. Catholics in general
use the language of the NT Canon "contextually", as it was meant to be used,
not "literally", as most English speakers do.
You're trying to explain the wrong question.
Even with variations in translational interpretation of "who they
were", there's simply no ethically clean excuse for why an entire group
-- regardless of who they were -- would be completely removed from
being mentioned in the same exact chapter and verse of the same Gospel.
Considering that Mary remained in a virginal state...
Yes, this particular observation does mean that larger theological
implications are at stake, and this unfortunately represents a very
viable motive for why these (cough) "editorial differences" because of
the "why they were" question currently exist.
Remember, these "editorial differences" are ones of "translation", rather
than "redaction" And that only in English versions of the Bible.
There is no "question" in the minds of Catholic believers about this: We
simply accept the Traditional teaching of the Bishops and monks. Only
Protestants or infidels refuse to accept the historical teaching of the
Church on this matter.
We (Catholics -- both Eastern and Western) believe and teach that Mary
remained a Virgin after she delivered Jesus in that "manger" so long ago.
This leaves no doubt in our minds as to the proper interpretation of the word
translated as "brothers and sisters"(in Protestant English Bibles). It
obviously clearly should be translated as "the cousins of Jesus" (and is so
translated in Catholic Bibles). And so we teach, and so we have ALWAYS
taught, since the very beginning of the Church on the Day of Pentecost, fifty
days after Jesus was assumed into the Heavens bodily, until today.
The collective thought of the Orthodox is that Jesus' "other
brothers and sisters" were the previous children of Joseph
from his first wife (the tradition is that he was a
widower before becoming betrothed to Mary).
Which would have made it harmless to have been listed in the above,
instead of being censored out. After you think this one through,
you'll realize that these fingerprints smack of self-incrimination.
And they certainly do "smack of self-incrimination". But NOT the
"self-incrimination" of Catholic believers.
Nevertheless, it is also quite odd then in how the siblings were not
mentioned in the Roman Census,
Do we actually have a RECORD of who was and was not recorded in thatr Census?
I doubt that there is. So such a statement is actually supposition.
particularly in light of multiple
accounts which stated that Joseph and Mary were traveling very much
alone en route to report for this Census (recall that they had problems
finding a room at the Inn :-).
As such, this explanation merely again begs the question as to what
else has been edited out over the years and why.
Do keep in mind that Catholic/Protestant bible variations are extremely
recent: ample records exist, since Luther's Protestants didn't
splinter off until the 16th Century.
The ONLY difference between Catholic and Protestant Bibles in this particular
instance is one of the "TRANSLATION" of the Koine Greek text, not
"theological variation". In fact, Catholics taught that the "brothers and
sisters" of Jesus were actually His cousins from the First Century onward,
and it was well-accepted by the time of the Protestant "Reformation" that the
"other brothers and sisters" of Jesus referred to in the Gospels were
actually His cousins, since the Perpetual Virginity of Mary was the common
belief and teaching of all Christians at that time. Even the Fathers of the
Protestant Reformation, Luther and Calvin, taught the "Perpetual Virginity"
of the Mother of God.
If ANYONE "edited anything out" (and they certainly did), it was the
PROTESTANTS, since the New Testament Canon was well-established and accepted
by the time the Protestants got hold of the Scriptures (over 1000 years AFTER
the Canon of the New Testament was finalized during the 1st Ecumenical
Council in the 4th Century.
The unforunate realities are that the treacheries of man run long,
deep, and to the very tops of the churches, so it is absolute folly to
suggest (or believe) that the scriptures themselves have constantly
remained been completely immune from any editorial alterations.
You cannot prove that this isn't one, particularly when one recalls the
Council of Constance (where the Church burned reformer Jan Hus at the
stake in 1415 despite having previously provided him with a letter of
indemnity that he would not be harmed), and the historically corrupt
reign of Pope Alexander VI....which predated Luther by two and one
You're free to debate if the Bible was "restored" by the Protestants,
or was itself subject to "editorial alterations", but AFAIC, it doesn't
matter which is "correct", since the crux of the matter simply is
proven by the fact that they are materially *different*, so its clear
that someone's fingerprints are on the theological cookie jar.
And those "fingers" were those of the Protestant Reformers, not the
Catholics. This is a well-established "fact" of the History of the Church
(and it truly is a "fact of history", not an "interpretation" or
"supposition", or "point of contention", or "theological point").
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that the thread may remain intact
- Prev by Date: Re: Appleopoly DOES exist
- Next by Date: Re: Appleopoly DOES exist
- Previous by thread: Re: You may be a Fundy God-Hating troll if:
- Next by thread: Re: You may be a Fundy God-Hating troll if: