 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Christianity: Catholicism query
|
|
|
Subject: Christianity: Catholicism query From: GUEST,Paul Date: 27 Dec 01 - 05:11 PM Before I start, I'd like to say that this question is, in no way, a criticism of any religious belief. I simply seek a better understanding. Apologies for having to say that, but I've seen too many posts misunderstood here. Anyway, here's my question: I was brought up as a Catholic, and I have a fair understanding of the Bible. I do however, and have for a long time, wondered about how the Catholic faith interprets the 'Ten Commandments' As far as I can see, the first two commandments are: Don't worship other Gods, and Don't worship 'graven images' (statues) To me the Catholic faith betrays both of these. The worship of Mary, bowing down in front of various statues / alters, kissing the feet of a statue on Good Friday etc. I'd be grateful if anyone can explain or point me towards a good site/book/whatever I've done a quick net search and found this (WARNING PDF file) which suggests that there are 3 different versions of the Ten Commandments anyway... I'd be grateful for help in something that has puzzled me for a long while. Many thanks
Paul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: Coyote Breath Date: 27 Dec 01 - 05:16 PM I have an eleventh: Thou shalt not use a folk music forum for starting sectarian warfare! CB |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: GUEST,Whistle and Bagpipes Date: 27 Dec 01 - 05:19 PM Catholics are not "worshiping" Mary and others in statue form in the same way they worship God - that is the difference. We pray to saints and angels and Mary and many others, and likenesses do appear in church and in other places, but it is not IN PLACE of God - I believe that is what is meant by the commandment. These likenesses are not "another" god -i.e. the golden calf - but an extension of the God that we worship. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: PeteBoom Date: 27 Dec 01 - 05:30 PM Catholics are all going to burn in Hell. Ian Paisley, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have all said so - as has Bob Jones University and several other places of "higher" learning. It is something I accepted a looooooooong time ago... on my way to Mass. Pete |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: Amos Date: 27 Dec 01 - 05:38 PM "No other God before me" doesn't mean "no others in addition to me" anyway, does it? Anyway, this sort of parsing of logic is like trying to figure out the rules of physics in Disney cartoons. They bend and stretch at the whimsy of the cartoonist, as you probably noticed. Reasoning is not applicable here. It's a tea-party of mingled doctrines. If you can't accept that, you need to look elsewhere for your so-called spiritual entertainment. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: little john cameron Date: 27 Dec 01 - 05:52 PM See the thread "new kind of troll" ljc |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: GUEST Date: 27 Dec 01 - 05:57 PM I think you would be better served by looking at the seven sacraments, rather than the commandments. The sacraments vis a vis Protestant ecclesiastical practice are more germane to your question, IMO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: katlaughing Date: 27 Dec 01 - 06:01 PM Geez, you guys! Guest, Paul has posted some pretty good things on here, lately, and he did preface his question with what I thought was a reasonable warning and explanation for the warning as well as an apology for the need for such a warning. Cut a little slack will you? Paul, having said that, I know next to nothing about Catholicism, but if you look on google.com using 'ten commandmants and catholic church" I'll bet you'd come up with some good sites. If I see anything, I'll post it for you. kat
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: katlaughing Date: 27 Dec 01 - 06:14 PM Two opposing views: Catholic Catechism Part Two-Ten Commandments |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: mousethief Date: 27 Dec 01 - 06:22 PM Can't speak for the Catholics but as an Orthodox I will say this: 1. We distinguish between Worship (which is due solely to God) and reverence (which can be given to any person). 2. We believe that the reverence displayed to an icon (holy image) passes through that image to the person depicted. 3. We don't "pray" to saints (incl. Mary) the same way we "pray" to God. We ask the saints to pray for us before God, just as a Protestant might ask a friend to pray for him/her. We believe that, having passed over to the new life, the saints have more time on their hands than we who are still in this vail of tears, and thus can pray for us more than we are able to ourselves. Not that we don't pray for ourselves and for others, mind you. We do that too. Hope this helps more than hinders. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: GUEST,Paul Date: 27 Dec 01 - 06:24 PM Thanks, Kat Both are interesting links. The first one is a little long for me to read right now (it's late here) but I shall study it in the morning. It's funny. When I wrote my original message off-line, I ended it with another plea to not be misunderstood. When I read it back though before posting, I decide to delete that bit, as I'd thought I might be just repeating myself... Paul
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: GUEST Date: 27 Dec 01 - 06:30 PM Paul, this address will take you to Catholic Online's search engine: http://www.catholic.org/search/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: DonMeixner Date: 27 Dec 01 - 06:31 PM I have long wondered about "No other Gods before me." Does that mean pray to any and as many gods as you like, just pray to me first? Or if you have already prayed to some other God before you found me, TooLate!! Don |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: katlaughing Date: 27 Dec 01 - 06:32 PM You are welcome, Paul. Have you looked into becoming a member? It's free and you would have your own Personal Page from which to send and receive private messages, as well as trace your favourite threads. Just a suggestion. Alex! Nice to see you, again! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: GUEST Date: 27 Dec 01 - 07:02 PM Came across this on the Catholic Online Saints FAQ while searching for info for the St Stephens Day thread. Hope it helps to answer your questions, Paul. Is keeping statues or pictures of saints idolatry? Look at the pictures of your loved ones in your wallet or around your home or office. Why do you keep these particular pictures? You might answer that you carry those pictures to remind you of people you love, to help you feel that they're close to you when you're not together, or to share with people you meet. But you probably didn't say you worshipped them. Those are some of the same reasons we have statues and pictures of saints. Seeing a statue of Saint Therese of Lisieux who lost her mother when she was a child might make us feel less alone when we are grieving. A picture of Saint Francis of Assisi might remind us of how much he loved God's creation and make us more aware of our environment. (top of the page) Do Catholics pray TO saints? We pray with saints, not to them. Have you ever asked anyone to pray for you when you were having a hard time? Why did you choose to ask that person? You may have chosen someone you could trust, or someone who understood your problem, or someone who was close to God. Those are all reasons we ask saints to pray for us in times of trouble. Since saints led holy lives and are close to God in heaven, we feel that their prayers are particularly effective. Often we ask particular saints to pray for us if we feel they have a particular interest in our problem. For example, many people ask Saint Monica to pray for them if they have trouble with unanswered prayers, because Monica prayed for twenty years for her son to be converted. Finally her prayers were answered in a way she never dreamed of -- her son, Augustine, became a canonized saint and a Doctor of the Church. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: wysiwyg Date: 27 Dec 01 - 07:14 PM Using an object to focus one's thoughts and spirit is not the same as worshipping that object, and veneration also is not the same as worship. I'd be glad to converse further, privately, if you are interested. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: Haruo Date: 27 Dec 01 - 07:46 PM Dulia, hyperdulia, latria Liland |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: Alice Date: 28 Dec 01 - 08:49 AM Paul, when I was a child in Catholic school, one of the first things we were taught was the ten commandments, and that worship belongs to God alone. Prayers that are addressed to saints are not worshiping the saint, but simply asking them to pray to God for us. Statues and pictures, as noted in an earlier post, are simply reminders of people through history who lived extraordinary lives. Asking someone to pray to God for you doesn't mean you are worshiping them instead of God. As the nuns taught me, it is a sin to worship anyone or anything except God. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: catspaw49 Date: 28 Dec 01 - 10:53 AM Does anyone actually read these posts? If so, you would have made mention of th fact that mousethief answered this one quite well and several repetitions of his thoughts have now been posted with no acknowledgement of his whatsoever. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: katlaughing Date: 28 Dec 01 - 01:15 PM I noticed! Told him it was great to see him, again!:-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: Alice Date: 28 Dec 01 - 03:26 PM This is the first time I've seen a thread here on the subject. What I posted and other responses are basically what the church teaches, so there is no wonder that they are the same as Mousethief's previous answers... not copying him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: catspaw49 Date: 28 Dec 01 - 03:36 PM I wasn't picking on you Alice, not at all. just a general observation. So many times when we post we never acknowledge the former post....ie, "To add to what mousethief has said...blah, blah, blah.." Sometimes failing to acknowledge another's posting, especially when your own says much of the same, even with additional info, makes it appear as if the first person is being ignored. This was much the case with 'Catter John Hardly who often felt he was being completely ignored....like you had to be a "somebody" to be noticed. This form of communication is still so new and I suppose I'm being overly critical here for nothing, but just like trying to use icons and such to reflect a tone, we need to watch out for the same thing in leaving someone out at times, especially when we agree....gawd knows we don't have a problem nailing them when we disagree! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: Lanfranc Date: 28 Dec 01 - 06:57 PM Having lost whatever "faith" I had gained from a lifetime of Church attendance a few years back, I still find myself inexorably drawn to discussions such as this. Even so, I seldom contribute. As to whether such discussions are valid in the context of a site primarily devoted to Folk music, all I can say is that the Christian religion is so intricately woven into the tapestry of the mythology, history and tradition of the past 2000 years, that they have to be. MudCatters, as I have experienced them in this forum, have a diversity of interests, expertise and knowledge, including, but obviously not limited to, the music that we all enjoy. That this diversity is reflected in the threads is one of the many strengths of the site, and makes it more of a community than anywhere else that that I have found on the Internet. Happy New Year to all. Alan
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: little john cameron Date: 28 Dec 01 - 07:33 PM Aye ye're richt there Pussyfoot.Ah get ignored aw'time. Noo apairt fae the dogma fowk,cast yer attention tae the history o' the Christian religion.That'll enlighten ye!!! ljc |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: toadfrog Date: 28 Dec 01 - 09:21 PM "No other gods before Me" is from the King James Bible, which is Protestant. If you want to argue with Catholics, it's not a good source. It seems pretty obvious it means, "no other gods in addition to"Me. As Mousethief remarks, God is worshipped, and Mary is venerated. And although the distinction is a little unclear to some of us, who really cares? The idea of criticizing Catholics for "worshiping" Mary really sounds like something out of the 17th Century! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: Amos Date: 28 Dec 01 - 10:06 PM I'd like to know in what lexicon you find "before" (in the sense of higher in seniority, priority, or importance) synonymous with "in addition to". The two constructs are not even cognate! I suggest that if this definition has been imposed on some worshippers it has been done from authoritarian, rather than spiritual motives. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: wysiwyg Date: 29 Dec 01 - 08:42 AM Hebrew is an evocative language, not as precise in some respects as other languages. Bible study requires soaking up the included meanings that were richly present in the original languages, that lie under the surface of the one-word summaries we use as "translations" of each word. If you look at the Hebrew origins of this, the best word to look at for this passage IMO is [other].
[acher] (pron. akh-air'), Adjective Definition: another, following, further, other, different [Paniym] (pron. paw-neem'), Masculine Noun Definitions: face, presence, person ~Susan
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: wysiwyg Date: 29 Dec 01 - 08:46 AM Ooops, sorry, source: BIBLE STUDY TOOLS ONLINE using the KJV with Strong's numbers, which provides infromation about the original languages behind the KJV and other English translations-- the KJV is used in this fashion just to key the Strong's numbers. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: GUEST Date: 29 Dec 01 - 11:14 AM Susan, it seems as if your cites are to a website which is for Protestants, not Catholics. Am I right about that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: Bill D Date: 29 Dec 01 - 12:12 PM "With the old Deities hath it long since come to an end:--and verily, a good joyful Deity-end had they! They did not "begloom" themselves to death--that do people fabricate! On the contrary, they--LAUGHED themselves to death once on a time! That took place when the unGodliest utterance came from a God himself--the utterance: "There is but one God! Thou shalt have no other Gods before me!"-- --An old grim-beard of a God, a jealous one, forgot himself in such wise:-- And all the Gods then laughed, and shook upon their thrones, and exclaimed: "Is it not just divinity that there are Gods, but no God?" from Thus Spake Zarathustra - Friedrich Nietzche |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: wysiwyg Date: 29 Dec 01 - 12:26 PM Crosswalk is commercial, not denonimational. But the Bible is the Bible. And many, MANY Christians consider themselves neither Catholic nor Protestant, especially in the US. I was responding to the posts about Bible translations.... ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: GUEST Date: 29 Dec 01 - 12:45 PM But Susan, you haven't answered my question. I think both Catholic and Protestant biblical scholars would disagree vehemently with your contention that "the Bible is the Bible" especially in the US. As to your "responding to the posts about Bible translations" I assume you are referring to toadfrogs post? The one in which he says Catholics would not use the King James version of the Bible? In a thread which is titled "Catholicism query"? I find your posting to be very disingenuous, and your inferences that your religion's version of the bible and Christianity is the one true American version of the bible and Christianity to be very off-putting. And BTW, the New Testament is Aramaic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: Amos Date: 29 Dec 01 - 12:56 PM Loverly excerpt, BillD. The gods of all creation laughing themselves silly is a wonderful image. The notion that at that particular party, the punchline that had them roling in the aisles was the first commandment really cracks me up. I never thought of the burning bush as a stand-up comedian before!! Baddabing baddaboom!! One after another!!! This also implies that the commandment against adultery was the forerunner of Henny Youngman's "Take my wife....please!" and similar lines throughout the history of comedy. Gosh, the things you learn on the 'Cat!! :>) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: GUEST Date: 29 Dec 01 - 01:03 PM FWIW, the meanings of Liland's cryptic sounding post (for the non-Catholic or long-lapsed Catholics among you): Dulia refers to the honor paid to the saints. Latria refers to the worship given to God alone. Hyperdulia refers to the veneration offered to Mary, as mother of Jesus. That would be the Jesus who spoke Aramaic, not American English. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: wysiwyg Date: 29 Dec 01 - 02:04 PM Unidentified Guest, you seem to have set up all sorts of thoughts and an agenda for me that I am not actually having, so that you can knock them down to make your own points for your own agenda. In fact I was addressing a point Amos raised, and I contributed what I found from a source I use. I am sure not prescribing it as THE approach people have to use. As a matter of fact, I use three or four translations and a wide variety of commentaries myself, when I delve into something in the Bible that interests me personally. You seem to be looking for someone with a one-dimensional approach to life-- better look to someone else for it. I ain't your one-trick pony, straw horse, or dumbass. People who take me as any of these usually look pretty silly when the facts are known. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: GUEST Date: 29 Dec 01 - 02:56 PM And that said Susan, isn't the website link you provided a Protestant website? A simple yes or no will do, won't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: wysiwyg Date: 29 Dec 01 - 04:14 PM Sorry, I just don't see the world that way. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: Wavestar Date: 29 Dec 01 - 06:56 PM Guest- Whether the link Susan provided was Catholic or Protestant, the Hebrew remains the same - and Hebrew scholars all over the world will translate those words and give you those same definitions. And the New Testament may be in Aramaic (which also doesn't change, no matter waht religion the reader is), but the Commandments are from the Old Testament. Her answer stands. Your question is irrelevant. -J |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: katlaughing Date: 29 Dec 01 - 07:48 PM BillD, I second what Amos said. Thanks! Love that image! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: little john cameron Date: 29 Dec 01 - 09:58 PM Might as weel stir the pot??brhttp://www.nexusmagazine.com//biblefraud1.html Extract-----WHAT WAS THE CHURCH TRYING TO HIDE? brbr
In 1415, the Church of Rome took an extraordinary step to destroy all knowledge of two second-century Jewish books that it said contained "the true name of Jesus Christ". The antipope Benedict XIII firstly singled out for condemnation a secret Latin treatise called Mar Yesu, and then issued instructions to destroy all copies of the Book of Elxai. No editions of these writings now publicly exist, but Church archives recorded that they were once in popular circulation and known to the early presbyters. Knowledge of these writings survived from quotations made by Bishop Hippolytus of Rome (176-236) and St Epiphanius of Salamis (315-403), along with references in some early editions of the Talmud of Palestine and of Babylonia. The Rabbinic fraternity once held the destroyed manuscripts with great reverence, for they were comprehensive original records reporting "the life of Rabbi Jesus".
Later, in a similar manner, Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503) ordered all copies of the Talmud destroyed. The Council of the Inquisition required as many Jewish writings as possible to be burned, with the Spanish Grand Inquisitor Tomas de Torquemada (1420-98) responsible for the elimination of 6,000 volumes at Salamanca. In 1550, Cardinal Caraffa, the Inquisitor-General, procured a Bull from the Pope, repealing all previous permission for priests to read the Talmud which he said contained "hostile stories about Jesus Christ". Bursting forth with fury at the head of his minions, he seized every copy he could find in Rome and burned them. Solomon Romano (1554) also burned many thousands of Hebrew scrolls, and in 1559 every Hebrew book in the city of Prague was confiscated. The mass destruction of Jewish books included hundreds of copies of the Old Testament and caused the irretrievable loss of many original handwritten documents. The oldest text of the Old Testament that survived, before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, was said to be the Bodleian Codex (Oxford), which was dated to circa 1100. In an attempt by the Church to remove damaging Rabbinic information about Jesus Christ from the face of the Earth, the Inquisition burned 12,000 volumes of the Talmud. However, many copies survived and today provide opposing traditions about the person called Jesus Christ. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: GUEST Date: 29 Dec 01 - 10:24 PM Susan and Wavestar, I am a Catholic, posting in a thread about Catholicism. I would suggest it is the "non-denomenational" and "commercial" Protestant contributions which are irrelevant to this conversation, not the other way around. I made three very polite, positive guest contributions to this thread before Susan or Spaw came spewing venom. Anonymous or named guest manners isn't the issue here either. Some people are just not going to treat even well mannered guests with good intentions reasonably, no matter what. I was really taken aback by Susan's "it isn't Protestant it's commercial" post. First, it was just plain bizarre from a religious perspective, to deny the denomenational perspective of a website by claiming it is commercial. Second, it was just plain bizarre from any perspective, to claim that there are no differences between Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians, especially in America, and that the bible is the bible, regardless of your chosen faith. There may be non-denominational Protestants, but there is no such thing as a non-denominational Catholic. But since the vast majority of the people posting to this thread appear to be largely ignorant of the Catholic religion, and/or hostile to organized religion in general, most of you just don't seem to understand just how offensive Susan's response to my post asking about the bible studies website denomination was to me as a Catholic, and how out of context it seemed to this thread and the previous posts. For the record, the only relevant answers given to Paul's original query were provided by Mousethief, Liland, toadfrog, and myself. The rest of you are mere infidels. :)
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: little john cameron Date: 29 Dec 01 - 10:53 PM Dinnae get yer knickers in a knok pal.Whit dae ye expect?This isnae a religion forum.However,seein as how ye're a catholic can ye no' get yer priest tae answer these questions? Meanwhile,here is ah catholic site tae help ye wi' this an' ither Questions aboot yer church. ljc http://www.netacc.net/~mafg/que4029.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: little john cameron Date: 29 Dec 01 - 11:02 PM Help mah Boab,ah jist read that site noo aw'thin is PERFECTLY CLEAR. ljc |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: GUEST,AnotherGuest Date: 29 Dec 01 - 11:11 PM Excuse me. "And BTW, the New Testament is Aramaic. " whaaaaaaaaaaat????????? a fraction of 1%, maybe.
Don't believe any of the gospels as we know them was written in Aramaic. Let the Catholics argue this out amongst themselves. They should only use references which are not listed in the Index and should check for a bishop's imprimatur and nihil obstat on any websites they consult. Some infidel will twist the _meaning_ of the verbum Dei ... I'm with Susan on this one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: wysiwyg Date: 29 Dec 01 - 11:41 PM From this thread's opening post: I'd be grateful if anyone can explain or point me towards a good site/book/whatever Don't see any exclusions there. "Anyone"???? And hm, is someone asserting that they know what my own upbringing may have been, or what my current denominational orientation is? Or that I have never had a chance to listen to Catholics discuss these matters? Uh........ gee-- venom. That's a REAL good one! I ain't feeling pertickly venomous today, nor do I think one could extract any from any comments I've made in this thread, unless creating them for oneself in one's own mind.... Nope, I think on this one, I've contributed pretty neutrally and informatively. Naw, I think it's just trolling. Sorry to disappoint, but after a quick panty check on this end (*G*) I see no twisty wrinkles. Oh! I get it! Someone wants to control how I post! Oh yeah!! A frequent Mudcat cover for sloppy thinking-- one pressures another, complaining that they won't post as demanded! Yawn........ been great to have a chance to speak to some of these points, both the ridiculous and the sublime. Thanks for the venue! ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: wysiwyg Date: 30 Dec 01 - 12:02 AM PS, Crosswalk is one among many sites that use the KJV linked to Strong's numbers for Bible study of the original languages. (All I use at Crosswalk is the reference material there for Hebrew and Greek word pictures, because that's the method of Biblical inquiry I like right now, in addition to prayer, reflection, and discussion, and because I have not yet found software that does a good enough job on word pictures interlinearly for me to invest bucks in print references. I don't have much to say about the rest of the site, and I will not speak for them when anyone here can see how Crosswalk speaks for itself-- that is one reason people provide sources here when possible so readers can weigh the usefulness of the information or check into it further for themselves. So it really doesn't matter what Crosswalk's purpose is, in the context of this discussion, although you can read all about it in their site material, if that's of interest to you. The more relevant question might be, do Catholics use Strong's? ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: Mark Cohen Date: 30 Dec 01 - 12:26 AM Couldn't help listening in. To clarify Susan's remark about the original Hebrew...Exodus 20:3 reads Lo yih'yeh lechah elohim acherim al panai. A fairly literal translation might be, "There will not be, for you, other gods before my face." The newest (2001) translation of the Torah -- the first five books of the Bible -- in the Conservative Jewish tradition (you think you guys are the only ones with sects and schisms?!) gives that verse as: "You shall have no other gods besides Me." The commentary on this verse states: "Some take the words translated as 'besides Me' (al panai) to mean 'in addition to,' not only 'in place of.' It is forbidden to worship idols along with God. Arama takes this passage not as a prohibition but as a promise: As long as you have Me, you will not need any others." Then, the commentary on Deuteronomy 5:7 (same verse, different location), says: "Beside me: Hebrew al panai; literally, "in addition to Me" or "in opposition to Me." You pays your money and you takes your choice! By the way, to add to the jumble, the Torah makes no mention of "Ten Commandments". The Hebrew word for "commandment" is mitzvah, which is not used in relation to these verses. They are referred to as aseret ha-d'varim, "The Ten Words/Statements/Pronouncements". The Hebrew was translated into Greek as deka logoi, which became the more accurate English word, "Decalogue". Shaloha, Mark
You rang? **BG** |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: Mark Cohen Date: 30 Dec 01 - 12:28 AM ...for want of an HTML marker, the post was lost. Help please, JoeClone, wherever you are? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: GUEST Date: 30 Dec 01 - 02:15 AM Sure both the Old and New Testaments were translated into Greek. But the most recent (and less conservative) scholarship, which hasn't been dictated by the fathers of any church's doctrines and dogmas, recognizes some important historic facts: that the Greek translators were "interpreting" the works they collected from oral and written Aramaic traditions, not just a written one. Contemporary biblical scholars don't just study the Greek biblical texts, but also the Hebrew/Aramaic texts. And the Coptic texts. When looked at comparatively, the so-called Greatest Story Ever Told becomes an entirely different story altogether from the one we were taught in our Christian Sunday schools and catechism classes. The historical Jesus, and all his contemporaries, spoke Aramaic, not Greek. Syriac written literature covers a wide area both in time and in space, and provides by far the largest body of Aramaic literature that spans from the second to the twentieth century. The earliest Syriac literature, of which only a few works have survived, include the following: The Book of the Laws of Countries by a pupil of Bardaisan 'The Aramean Philosopher' (died 222); a collection of lyric poems known as Odes of Solomon ; and the Acts of the Apostle Thomas together with a few other texts including among them the earliest translation of the Bible (Old Testament and Gospels). For those with an interest in the biblical eras, I'd suggest learning a bit more about the history of languages the historic biblical texts were written in over time. University of Pennsylvania has a gopher site with Aramaic texts for the true geek (I'm only marginally geeky in this regard, so I've never downloaded it). But here is a description of this sort of study (which is distinguished from traditional religious studies) from University of Cambridge's website: Hebrew and Aramaic Studies An Introduction Hebrew literature has had a life of over 3000 years from the earliest parts of the Bible to the most modern newspaper or novel. The classical phase of the language is represented in the Hebrew Bible and in some slightly later literature, notably in some of the Dead Sea scrolls. It also appears in inscriptions, of which more and more are being discovered in Israel. After Biblical Hebrew a later form of the language was spoken in Judah at the beginning of the present era, and was used by the early rabbis in their voluminous writings. In the Middle Ages Hebrew continued to be used by the great Jewish commentators on the Bible, and by poets, grammarians and authors of many other works. Throughout, it was, of course, the language of Jewish prayer and worship, in home and synagogue, and was a means of international communication between Jewish communities. Christians too studied Hebrew, especially in the Renaissance and Reformation periods and in the centuries since then. Finally, Hebrew was reinvigorated in the nineteenth century, not just as a literary language, but as a vernacular in everyday use, and it is now the language of the State of Israel, where there is a vigorous and growing literature. Aramaic, in both its spoken and written forms, has a similarly long history. It became the official language of the Persian Empire in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE, and was widely used in Palestine during the period of the Second Temple. In its Syriac form it produced an extensive literature of a mainly Christian complexion. There are still small communities in the Near East where modern forms of Aramaic are spoken, and Syriac remains the liturgical language of the Mar Thoma Church in India. Cambridge has long been a centre for Hebrew and Aramaic studies, and the Regius Professorship of Hebrew was founded by Henry VIII as early as 1540. The post in Rabbinics, which has existed for more than a century, is probably the oldest university post of its kind in the world. The University Library has a large number of Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts, and special mention must be made of the famous Taylor-Schechter (Genizah) Collection. This collection of some 140,000 fragments and better-preserved texts comes from about the seventh century onwards. It brings scholars from many parts of the world to work in Cambridge. In Peace, The reformed Catholic heathen (who is much more heathen than reformed Catholic, to be sure)
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: Haruo Date: 30 Dec 01 - 02:24 AM For the record, I am a Baptist. Also for the record, the New Testament is Greek, assuming that "is" here means "was originally written in". Some Catholic traditions point to an Aramaic original for the gospel of St. Matthew only, but most Catholic as well as other scholars do not give much weight to that strand of the tradition. Also for the record, if a person signs in as "GUEST" with no identification, she risks being lumped together in the minds of all readers with all previous unidentified "GUEST"s. FWIW, getting back to the Ten Commandments, a large and intriguing advertisement appeared in Friday's Seattle Times, which I scanned onto my website in an effort to figure out who's behind it. (My guess is, some right-wing spinoff group from the Seventh Day Adventists, like maybe the less cultic fringe of the Branch Davidians?) I would welcome anyone's input as to whence it arose. (Click on it to see it full size, which unless you have your computer hooked up to a Big Screen TV will be too wide for your screen, alas, but more legible.) I thought it was particularly cute how the graven image of the Tablets morphs into a graven image of Jesus' head, while the main complaint of the text is the supposed elimination of the second commandment from "Man's Version" of the Decalogue. Ironic and all. Liland PS (elucidating my earlier comment, which GUEST found pertinent): Dulia is the respect or veneration deservedly accorded a saint; hyperdulia is the enhanced level of dulia appropriate to the BVM or, as the Eastern Church has it, the Theotokos or Mother of God; and latria is that worship which is due only to the Triune Godhead. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: GUEST Date: 30 Dec 01 - 03:25 AM Susan, The 1890 Strong's Concordance is an English language concordance of the King James Version of the bible. See toadfrog's 12/28 post above regarding Catholic usage of the King James Version of the bible. While there are Catholic versions of Strong's available nowadays, to my knowledge, they haven't been used much by Catholics since they don't use the KJV. Liland, I think my dulia, hyperdulia, latria shorthand summed up your post pretty accurately. Or would my anonymity cause you to disagree with that? As to your insinuation that any suggestion of Aramaic origins of the Greek translations of the New Testament would be considered either Catholic or (by association, perhaps?) merely lunatic fringe, I disagree. While the scholarship is more recent than what you might be familiar with, there are, nonetheless, a number of reputable academics (as opposed to religious academics) who are pursuing this line of study. They publish in reputable journals and with reputable presses, in which they discuss this aspect of the Hebrew/Aramaic biblical and contemporaneous non-biblical written record. Two such journals include Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, and the Journal of the Aramaic Bible. Online there is also the Syriac Orthodox Resources WWW Site, originally housed at Berkeley, and now found at Catholic University. I realize what I'm saying sounds a bit like we aren't in Kansas anymore to some of you. So be it. Protestants tend to view the Greek texts as The Written Word of God. Catholics tend to view the Hebrew/Aramaic texts (including Apocrypha and and Pseudepigrapha) as the more authentic source. Nearly all biblical scholars would now agree that Greek Christian texts were later translated into Aramaic Christian texts. The controversy we are bantering about here is to what extent did the Greek writers of those texts simply translate the Aramaic oral and written biblical texts into Greek and write it down, and the church fathers (both Roman and Orthodox) claim the translations as the true word of God (for the Old Testament) and the true sayings of Jesus (for the New Testament). I'll agree that the jury is still out on this one. But considering how recently some of these texts have been recovered (ie late 19th c. and as late as what, 1945 for the Nag Hammadi?), I'm not ready to concede on the Hebrew/Aramaic origins of the New Testament texts just yet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: GUEST Date: 30 Dec 01 - 03:35 AM PS--my stubborness about the Hebrew/Aramaic origins of the New Testament stems in part from the fact that the Book of Enoch in the Dead Sea Scrolls, while not a part of either the Hebrew or Christian official canon, is written in Aramaic in an older version which didn't exist before their discovery. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: Alice Date: 30 Dec 01 - 12:47 PM Paul, regarding your original request for sources of information, here is http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm The Vatican website, Catechism of the Catholic Church
Scroll down the above linked page and you will find the commandments - ARTICLE 1: THE FIRST COMMANDMENT I. "You Shall Worship the Lord Your God and Him Only Shall You Serve" II. "Him Only Shall You Serve" III. "You Shall Have No Other Gods before Me" IV. "You Shall Not Make for Yourself a Graven Image"
Quote:
" The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it." *70 The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone:
Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.*71
*47 47 Origen, Contra Celsum 2, 40: PG 11, 861.
*70 St. Basil, De Spiritu Sancto 18, 45: PG 32, 149C; Council of Nicaea II: DS 601; cf. Council of Trent: DS 1821-1825; Vatican Council II: SC 126; LG 67. *71 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II, 81, 3 ad 3. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: toadfrog Date: 31 Dec 01 - 05:11 PM Everyone is arguing about their sources, etc. Is there any real, substantive difference of opinion here? Or just folks showing off their erudition? I'm genuinely curious. Is there an actual dispute, and if so, what is disputed? Hey, Amos, read my posting carefully and see if you think we actually have a real difference of opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: GUEST,Phil Date: 31 Dec 01 - 05:44 PM I have found the best source of answers to all questions concerning religion to be The Simpsons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: Burke Date: 31 Dec 01 - 06:49 PM I'm a Protestant who was raised on heavy doses of "This is why we are not Catholic" with the serious understanding that they may be so far off that they aren't Christian & we're not sure if they will get to heaven. The issues Paul raised initially are a good part of the reasons I was given. I've modified my thinking a lot over the years & hope to offer some thoughts that might help. The 'decalogue' is found in Exodus 20 & Deuteronomy 5. I believe the currently official Catholic Translation is The New American Bible. I think all the translation stuff in this thread is fairly irrelevant to the intial question, so I won't address it. I read the 1st & 2nd commandment separation and the 9th & 10th combination the same way you do. Having grown up on 'Luther's Small Catechism', I was surprised when I read the actual texts. Luther apparently still accepted this particular reading even as he opposed many other practices of the the church of his day. Other more radical protestants renumbered them more accurately & in some cases destroyed a lot of religious art. I have a hard time with the seeming veneration of representations & relics, but from the remove of 400-500 years, the wholesale destruction seems extreme & unnecessary. Several people have posted the official line on why what Catholics do does not break the commandments. I've read a lot of church history & some very entertaining & even inspirational longer versions of some Saints lives. My feeling is that the distinctions being made are doctrinal developments to jusify a popular religious practices that grew up over time (although some were quite early). I'm not sure most Catholics now or in the past really made such intelluctual distinctions. My grandmother was Catholic & when she talked about the saints in prayer it sure sounded to me like she thought the help was coming directly from the saints. When I hear what the current Pope has to say about Mary it sounds to me like he's worshiping more than venerating. When I hear about getting a saint's medal blessed, I cringe. I don't, however, think any of them are condemned for doing these things. Personally, one of my favorite religious bookstores is a Catholic one. There is so much there from Catholic writers for 2000 years that is so very spiritually edifying. At the same time I cringe when I see all books about Mary. In both the books I like & the ones I don't I find an expectation of the immanance & experiential aspects of God in daily life that my protestant background paid lip service to but did not seem to have in any practical way. Being protestant & an intelluctual type, I just don't really 'get' "bowing down in front of various statues / alters, kissing the feet of a statue on Good Friday etc." so I'd never do them. I do think the experience of 2000 years shows it does work for many. If you were raised Catholic, didn't catch the distiction of the to/through or venerating/worshiping, and are bothered by these usages in your own life; then maybe you should avoid the practices & if you feel strongly enough head for a protestant church. Isn't it great that we have so many alternatives?
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: GUEST,Mark Clark (via public proxy) Date: 01 Jan 02 - 04:47 PM Like Mousethief, I belong to an Orthodox community so my own understanding is from the Orthodox point of view. Still, Roman Catholicism is an offshoot of Orthodoxy <big grin... hey, put down those tomatoes> and still shares many of the ancient traditions. I think Christianity began as a sect of Judaism and Christian worship originally included the traditional Jewish Temple services with the Christians staying after the conclusion of the Hebrew service to add their own developing liturgical practices. This was before Saul became Paul and became an Apostle. The Orthodox Christian Liturgy, 2000 years later, still begins with chanted prayers and psalms that would sound familiar to Jewish faithful. Still, accepted Christian theology represents a break with the old traditions. Christ boiled the old Mosaic law down to only two commandments:
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. “On these two commandments” He said, “hang all the law and the prophets.” In Christian theology, Christ gives (new) meaning to all the old symbols and traditions. Christ is the new sacrificial lamb and His resurrection (Pascha) is the new Passover. Arguing over the interpretration of Mosaic law no longer has meaning for Christians. Mosaic law remains as part of the Tradition of the Church but it's been replaced as a central theme. Yes, Jesus spoke Aramaic—a friend of ours was born in one of the last remaining villages where Aramaic is still spoken—but he very likely spoke Greek as well. I seem to remember reading that Greek was the lingua franca in that part of the world at the time. The Gospels and Epistles were undoubtedly recited in many languages and versions according to local liturgical practice but when finally written down, I believe they were recorded in Greek. Orthodox theology—and I suppose Roman Catholic as well—holds that Christ is fully man while being fully God. To disallow any representation (Icon) of Christ as a defilement of that which is holy is to deny Christ's humanity. This was the error of the Iconoclasts, a tradition shared by both the Eastern Church and by Rome. Bottom line... in Orthodox and Roman theology, Icons aren't idols, Saints and martyrs aren't gods and the Bible—part of the Tradition of the Church—was established by the Church for its own use, the Church didn't come about because someone read the Bible. Hope I didn't get anyone's shorts in a knot. Didn't mean to. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: Jane 2001 Date: 01 Jan 02 - 07:56 PM I don't pretend such erudition as some other members or any religious belief at all, but I think it's interesting to note which of the Ten Commandments is are still law. While seven of the ten still exist, however watered down (in U.K. that is) Numbers 1,2, and 10 have completely gone. We can worship what we like and create idols for all purposes, while covetousness is positively a way of life. Progress? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: Amos Date: 01 Jan 02 - 08:13 PM Toadfrog: I guess not, maybe. Jane2001: Yes. It's a very stilted, not to say oxymornic state of spirituality to refrain from or insist on actions because of some proscription or mandate from external sources, especially dogeared tomes of uncertain origin. If there is spiritual strength or virtue in "worshiping" (whatever that really means) a single identity as representative of All, the only good it will do you is if you do so out of enlightened awareness based on your own perception of truth. Otherewise the universe is an other-determined machine being operated by a whimsical daemon posing as the Great and Terrible -- not a very satisfying world view to my way of thinking. Covetousness, likewise, must be outgrown because of personal certainty as to what really does consittute "Right Thought", "Right Action" and so on. To suppress it in order not to offend a Divinity or a community of adherents to a Divinity is, I believe, childish and counter-productive. To sublimate it into more enlightened ways of being and doing in the world, out of your own self-determined sense of rightness, is a much truer path, to me. Well..you asked. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: toadfrog Date: 01 Jan 02 - 09:07 PM Amos, I have second thoughts. Maybe we do disagree. I can't really know what it is you mean by "spirituality," so find it hard to disagree on that point. But since the Ten Commandments are called "commandments," it would appear all of them are "done for authoritarian motives." They are authority. Some people even believe the Commandments are the source of ethics. If it is "authoritarian" to prohibit the worship of additional gods (and incidentally in terms an earlier time, obedience of foreign priests), then surely it is also "authoritarian" to prohibit the worship of graven images, or to require observance of the Sabbath, or enjoin adultery, or even to prohibit killing and stealing. All of the commandments prohibit or require something, so by definition they are all "authoritarian." I suggest your quarrel is not with my reading (and Mr.Cohen's) of one particular word. On the contrary, I think you do not like commandements at all. Which I suppose is o.k., so long as you don't break those which also involve violation of secular laws. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: Joe Offer Date: 02 Jan 02 - 05:09 AM There's some really good information in this thread, but there's also a lot of misinformation. Same with most of the Internet, so I think it's wise to view all Internet sources of information as "suspect until proven otherwise." The conservatives dominate the privately-operated sites that deal with Catholicism, so the Internet will paint Catholicism as far more conservative and legalistic than it really is. The Vatican site is accurate, and so are the sites of the various national councils of Catholic Bishops. Mother Angelica is not an official spokesperson for the Catholic Church; but she is a right-winger with a lot of money, so she's able to make herself seem official. Ther is no longer an Index of Prohibited Books, and Catholics are permitted to make use of the Authorized (King James) version of the Bible. There are many more recent translations that are easier to understand. Catholics have no historical attachment to the King James translation, so they don't use it much. In the U.S. the official Roman Catholic translation is the New American Bible, but the New Revised Standard Version and others such as the Good News Bible are commonly used. The earliest known texts of the New Testament are in the style of Greek known as koiné, which was spoken throughout the Mediterranean world at the time of Christ. The "imprimatur" (it may be printed) is required and granted only for certain religious books used in teaching. It is unlikely that you will find an imprimatur on a Website. The Catholic Church has always taught that worship belongs to God alone, and not to Mary, the saints, or to statues. Nonetheless, I have seen talk of worship of Mary at "Catholic" websites and from people who should know better. It's one of those nuanced things that takes two minutes to understand, and many people don't have the time to bother understanding stuff like that. Mary and the saints are supposed to be sources of inspiration, not objects of worship - but it's evident that many Catholics don't understand that. Mary and the Saints often seem to generate more hysteria and receive more attention than God. So, yes, some Catholics worship statues - but they're not supposed to. I'm sure there are many other religious groups that have members who just don't get the picture. As a very wise soul once told me, "Ya gotta love 'em," anyhow. The bulk of this thread appears to portray the Catholic faith and other religion as something chiefly juridical and legalistic. That is a valid perspective, but not the only one or the primary one. I find most Catholics don't worry too much about the legalities any more - they see their faith as a relationship with God and with their fellow human beings, and an obligation to serve both God and humanity. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: GUEST Date: 02 Jan 02 - 10:31 AM People here have actually been contributing in a pretty informed way, IMO. Things "in the real world" of Catholics are often as you say Joe. But there is also a long tradition of Catholic intellectualism, where people are more interested in the secular academic history of the church than they are the nuances of worship on the ground. I come from a Catholic intellectual background myself, and can even claim a close relative who is in the clergy, has a doctorate in Aramaic and Aramaic Studies from Catholic University, who also teaches at a well-known Catholic college. I recognize that makes our family somewhat unique among Catholics nowadays, especially in the US where the tradition of raising one son and one daughter for the church isn't as strong a tradition as it once was in Europe. I agree that a lot of what gets onto the web is very conservative. But then, we need to remember that the church itself has gone to pretty extreme lengths to stamp out the radical left elements within the church itself in recent years. Liberation theologians have been successfully beaten down and beaten back by Rome, making the world safe for suffering and the saving of Catholic souls. I'm not going to argue with people on the language issue. It is one of the issues related to biblical studies which is still very polticized. The dominant culture (ie English and Spanish language cultures of Europe and the Americas) are heavily invested in the Greek texts of the bible, just as they are heavily invested in Greco-Roman history on the secular side. Which is why we still force our kids to read Homer. But that doesn't make what is being taught in the schools accurate or even remotely close to the contemporary knowledge academics have gained as a result of the past 50 years of research independent of the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim clerical influences. The importance of that research being independent was certainly brought home to roost with the Dead Sea scroll controversies, which also never had much of an effect on generic Catholicism either. But it blew the doors on scholarship wide open, as they say. Best wishes for a healthy, proseperous, and blessed New Year to all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: Ringer Date: 02 Jan 02 - 01:01 PM Yes, but you are arguing on the language issue, Guest. Joe said, The earliest known texts of the New Testament are in the style of Greek known as koiné, which was spoken throughout the Mediterranean world at the time of Christ, which is a statement of fact, not of opinion. Have you information which might lead us to suppose that Joe's statement is incorrect? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: GUEST Date: 02 Jan 02 - 03:50 PM Bald Eagle, Perhaps I should have said I'm done arguing the language issue? ;-) There are biblical texts, and then there are the texts of the biblical era. Aramaic was the language Jesus spoke, not Greek. The earliest known texts of the New Testament are in Greek. The earlies known texts of the Old Testament, and some sacred texts which are not considered canonical texts, the Gospel of Thomas from the New Testament, are in Hebrew/Aramaic. But nobody really seems to want to go there, do they? I didn't think so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: GUEST,Paul Date: 02 Jan 02 - 03:58 PM Many, many thanks everyone. This thread has been really interesting to me, and apart from a couple of the early messages, totally flameless. That is good. I'm going to print it out, look up some references, and read some more. One thing that I don't think has been covered, however, is where the differences in what constitute the '10 Commandments' originate. My first post gives a link to 3 different versions, and I'm still unsure as to why that is so. Explanations much apperciated. Many thanks, Paul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: wysiwyg Date: 02 Jan 02 - 04:03 PM But nobody really seems to want to go there, do they? I DO want to go "there," and in fact I do "go there" often in my own personal spiritual life-- but I don't "go there," much, in this setting, because it can so easily become what is assumed to be an argument.... I much prefer the fascinating process of exploration, discovery, and discernment, and these are easily overwhelmed here despite what I think are usually excellent intentions all around. The internet in general (and the Mudcat in particular) does far too good a job at reinforcing legalism, IMO, and has a ways to go yet on facilitating other approaches. They do a better job of this at Beliefnet, where there are boards to discuss, argue, and/or explore any and everything there is about spirituality, and where the numbers of informed writers is large enough to get a better spectrum of diversity and expression thereof. I am not so much interested in who is RIGHT-- God is, and we are fallible-- as I am in becoming a better person, and on keeping others company who are interested in same. Beating up on friends about who is more right, IMO, doesn't help me be a better person, nor (in my experience) anyone else. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: GUEST,Paul Date: 02 Jan 02 - 04:49 PM WYSIWIG, I was just trying to have an intelligent converstion with intelligent people. I still feel the same Paul
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: wysiwyg Date: 02 Jan 02 - 05:14 PM Paul, I have nothing but appreciation for your approaches in this thread... I was responding primarily to the GUEST who had posted just before you, as one who has seen too many threads about spirituality here lose their postive tone. But I would like to encourage you to visit Beliefnet to explore your questions, also. I have a feeling they've been around this block several times. From Beliefnet: <>Post respectful questions in Learn About Catholicism and Beliefnet members will offer responses. Disputes or criticisms of Catholicism from non-Catholics must be directed to Catholicism Challenge & Critique. Please refer to the Beliefnet Community Rules of Conduct before posting. Members of the Catholic Church who question or dissent from official teaching are welcomed in the Retreat House. Those who accept official Catholic Church teaching as definitive are invited to the Conservative Catholics forum. These categories have evolved over time with Beliefnet members' input in the Town Meeting threads. Threads in the "wrong" place are simply moved. It all works pretty well. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: Burke Date: 02 Jan 02 - 06:57 PM Guest, Paul, I addressed the different versions a little without first looking at your PDF link. The site actually gives 6. I don't know that anyone considers it's 5th & 6th as the definitive decalogue. What you have in the 1st four is some numbering differences & abridged vs full forms. Except for the ranking of 'graven images' I think the differences are more apparent than real. The Protestant & Hebrew versions given are basically the biblical texts from Exodus in different English translations. The 1 of the Hebrew, is regarded as preamble by the Protestant & omitted there, but inclued as part of 1 of the "First Tablets". The Hebrew combines the Protestant 1 & 2 into 2. From there they are basically the same. The so called "First Tablets" version on p.2 is the abridged "Protestant" version. I suspect that's what a lot of Protestants were taught for memorization purposes. I think this has been done for the practical reason of teaching children & tring to keep it simple. "Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy" is what I memorized. All the rest that follows & precedes "Honor thy Father & Mother." was treated as amplification or explanation. I memorized "Honor thy father and thy mother that is may go well with thee & thou mayest live long on the earth." Some of the other versions just give "Honor thy father and thy mother." It would have been easier to memorize the shorter, I'm not sure it changes the meaning a lot; except that I also learned it was the only commandment with a promise in it. The Catholic version is both abridged & numbered differently. Having also grown up with the Catholic numbering, I was always told the 'graven image' was really part of the commentary on or amplification of 'no other gods'. It could be omitted the same as the 6 days labor, etc. for the sabbath commandment. From a purely practical point of view to get to 10 the covet commandmend is split. The Deuteronomy version put the wife before the house & that's the way I remember memorizing it. I've long suspected the Catholic version overlooked the graven image to get around the fact that images figure so largly in worship, but I'm not sure you'd find it documented. If the "Hebrew" numbering reflects traditional Jewish subdivision, it's possible the Catholic version adopted that & then abridged it. OTOH, lumping wives in with houses & cattle as objects to covet is pretty offensive, I rather like that they are treated separately. I seem to recall that at one time the 7 deadly sins & the 7 virtues were more important as rules for living than the 10 commandments. Anyone know more? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query From: GUEST Date: 16 Jan 02 - 12:56 AM , |