NationStates

Two word update to the end of the bible: Just Kidding.

Ceannairceach wrote:

Mike the Progressive wrote:
No, we are still suppose to stone them. Why? *picks up rock, looks at you*

Oh, you know... Change the the word "Stone" to "Get stoned with"... The usual.

.................

.................

*drops stone, takes joint*

Angleter wrote:

Oterro wrote:
I'm pretty sure the Orthodox church was established before the catholic one; so wouldn't that mean you are infact a pseudo-orthodox-brethren?

Well, both were created when the initial church split- the Patriarch of Rome, who had always been 'first among equals' in the church, formed the Catholic Church; and the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria all formed the Orthodox Church. Catholics will claim the Orthodox are the schismatics, and vice versa. Efforts have recently been made towards reconciliation and reunification, but to little avail.

After some investigation, both churches claim to be as old as each other. However, Catholicism was apparently the state religion of Rome before it fell, so I am wrong, I believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_c ... _antiquity

Mike the Progressive wrote:

Ceannairceach wrote:Oh, you know... Change the the word "Stone" to "Get stoned with"... The usual.

.................

.................

*drops stone, takes joint*

Peace and love, man, peace and love.

Ceannairceach wrote:

Mike the Progressive wrote:
.................

.................

*drops stone, takes joint*

Peace and love, man, peace and love.

Go give him a kiss.

Ceannairceach wrote:Peace and love, man, peace and love.

Marijuana, Christian drug of choice.

Oterro wrote:

Angleter wrote:
Well, both were created when the initial church split- the Patriarch of Rome, who had always been 'first among equals' in the church, formed the Catholic Church; and the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria all formed the Orthodox Church. Catholics will claim the Orthodox are the schismatics, and vice versa. Efforts have recently been made towards reconciliation and reunification, but to little avail.

After some investigation, both churches claim to be as old as each other. However, Catholicism was apparently the state religion of Rome before it fell, so I am wrong, I believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_c ... _antiquity

Catholicism implies that there was a big C catholic, which at the time there really wasn't, though, iirc.

Farnhamia wrote:

Ceannairceach wrote:Peace and love, man, peace and love.

Go give him a kiss.

*Jumps on Mike*

Ceannairceach wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Go give him a kiss.

*Jumps on Mike*

Don't make me grab the rock again

Mike the Progressive wrote:

Ceannairceach wrote: *Jumps on Mike*

Don't make me grab the rock again

Hey, whatever gets you off

This is further proof of the unspeakable evil of the Catholic Church.

The new version, however, swaps “the virgin” for ” the young woman.”

It's worth noting that nowadays the word Virgin is associated with Richard Branson's business empire of the same name. But I can't see how that should change the Bible in my opinion.

Serrland wrote:

Oterro wrote:
After some investigation, both churches claim to be as old as each other. However, Catholicism was apparently the state religion of Rome before it fell, so I am wrong, I believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_c ... _antiquity

Catholicism implies that there was a big C catholic, which at the time there really wasn't, though, iirc.

More like there wasn't a little C, since the Latin alphabet in use was a majescule one (all upper case) and Greek doesn't have the letter C ... sorry ...

Remember what "catholic" means: "universal". The Church - the one Church - was Orthodox and Catholic. The Western Church could say that it was holding to the original foundation, with Saint Peter as the Bishop of Rome, and the Eastern might say they were doing the same, because in the original Church no one Bishopric was greater than any other.

Ceannairceach wrote:

Mike the Progressive wrote:
Don't make me grab the rock again

Hey, whatever gets you off

As long as he's not grabbing your stones.

I not a catholic. They've got some things wrong about their religion. I'm a baptist.

Dredlockslavach wrote:I not a catholic. They've got some things wrong about their religion. I'm a baptist.

Every religion has something wrong with it.

Farnhamia wrote:

Serrland wrote:
Catholicism implies that there was a big C catholic, which at the time there really wasn't, though, iirc.

More like there wasn't a little C, since the Latin alphabet in use was a majescule one (all upper case) and Greek doesn't have the letter C ... sorry ...

Remember what "catholic" means: "universal". The Church - the one Church - was Orthodox and Catholic. The Western Church could say that it was holding to the original foundation, with Saint Peter as the Bishop of Rome, and the Eastern might say they were doing the same, because in the original Church no one Bishopric was greater than any other.

But you know which is older, don't you?

Ceannairceach wrote:

Dredlockslavach wrote:I not a catholic. They've got some things wrong about their religion. I'm a baptist.

Every religion has something wrong with it.

Exactly. I chose to be a baptist because the religion is the closest thing I think of being right.

Oterro wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:More like there wasn't a little C, since the Latin alphabet in use was a majescule one (all upper case) and Greek doesn't have the letter C ... sorry ...

Remember what "catholic" means: "universal". The Church - the one Church - was Orthodox and Catholic. The Western Church could say that it was holding to the original foundation, with Saint Peter as the Bishop of Rome, and the Eastern might say they were doing the same, because in the original Church no one Bishopric was greater than any other.

But you know which is older, don't you?

Which one, pray tell? I have heard that they were the same, or that the Orthodox was slightly older. I, for one, don't know the answer.

Dredlockslavach wrote:

Ceannairceach wrote:Every religion has something wrong with it.

Exactly. I chose to be a baptist because the religion is the closest thing I think of being right.

How so? A certain Baptist church reminds me that there are many things wrong with the Baptist sect as well.

Ceannairceach wrote:

Oterro wrote:
But you know which is older, don't you?

Which one, pray tell? I have heard that they were the same, or that the Orthodox was slightly older. I, for one, don't know the answer.

Nor do I, sirrah, but I hope Farn does. She is indeed knowledgable in such matters.

Eh, catholics.

Oterro wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:More like there wasn't a little C, since the Latin alphabet in use was a majescule one (all upper case) and Greek doesn't have the letter C ... sorry ...

Remember what "catholic" means: "universal". The Church - the one Church - was Orthodox and Catholic. The Western Church could say that it was holding to the original foundation, with Saint Peter as the Bishop of Rome, and the Eastern might say they were doing the same, because in the original Church no one Bishopric was greater than any other.

But you know which is older, don't you?

I never paid much attention during those days. Wait for Arch to show up, he converted in the 2nd century, I think, and has always had an knack for such things.

Mike the Progressive wrote:

OrangeCats wrote:
I don't get the impression that Catholic doctrine would change on that point, only the way it's worded in the Old Testament prophecy. It doesn't look like they'd change the reference to her being a virgin in the New Testament.

They didn't and they haven't. What my pseudo-Catholic brother fails to mention or realizes is that the Church holds Mary's virginity very dear, to where it has been criticized by mainstream churches for misinterpreting the Bible. The whole entire purpose of this change is to make reading scripture easier for everyday folks, who in all honesty, are illiterate morons. Now just changing it from virgin to a young woman is irrelevant, because I'm sure the version still tells the story of Christ being born without her having sex. Mariology is still alive and well in the true one holy, catholic apostolic church.

Absolutely correct. I think that I did jump the gun on my concern. I spoke with my Anglican friend, who converted me to Orthodoxy, and he attempted to set me straight. I may have allowed my fear that the Catholics would cater to political correctness to cloud my judgment at first. Came home, reread the changes, the originals, and reconsidered the Anglicans words. I may have overreacted.

Farnhamia wrote:

Oterro wrote:
But you know which is older, don't you?

I never paid much attention during those days. Wait for Arch to show up, he converted in the 2nd century, I think, and has always had an knack for such things.

First century, Farn. Antioch used to be so much more civilised...

Anyway...

Unfortunately Orthodox Mod's participation in the forums is currently limited as his entire town's broadband connection has been down for a week due to someone severing the cable (doesn't only happen in Armenia and Georgia, it turns out). He's currently sitting in his local library, which has the only functioning wifi connection for some miles around. This will have to be brief.

Two points...

1) The "who came first" argument over Orthodoxy and Catholicism is a pointless one. They are both the direct descendants of the Imperial Church of Constantine, and before that from the shared traditions (which isn't necessarily an established fact, but let's not get sidetracked by a discussion of the development of urban bishoprics in the first and second centuries) of pre-Constantinian apostolic succession and the foundation of the Church at Pentacost. As such, they - along with the non-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox (Copts, Armenians, Ethiopians) - have an essentially equal claim on being the 'original' Christian church.


2) The issue over the purported new Catholic translation isn't just a matter of coming up with a more readable modern translation. It has serious theological ramifications that threaten to drive another wedge between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. The translation reported in the OP is in fact closer to the original Hebrew in the passage, which uses the word 'almah' (let's see if NSG supports Hebrew fonts... עלמה), which originally means an unmarried young woman; while said young unmarried woman would probably have been culturally expected to be a virgin, this is not inherent in the word.

That this is the original Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 has never been seriously disputed by the mainstream established churches. It certainly isn't disputed by the Catholics or the Orthodox, and was openly acknowledged as early as the writings of the influential 2nd century theologian Irenaeus of Lyon. Use of the Greek word 'parthenos', which specifically translates to 'virgin', came in with the Septuagint, a Jewish translation of the Old Testament into Greek undertaken in the third and second centuries BC in Ptolemaic Alexandria. This insertion of 'virgin' therefore predates Jesus by nearly 150 years, and is a Hellenic insertion rather than a Christian insertion. The Septuagint is still the basis for the Orthodox and Coptic versions of the Old Testament.

The crucial issue here is that the Orthodox Church holds that where the Septuagint differs from the original Hebrew, this was the product of divine inspiration (more specifically, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit). The Septuagint therefore always takes precedence over the Hebrew.

The Catholic West, however, moved away from giving the Septuagint priority as early as Jerome's Latin Vulgate, which leaned on the original Hebrew more than the Greek (much to Augustine's disgust, it should be noted - one of the few times Augustine and Eastern Christianity have found themselves on the same side). This - along with the Augustinian development of a theology of Original Sin - was one of the earliest of the many issues that would gradually drive Orthodoxy and Catholicism apart over the next 600 years.

On one level, the new Catholic decision to use 'young woman' in Isaiah 7:14 instead of 'virgin' can be argued to be a purely semantic issue restoring the original Hebrew, in keeping with the Jeromite tradition of giving emphasis to the Hebrew over the Greek. On another level, however, it can be seen as the Catholic Church unilaterally tampering with a divinely-ordained pre-Christian text that emphasises the virginity of the Mother of God; I wouldn't be surprised to see some particularly staunch Orthodox theologians arguing that this is on a par with the filioque.