Ken,
One other thing.  I have come many Catholic theologians/bible scholars cite or make reference to protestant scholars who hold the same viewpoint or interpretation as them.  They actually cite these scholars to add weight to their interpretation.  From what I understand, there many good scholars on both sides who agree with each other on certain interpretations.  In any case, why would I use a protestant scholar who would use a protestant viewpoint to prove a Catholic position.  What I have posted in no way exhausts the extent of scripture that could be used.  I think I have interpreted in context.  I just don’t do a job of it.
Donna

[quote author="Donna Green"]You play hard ball.

My intent is not to play hard ball, but I do have something of an obsession with ensuring people get their claims about biblical languages right. I’ve picked up others here before. People often appeal to the original languages in arguments without any real understanding of the claims they’re repeating (in fact, I’d say about 75% of all appeals to the “original languages” I’ve heard made by preachers in sermons have been wrong!). This allows others to then claim that the meaning of the text is not clear (as some have done on this thread).

After all, misunderstanding the language can have serious consequences!

[quote author="Donna Green"]Most bible scholars would agree with your claims would they Martin?  I think this requires substantiation Martin!

OK, my claim was related to the reading of the Vulgate of Gen 3:15, as explained here:

[quote author="Martin (Enkidu) Shields"]… the reading of the Vulgate is unique and not supported by the Hebrew, Greek, or Syriac, which all use a masculine pronoun, “he.” (Granted the Hebrew pronoun could be parsed differently except that the context demands it be masculine.) It is difficult to read the Hebrew or Greek of Gen 3:15 as saying anything about Mary, only about Eve, her seed, and the serpent.

Now until I can get to a library and walk through the commentaries on Genesis I can only provide details of what I have to hand. Westermann doesn’t make reference to the Vulgate, nor does Wenham (at least in this regard). Hamilton simply remarks on the Vulgates translation as “she” with “(!)” and states that few have followed it. For more, if you wish, I’ll make some notes next time I’m in a decent theological library.

But ultimately my claim is not in the least controversial: my point is as simple as saying that were you to translate the German pronoun [I]er into English using she then you would have mistranslated. The Vulgate simply does not reflect either the Hebrew or Greek at this point. After a quick google I discover a number of (Roman Catholic) sites which suggest that the Hebrew הוא can mean either “he” or “she,” but as I said before, the context demands it be read as “he.” That’s because Hebrew verbs forms are marked for gender (at least in the 2nd and 3rd person), so the verb following הוא is a 3rd masc. singular verb and thus the subject of the verb is unambiguously masculine. The pronoun is not grammatically necessary and is probably emphatic or serving some other rhetorical purpose.

For the Greek, verb forms are not marked for gender, but the pronoun is clearly masculine (which in Greek here is surprising since it has a neuter antecedent), so in this respect it correctly renders the Hebrew.

The question this raises is why the Vulgate differs from the Hebrew here, and that has prompted a vast array of speculation.

Hi Martin
It is clear we have very different understanding of the Vulgate and interpretation/translation generally.  However, I have promised Tim a reply and want to do that first.  I will get back to you and explain the history of the Vulgate and even address the issue of the “Apocrypha” as I understand it.
Donna

Donna, I would like to deal with your long response on two issues at this time.
That is that Mary was immaculate, and the question of the ready acceptance of miracles by the RCC

You said:

I ask you this question – if you could create your mother, would you create her stained with sin or would you create her beautiful and spotless.  Jesus, who is God almighty could not exist in something defiled just as the holy of holies could not exist in something not holy, hence God commanded an Ark be created.  Was not Adam and Eve created sinless.  If God could create sinless creatures at the beginning of time, there is no reason that he wouldn’t do it again.  The New fulfils the Old.  To say Mary is sinless does not make her a deity.  In fact, it glorifies God even more because we can say “You have done great things”.  When an artist brings people along to see his artwork, is he offended if we admire his creations or does he want us to come along and look at him and tell him how wonderful he is.  It’s the same with being a parent, don’t we feel wonderful when our children are praised.  God shares his glory.

The whole point of Christianity is that Jesus is fully man, and fully God. I hope you don’t disagree at this point. So Jesus needed to be fully man, which implies inherited sinfulness, like Adam, to be a suitable propitionary sacrifice for the sins of mankind. Do we still agree? The God side of Jesus wassupplied by his Father, agree? The sinful mankind side was supplied b.... guess who, his mother.

Regarding the Assumption of Mary, which assumes bodily assumption similar to Jesus.. you say:

Assumption does not mean Mary mustered the power to raise herself into Heaven.  Assumed means taken up.  Very different to ascension.

The question is not whether Mary did what or whatever, it is whether she was raised up bodily into heaven. There is no mention of this in scripture.
Jesus’ words to her on Earth do not indicate any special case for her. Jesus says his family consists of those who believe in him. This probably includes his mother, but she is not singled out by him for any special treatment, except that he asks John to look after her after he is crucified.

Regarding the RCC acceptance of outrageous miracles, you said:

I was unaware of these ‘miracles’ you mentioned.  I had a look on the net and apparently the Blood of St Januarius of Naples has never been declared a miracle by the Catholic Church.
The point I would like to stress is that the Catholic Church is very careful to declare that something is miraculous.  The process is quite lengthy and you could look on the net, if you like, about the rigorous process entailed.

Donna, you may be unaware of the RCC acceptance of many ridiculous miracles, but it does accept a lot of them. My examples are merely the tip of the iceberg.

Ignorant peasants in old Italy, and the Mediteranean area, not to mention South America, have come with a lot of doozies. Unfortunately the RCC beaucracy does not try to douse down such idolatry but it accepts it wholeheartedly. Catholics in Western countries may not be tied up in such foolishness, but the official Vatican mob, accept without restraint, such claims. Unfortunately under the Catholic system, you are all tarred by the same brush. Protestants operate under a different system. Chrisitans from the Reformed Church are all bound to believe things which are supported by scripture and reason.

the miracle of the blood of St Januarius is not disputed by the Vatican, even though it may not have been accepted as an official miracle. From an official Catholic website:

It is especially this miracle of the liquefaction which has given celebrity to the name of Januarius, and to this we turn our attention. Let it at once be said that the supposition of any trick or deliberate imposture is out of the question, as candid opponents are now willing to admit. For more than four hundred years this liquefaction has taken place at frequent intervals. If it were a trick it would be necessary to admit that all the archbishops of Naples, and that countless ecclesiastics eminent for their learning and often for their great sanctity, were accomplices in the fraud, as also a number of secular officials; for the relic is so guarded that its exposition requires the concurrence of both civil and ecclesiastical authority. Further, in all these four hundred years, no one of the many who, upon the supposition of such a trick, must necessarily have been in the secret, has made any revelation or disclosed how the apparent miracle is worked. Strong indirect testimony to this truth is borne by the fact that even at the present time the rationalistic opponents of a supernatural explanation are entirely disagreed as to how the phenomenon is to be accounted for.

Regarding the miracle of the house of Mary that flew from Israel, look at this link: 
The miracle at Loreto
You will see that various Popes from the 14th to the 20th Century have supported this miracle. (I notice in your post you omitted to mention the miracle at Loreto)

Finally I put to you, that the Roman Catholic Church has a credibility problem based merely on its acceptance of this miracle. if you like I can find many other similar instances. How can we accept Rome’s translation of scripture, if it cannot even proclaim that such belief in ingnorant superstition is foolishness. No amount of logical reply from you can dismiss this point.

The denomination you support is medieval, and wrong. Sorry but that is the truth.

Donna, you are putting very strong faith in things which are lies, basically. We know that the father of all lies is Satan. We know that God is the Father of truth and salvation. I pray that you will put your faith in Jesus, and scripture, and not support errors from the Roman Catholic faith.

Jesus alone Saves

Ken
It is quite evident that you did not really read my posts from your responses.  Someone once said: a man convinced against his will - is of the same opinion still. St Jerome said: “It is worse still to be ignorant of your ignorance”.

You want to believe that Catholics think that Mary saves.  So be it.
I knew it wouldn’t take long for someone to start preaching fire and brimstone at me.

I’ll pray for you too Ken
Yours in Christ
Donna

P.S.  I would rather be an ignorant peasant with a deep love of Christ than a learned scholar with a heart of stone.

Quoting Ken

Donna, you are putting very strong faith in things which are lies, basically. We know that the father of all lies is Satan. We know that God is the Father of truth and salvation. I pray that you will put your faith in Jesus, and scripture, and not support errors from the Roman Catholic faith.

Ken that is a monstrous thing to say and I fear an even worse thing to believe.

You may disagree with some RC doctrine but how you could accuse a church that ascribes to the Apostle’s creed (ie they believe in the Triune God and as Jesus as saviour of the world) as being of Satan absolutely horrifies s me.

Get real the Protestant churches grew directly out of 1000+ years of Roman Catholocism, if tthe RC faith is from the devil then the Protestants are just spawns.

I’m so with the purported view of QEI on this

[There is but one Lord, Jesus Christ. One faith. All else is a dispute over trifles”. ...
/quote]

Ken Austin - 26 July 2008 08:24 PM

So Jesus needed to be fully man, which implies inherited sinfulness

Yes Jesus was fully man, but he was without sin (1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5) so he can’t have inherited sinfulness. However, I would suggest that he inherited mankind’s predisposition to sin.

The denomination you support is medieval, and wrong. Sorry but that is the truth.

Ken, this sort of polemic is most unhelpful. I suggest we stick to clarifying/debating specific issues and avoid name calling.

Donna Green - 26 July 2008 09:07 PM

P.S.  I would rather be an ignorant peasant with a deep love of Christ than a learned scholar with a heart of stone.

Amen to that Donna.

Angus ..The Lord.Jesus Christ had no concuspience in him..which is an effect of the fall..a propensity to sin ...... he was the perfect second Adam.

An anwer to Allen....the lists of Scripural books were contradictory and disputed, and there was no settled canon until the fourth century. Even if you say it was settled by 170 AD...that is a gap long enough to prove our point.

St Augustine of Hippo puts it beautifully, “ I would not believe the Gospels , if it were not for the Catholic Church telling me they are true,”

The early Church, “devoted themselves to the Apostles doctrine/ teaching” ...see Acts 2 :42

Should it not read for Protestants...devoted themselves to the sole authority of the written word.....

As for the Catholic lady living beneath Ken...she is obviously a badly instructed Catholic.

I have to agree with Robert, Jesus was the second Adam and the new humanity. His life and resurrection is our hope for heaven.

Ignorant peasants in old Italy, and the Mediteranean area, not to mention South America, have come with a lot of doozies. Unfortunately the RCC beaucracy does not try to douse down such idolatry but it accepts it wholeheartedly. Catholics in Western countries may not be tied up in such foolishness, but the official Vatican mob, accept without restraint, such claims.

Joshua, I don’t find this type of racism and classism to be particularly helpful to this discussion. Perhaps it’s time you took a break from this thread.

ken Austin generalises..the Catholic Church in Brazil and Haiti for istance have fought a constant battle against Voodoism and other pagan African rites.

In western countries, nonsense like Freemasonary ( and many Sydney Anglican clerics have been members) have been unequivocally condemned.

We would also see womens ordination, divorce and re-marriage, homosexuality, abortion, contraception etc as pagan revivals. no one doubts the Catholic response.

The early Church, “devoted themselves to the Apostles doctrine/ teaching” ...see Acts 2 :42

Should it not read for Protestants...devoted themselves to the sole authority of the written word.....

The only way we know the teaching of the apostles is by reading the written word.  Any word of man outside the written word is subject to alteration and error.

Frank that introduces two questions....

1!)How do you know that the canon of the New Testament contains the correct books?Don;t you need an authoritative Church to confirm their inspiration? St Augustine of Hippo said, “ I would not believe the Gospels,were it not for the Catholic Church.”

2)If God through His Apostles can preserve his truth orally and outside of written scripture, you are half way tp Papal infallibility! Our lord promises to Peter exclusively that he will confirm his brothers with an unfailing faith after his restoration to Faith. ..and you admit that the early churh, without a complete new testament relied on oral tradition from the Apostles. If men are fallible and weak, you must belive that God endowed the Apostles with a special infallible power!

He doesn’t say. “Satan has desired to sift you like wheat, but iIwill, by the fourth century provide you with a book of Scripture to keep you all from error.”

All your assertions on careful examination are man-made theories with no grounding in Holy Scripture.There is not one Scriptural text affirming the sole authority of the Scripture.

Everyone always makes a big deal about canons, but they shouldn’t. There’s nothing surprising about the canon - it has exactly what the people who hold to it want in it. The RC Church has a different canon just as the Mormons do, and just as the gnostics of the past did. There’s little point arguing about what has been included or left out as each sect defines and is defined by its canon.

Now how do I know that the NT is authorative? The spirit teaches me that it is as I read it, and teaches me that the other books aren’t.

Dannii’s solution:

“Now how do I know that the NT is authorative? The spirit teaches me that it is as I read it, and teaches me that the other books aren’t. “

Dear Danni , just like the Book of Mormon, pray about it and you can know it is true.

For there is a way that seemeth right to a man.....the human heart is desperately wicked and DECEITFUL above all things......No thank you!

Subjective feeling is not the ttrue test ,but the Church’s validation...for , “Go ye therefore into ALL the world , baptizing and teaching........ and lo I am with you even unto the end of the age.”