Respect.

[kafka]

{22:16} Et mittunt ei discipulos suos cum Herodianis dicentes: Magister, scimus quia verax es, et viam Dei in veritate doces, et non est tibi cura de aliquo: non enim respicis personam hominum:

{22:16} And they sent to him their disciples with the Herodians, saying: Master, we know that thou art a true speaker and teachest the way of God in truth. Neither carest thou for any man: for thou dost not regard the person of men.

{22:16} And they sent their disciples to him, with the Herodians, saying: “Teacher, we know that you are truthful, and that you teach the way of God in truth, and that the influence of others is nothing to you. For you do not consider the reputation of men.

{22:16}And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.

And more:

{10:34} Aperiens autem Petrus os suum, dixit: In veritate comperi quia non est personarum acceptor Deus,

{10:34} And Peter opening his mouth, said: in very deed I perceive that God is not a respecter of persons.

{10:34} Then, Peter opening his mouth, said: “I have concluded in truth that God is not a respecter of persons.

{10:34} Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

[kafka]

what does all this mean?

[MithLuin]

It means that Jesus was not a sucker for flattery, and that he was not seeking social acceptance as a goal. Human 'conventions' did not stop him from speaking God's truth.

Peter, realizing this, knew he had to follow in Jesus' footsteps.

It is not about respect for individual people - Jesus had plenty of that. He cared more about people...than anyone. He just wasn't willing to 'politely overlook' things - he came to testify to the Truth.

[Paddington]

When reading 'not a respecter of persons' or however it is said, it always came in my mind that He doesn't play favorites. He doesn't scoff at the clerk and kiss up to the mayor.
And what MithLuin said. Jesus won't accept superficiality in His favor either.

[picchick]

Before I answer, I would like to know where those verses came from (the book) and from which translations. It seems that you have quoted it from several different translations.

Thanks

[Tinkerlina]

I'm confused about why the quotes are being translated from Latin to English-since the Bible was not written in Latin I don't know that this would necessarily give the best translation. -Katie

[MithLuin]

The first verse is from Matthew 22. It is the scene where the Pharisees question Jesus about paying taxes, right before the Sadduccees ask him about resurrection.

[quote]Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.[/quote]

The second is from Acts 10, and deals with Peter's vision (of all food being acceptable to eat) and his conclusion that he could therefore baptize Cornelius and his household (who were not Jews).

[quote]The next day Peter started out with them, and some of the brothers from Joppa went along. The following day he arrived in Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. But Peter made him get up. "Stand up," he said, "I am only a man myself."
Talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?"

Cornelius answered: "Four days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me and said, 'Cornelius, God has heard your prayer and remembered your gifts to the poor. Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He is a guest in the home of Simon the tanner, who lives by the sea.' So I sent for you immediately, and it was good of you to come. Now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to tell us."

Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. ...
... *preaching of gospel ensues* ...
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

Then Peter said, "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.[/quote]


Hope the context helps. I've quoted the NIV version as one of the more readable ones.

[kafka]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1760212' date='Jan 24 2009, 01:04 PM']When reading 'not a respecter of persons' or however it is said, it always came in my mind that He doesn't play favorites. He doesn't scoff at the clerk and kiss up to the mayor.
And what MithLuin said. Jesus won't accept superficiality in His favor either.[/quote]
You are absolutely brilliant in your interpretation. You really are. You are expressing truth beyond most people.

Yet, it takes on a whole nother level, for Scripture is for all times. Think about it, and try to apply it to today. Try to apply it to our own circumstances (hint: theologians, scholars, scientists, media, etc.)

[quote name='picchick' post='1760235' date='Jan 24 2009, 01:22 PM']Before I answer, I would like to know where those verses came from (the book) and from which translations. It seems that you have quoted it from several different translations.

Thanks[/quote]
A strange request, yet no problem at all:

1. Latin Vulgate Text (Clementine)

2. Challoner Douay Rheims version.

3. Catholic Public Domain Version (CPDV)

4. King James Bible




[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1760362' date='Jan 24 2009, 04:37 PM']I'm confused about why the quotes are being translated from Latin to English-since the Bible was not written in Latin I don't know that this would necessarily give the best translation. -Katie[/quote]
It was polemical. Please forgive me. There is no one version of the Bible which is perfect. Some versions express truth better than others, and even the less better ones might illuminate a truth greater than the more greater ones. Generally, you should own a Bible translated by Catholics, (or a Catholic, e.g. Saint Jerome).

[MithLuin]

The modern interpretation? That God's truth is still Truth, regardless of the popular ideas of the day. And in the case of Peter's vision - we are all God's children, full stop. No exceptions.

[kafka]

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1760651' date='Jan 24 2009, 10:09 PM']The modern interpretation? That God's truth is still Truth, regardless of the popular ideas of the day. And in the case of Peter's vision - we are all God's children, full stop. No exceptions.[/quote]
Not quite following your post.

I guess what I was implying to P-Dog is that Scripture is ever new. It is newer than it was is Saint Peter's time. It is more new today, than it ever was. And so one can find truths particular to our days. For S.S. is deeper than the ocean, denser as a forest, and more sublime than the outer reaches of space.

Edited January 25, 2009 by kafka

[Tinkerlina]

It was polemical. Please forgive me. There is no one version of the Bible which is perfect. Some versions express truth better than others, and even the less better ones might illuminate a truth greater than the more greater ones. Generally, you should own a Bible translated by Catholics, (or a Catholic, e.g. Saint Jerome).
[/quote]

There's nothing I need to forgive you for-I guess I was just thinking that if you were trying to get a good sense of the context of the word respect in the bible, latin wouldn't necessarily give you a better translation. That's all. I totally love Latin, don't get me wrong! -Katie

[kafka]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1760692' date='Jan 24 2009, 10:35 PM']There's nothing I need to forgive you for-I guess I was just thinking that if you were trying to get a good sense of the context of the word respect in the bible, latin wouldn't necessarily give you a better translation. That's all. I totally love Latin, don't get me wrong! -Katie[/quote]
well said Katie.

[Aloysius]

The Latin Vulgate is free from any and all doctrinal error guaranteed by the infallible Council of Trent. Not that it is the best translation, but we can absolutely trust there are no doctrinal errors in the Latin Vulgate as surely as if it were in itself a document of the Council of Trent. its authority is very helpful, because every other translation could have a translation error which teaches false doctrine either purposefully (in some protestant translations) or accidently.

[kafka]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1762454' date='Jan 26 2009, 02:32 PM']The Latin Vulgate is free from any and all doctrinal error guaranteed by the infallible Council of Trent. Not that it is the best translation, but we can absolutely trust there are no doctrinal errors in the Latin Vulgate as surely as if it were in itself a document of the Council of Trent. its authority is very helpful, because every other translation could have a translation error which teaches false doctrine either purposefully (in some protestant translations) or accidently.[/quote]
Although a bit off topic, since you brought this up I might as well write a commentary on this canon since I have a decent familiarity with it. If we are thinking of the same canon of Trent, I must say I disagree with your interpretation of it:
[url="http://www.bible-researcher.com/trent1.html"]http://www.bible-researcher.com/trent1.html[/url]

I am not going to comment on every single line of it, so if one would like to read it in full please refer to the above link. Now lets take a look:

"(the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament—seeing that one God is the author of both —as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession."

~ After a rather lengthy introduction in solemn Magisterial splendor the Council proclaims the specific theme of this particular canon, namely that it (the Council) is infallibly teaching those specific books of the Old and New Testaments which have God as their author. In other words the Council is solemnly defining as dogma those exact books which were indeed written under the inspiration of God.

"And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below:"

~ I am not going to quote the list, please click on the link above.

At the point in time the Council of Trent was convened those books in that list had long been considered as the ones written under God's inspiration. The process of discernment in which these ones no more no less, were decided upon was a process which unfolded over many centuries as part of the Living Tradition of the Church led by the Holy Spirit. The process involved the use of them in the liturgy, the teachings of many Popes, and Fathers, and the meditation of the faithful. And so at Trent, the Sacred Magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit decided to teach this infallibly, no doubt in reaction to the Protestant Reformation which dropped a few books from their canonical list (e.g. Macabees). Often the Magisterium will infallibly teach in reaction to heresy.

"But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, [b]the said books entire with all their parts[/b], as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church."

~ I bolded, "the said books entire with all their parts," because it is a very important and essential to the infallible teaching. The Council is infallibly teaching that not only the books in the list are inspired by God, but all their parts, meaning all their chapters and all their verses are inspired by God (as found in the Latin Vulgate) no exception, with the attachment of an anathema (sentence of excommunication).


Now at this point, I want to express my disagreement with Al's interpretation above. The Council is not infallibly teaching the Latin Vulgate is free from all doctrinal error (more on this in a moment). The Council is infallibly teaching that the books, including all chapters and verses of these verses as found in the Old Latin Vulgate are the ones which truly have God as their author. And in all wisdom the Council is establishing the Latin scriptural tradition in a preeminent place in the Church as a temporal decision, no doubt because the Old Latin Vulgate has its origin in the translations of Saint Jerome, and earlier Christian communities and had the benefit of being used in the liturgy, revised by many scholars, and medidated upon by many of the faithful for several centuries.

It is a fine point, but now back to what Al said, "The Latin Vulgate is free from any and all doctrinal error, guaranteed by the infallible Council of Trent." I say, generally most Bible translations are free from doctrinal error (and all errors on any topic whatsoever), since Scripture is inspired by God, and the second source of Divine Revelation (the first being Sacred Tradition). A translation may cease to be the Word of God and thus lose the charism of innerancy or infallibility. Some ways in which a translation may lose this charism is if they are translated to literally or too loosely to an extreme degree. Perhaps some other ways some verses of some translations may lose the charism of infallibility is if they are translated using inclusive language or are translated in contradiction to what Scripture is asserting. Still the translation in general may not cease being the Word of God. There is no clearly defined boundary.

So the first part of what Al said is correct, "the Latin Vulgate is free from any and all doctrinal error," but not because of the Council of Trent's definition but simply because it is the Word of God.

The work of a Bible translation is a human work, albeit in my opinion lead by Divine Providence, yet still it still remains a mere human work. The Sacred Magisterium cannot teach infallibly concerning a human work. It can make a temporal decision that a particular human work is good and thus place it in preeminence (in this case the translation known as the Latin Vulgate), but this is not a dogma or doctrine it is a temporal decision which stands until it potentially may be revised by the Magisterium in the future.

Now the Sacred Magisterium has the ability, to teach infallibly concerning a Divine Work of Faith. The writing of the Bible under the inspiration of God is a Divine Work, or in any other words it is a Deed wrought by God in the history of salvation, or in any words it is Sacred Tradition, the first font of Divine Revelation. And so it is perfect and fitting that the Sacred Magisterium would infallibly teach which books, and those exact chapters and verses contained in those books were written under the inspiration of God which is Sacred Tradition, and those exact books (including all there parts, eg chapters and verses) just happened to be found in the Old Latin Vulgate at the time of this solemn definition. This is a sublime example of how God's will, providence and grace work is such a seemless way. All merged together into one brilliant stroke of the Holy Spirit in the infallible exercise of Sacred Magisterium. The exercise of the Sacred Magisterium's ability (under certain conditions) is infallible since it is the work of the Holy Spirit and not a mere human exercise of authority.

I hope anyone reading this is seeing the distinction.

Yet there is more. Implied in this infallible teaching of the Council of Trent is another truth. Often times Truth is implicit in solemn infallible definitions much like truths are implied in Sacred Scripture. What is implied is this infallible teaching is that those books of the Sacred Canon of the Bible, written under the inspiration of God are also inerrant in all their parts contained within them. Sacred Scipture is inerrant in all that it asserts even beyond the realm of faith and morals, since it is inspired by God. Through the mysterious charism of Inspiration, God directs the human author to write down exactly what He desires no more and no less while iin a seemless way the human author retains all his natural abilities and knowledge. Inerrancy proceeds from Inspiration. I am not making this up. Take a look at these teachings of Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius X:

"But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, [b]either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred[/b].... [b]For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit[/b]; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly [b]defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent[/b], and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican." (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

[b]The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that "the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical."[/b][2] In our own time the Vatican Council, with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, declared that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical "not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself." When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the "entire books with all their parts" as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as "obiter dicta" and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules. (Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu, n. 1)

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1762454' date='Jan 26 2009, 03:32 PM']The Latin Vulgate is free from any and all doctrinal error guaranteed by the infallible Council of Trent. Not that it is the best translation, but we can absolutely trust there are no doctrinal errors in the Latin Vulgate as surely as if it were in itself a document of the Council of Trent. its authority is very helpful, because every other translation could have a translation error which teaches false doctrine either purposefully (in some protestant translations) or accidently.[/quote]

Not disagreeing-I was just thinking Kafka was looking for more of a historical context, so I was thinking that it would be better to try and find the original words if possible. Katie