Posted on 10/03/2014 2:33:43 PM PDT by NYer
It appears that it is you that fail to understand, but carry on, as I know you will...
I think the reason you chafe at Nicolaitan is becoming more and more obvious.
In Yeshua’s assembly, all are equal, he told us so, and those that wish to be MORE equal will find themselves at the bottom of the pile.
.
Said Forrest Gump.
>> “Why don’t you ever post proof of the contentions you make?” <<
I have posted the lengthy proof numerous times.
Those that have the understanding from the Holy Spirit, read it and think. The rest haven’t the patience to read it, and pretend that they never saw it.
.
>> “At the time Paul was around, there already WAS a Greek translation of the Hebrew books of Moses” <<
.
And Paul, being a student of Torah, knew that it was of no consequence, since as he stated, the oracles of God are committed only unto his people.
The Greek translation was unreadable by Greeks, due to its Hebrew syntax. It was written for Hebrews in Egypt.
No, what I chafe at is invented meanings with no basis in fact. That’s how we got in trouble with Rome in the first place. I’m not interested in replacing one error with another error. When you are ready to make your case that Nicolaitan, in context, is a reference to clergy lording it over the laity (or whatever other meaning you wish to show), just ping me. I have in other posts vigorously opposed and rejected the institution of a priestly class for the New Covenant. Just not on the basis of that one word. It doesn’t work.
Peace,
SR
So whatever Beckwith's hypothesis is, and evidence for it is, they is not applicable to the books in focus of the thread, the Deuterocanonical books.
Agree about affiliation alone not amounting to much, -- except maybe when a Catholic supports a Protestant doctrine or vice versa.
The "all scripture" that Timothy knew from infancy was a certain version of the Septuagint. Not the apocrypha.
That’s fine.
That is of course true but Jesus is uniquely one born of Mary Who uniquely defeated Satan, so it is the "seed" of Mary and not Eve that makes the reference to Jesus complete and precise. Otherwise Genesis 3:15 would be saying that every one shall crush the serpent because everyone is Eve's seed.
Read the scripture frequently and use your brain when doing so.
Christ is born of Mary (of woman's "seed" alone), grows up, founds the Church, is killed by the Jews, rises up giving us life everlasting and so: the seed of Mary crushed Satan. Read Luke 1,2 and the final chapters of the Gospels. You'll be surprised what you'll learn.
Um, that seems to be a compete misunderstanding of what I said. Beckwith's effort was to show that the Alexandrian canon that supposedly included the deuterocanonicals early on was in fact an unsustainable hypothesis, and that the Jewish canon of the First Century distinctly lacked the deuterocanonicals. I am uncertain how one can get from that to "not applicable to the books in focus of the thread, the Deuterocanonical books." Nope, I'm not seeing how you got there. Sometimes I can speculate on how a correspondent gets to a conclusion, even if I disagree with it. In this case, I'm not even that far along. I have no idea how you're getting that out of what I said. I am open to elucidation.
Peace,
SR
As to what the Jewish canon (whatever that means) was at the time is simply irrelevant. Obviously they used Hebrew scriptures in their worship. We know that the deuterocanonicals specifically are inspired because St. Paul made a reference to "all scripture" without excluding anything and without qualifying the language, -- so that was then the Septuagint of the 1st century that is wholly inspired.
That is just my point.
Any other meaning than the plain meaning is what is invented.
Why do you scoff at the plain meaning of the word?
It is supported by one of Yeshua’s principle positions WRT his assembly: Total Equality. He hated uppityness.
He totally denounced every facit of Phariseeism, both in oration, and through his miracles, each of which demolished one of their Takanot.
.
No, you’ve misunderstood. As I said before, Beckwith processes those patristic mentions. There is no contention that the books were individually written 4th Century. I didn’t say that, and Beckwith doesn’t say that. The contention is that their inclusion into any kind of canonical status didn’t happen First Century under the Jewish magisterium, but in the 4th Century, under ostensibly Christian scholarship. This precludes them from being part of the corpus of canonical text to which Paul was referring in his epistle to Timothy.
I am waiting for you to prove what you consider the plain meaning, in context. From what I can see, in context, the screaming plain meaning is this is about Jesus condemning a group of people promoting the eating of meat offered to idols, and fornication. It was a cult with a name. If we said Herbert Armstrong's cult was really about "strong arms," because that's the "etymology," you would have to admit that was an erroneous way to find out what the error of the group actually was. You'd have to know what they taught. And in Revelation, we are explicitly told what the error of this group is. We don't have to guess based on hidden meanings in the name of the group. The error is the defilement of Christian conscience through idol meat and fornication. See? No guess work. And we didn't even have to solve a hidden "Bible code" to get it. Jesus spells it out. Isn't that enough?! It is for me.
Peace,
SR
Seriously?
I think you have hacked Springfield Reformer’s account!
.
LOL! ES, I think we’re done for now. You haven’t the provided evidence I asked for, so you’re giving me nothing to work with. Your choice.
Peace,
SR
I have YET to see any “proof” from you, lengthy or otherwise. How about a link...I have a lot of patience.
I can't believe I'm arguing this topic on two threads today!
You cannot come to the conclusion that every book that was in the Greek Septuagint automatically made them "wholly inspired". Are you forgetting that there were not seven but FIFTEEN books that were noncanonical for the Jews yet were included in the Septuagint? Is it your contention that Paul included them as well as inspired by God? That is a leap that not even your church would make into the Council of Trent fifteen HUNDRED years after Paul wrote to Timothy!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.