Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
Here we go again with "the Scriptures." It isn't in your reading, but the meaning of the keys is clear to me, as is Jesus's threefold charge of Peter (and only Peter) to tend to His flock.
SD
I do believe in the virgin birth. I think you know I do.
Didn't say you think he's dead - merely that you can't act as though he is. He didn't appoint anyone to hold the reigns for him, so to speak. He did train a lot of men to spread his message - Quite a large number, actually. But he set 12 special men to the task of winning the twelve tribes. He set one man to the task of winning the Gentiles. He set no one over them save for Himself. How does anyone purport to say they are an intermediary for the one who came to be the intermediary. That is usurpation of title - pure and simple. It was never stated, never defined, never commanded and never witnessed. It has been alleged and is presently no more credible than that statement that an elephant ran under the chair (in pardoning oneself for gas). Certainly has no more proof.
Mack, you have mail.
Perhaps I'm wrong,
but whenever Our L-rd Y'shua HaMashiach quotes the Tanach, He always quotes the LXX.
Our L-rd KNOWS the LXX is divinely inspired.
chuck <truth@YeshuaHaMashiach>
All bunk. No threefold charge and no exclusive all powerful role for Peter. Sorry, it isn't there. It isn't supported in the entire rest of the NT books. And it doesn't hold water under contextual scrutiny. Context is the bain of philosophy. Everytime it is produced, it's got the same effect on you guys as sunlight on Vamps. You welcome sunlight until it comes, then hide from it.
Funny that Cardinal Newman would show up in that definition.
I mused about that myself, SD. Of course, in a slightly different light. That we never get very far from the influence of religion, even in the defining of our very languages. What a mystery life really is. Glad this day finds us all alive and well.
I do that each and every time I research on the Internet. I do not want to see only "my side" - if I did, I would not be here on these threads and I would research nothing at all. I've solved the entire dilemma by ordering two books from Amazon:
1. Church, Papacy and schism, a theological enquiry by Philip Sherrard;
2. Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church by Stephen Ray
These two books seemed to be the best two books from the Orthodox perspective and from the Catholic perspective. I'm open to suggestions from anyone with more/other recommendations. I believe that "Primacy" is the major sticking point between all religions and I am especially sad that the Orthodox and Catholic Church are not "one" - we share most of the same beliefs.
Oh, boy.
1. Are you suggesting that Jesus taught his disciples and followers in Greek? Aramaic was the common tongue of the people at that time and place.
2. Jesus did not write anything down himself. The writings of his disciples quote the Septuagint. This is not the same as proving that Jesus himself quoted it.
3. Saying that the Septuagint is inspired because Jesus is God and says it is inspired is rather begging the question.
I think you're right.
Did he? Others have very well explained this before. There is nothing incumbent in the keys that every other apostle doesn't also demonstrate in their ministries. If it was given only to Peter, then why is it that All the others have the Keys?
-ksen
Of course not.
Do you think the Bible is on shakey ground when it claims the Bodily Assumption of Mary?
It makes no such explicit claim.
The point, Reggie, is that words mean things. If Almah means young woman, that is what it means. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the other things you mention.
SD
Of course not.
Do you think the Bible is on shakey ground when it claims the Bodily Assumption of Mary?
It makes no such explicit claim.
The point, Reggie, is that words mean things. If Almah means young woman, that is what it means. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the other things you mention.
SD
Rather than continuing on with me saying "yes it is," let's just stop this particular line of questioning.
SD
The textual evidence cited above presents a situation where one reading (that of LXX) is supported by very ancient manuscript evidence (notably Qumran), while the other (MT's reading) has a preponderance of the support, thereby creating an "oldest versus most" predicament. As in similar New Testament cases, the correct reading cannot be verified merely by counting manuscripts, but by weighing them. Hence it matters little that the LXX reading is "outnumbered," especially since the more numerous sources are all recent as manuscript evidence goes, and in fact are interdependent, not independent, witnesses. Additonally, the assumption of MT-superiority should have no place in the objective evaluation of variants in the Old Testament text. Naturally, it would be equally fallacious to presuppose the priority of the LXX. Very simply, no text should be assigned a priori superiority at any point in a text-critical investigation. Determination of the best reading must be based on internal considerations, not uncritical, external presumptions about divine guidance over the "correct" text. Unfortunately, the notion of the presumed sanctity of MT still persists. The dictum that MT is to be preferred over all other traditions whenever it cannot be faulted linguistically or for its content, unless in isolated cases there is good reason for favoring another tradition, is all too enthusiastically echoed. This idea seems to suggest that whenever an MT reading could be accepted it should be accepted. Such an approach hardly does justice to non-MT readings that also could be acceptable on their own linguistic and contextual terms. Put another way, the above mantra never addresses why we must hold MT in such esteem. Where there are wide and significant textual divergencies between MT and the LXX, many textual studies have shown that the Qumran witnesses demonstrate the reliability of the transmission of the Hebrew text underlying the LXX. For example, it is well known that the MT of the books of Samuel is in poor condition in a number of places, suffering instances of significant haplography. The books of Kings are riddled with both short and lengthy pluses and minuses, transpositions, and chronological differences. Likewise, portions of the MT of Ezekiel, especially chapters 1 and 10, could serve as a veritable digest of textual corruptions. Lastly, the MT of the book of Jeremiah is fully one-sixthlonger than the text of the LXX. If the widely-followed principle of textual criticism that ectio brevior praeferenda est (“the shorter reading is to be preferred” – due to a scribe’s tendency to add rather than delete words) has any merit at all, the MT of Jeremiah would have to be considered an undeniably expansionistic text. Prejudicial Evaluation of Texts Outside the MT Tradition Judging by the survival in Old Testament textual criticism of a "textus receptus" approach like the one which once held sway in New Testament textual criticism, there has apparently been little thoughtful consideration as to how the MT came to be considered the “received text." Just because the MT was the received text of the medieval Masoretes does not prove it merits textual priority among today’s extant witnesses, or that it had textual priority in biblical times. The MT rose to prominence only after centuries of textual diversity, and not, as noted above, by "intrinsic factors related to the textual transmission, but by political and socioreligious events and developments." The evidence from Qumran unquestionably testifies to a certifiable textual plurality among Jews in Palestine for the period between the third century B.C. and the first century A.D. Three independent texts of the Old Testament, the precursory forms of MT, the LXX, and the SP existed and are attested at Qumran without any evidence for the suppression of the non-MT texts. The mere fact that the Hebrew base for the LXX was found at Qumran as early as the third century B.C.and was not suppressed by the Qumranites demonstrates that this text was not confined to Egypt’s borders or considered inferior. As further proof of textual diversity, the Qumran material also contains "independent" or "unaligned" texts," which exhibit equal agreement and disagreement with the three major recognized textual traditions of MT, LXX, and the Samaritan Pentateuch. The Qumran fragments that support the LXX “sons of God” reading, 4QDeut j,n, are among the unaligned texts. Two points derive from this rehearsal of the textual plurality at Qumran. First, no evidence exists in the actual textual data that the Jews held a negative view of Hebrew texts not grouped among those which would later receive the appellation "Masoretic." Second, the undeniable textual diversity at Qumran argues against any suggestion that the Qumranites altered a text ultimately used by the LXX translators as their Vorlage. Besides the chronological and logistical difficulties of such an idea, the question remains: If the Qumran members were in the habit of altering texts to reflect allegedly strange angelic views or Gnostic tendencies, why did they leave so many texts within each of the major textual strains unaltered? Put another way, why did the inhabitants of Qumran allow so many passages of the Hebrew Bible which point to God’s uniqueness, omnipotence, and sole sovereignty to stay in the texts they deposited in the nearby caves? It hardly makes sense to sneak one alteration into Deuteronomy 32:8 while leaving hundreds of other “non dualistic” texts remain.
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.