Posted on 06/16/2007 5:09:43 PM PDT by stfassisi
Thanx for the ping & I’m working my way through your wonderfully detailed post little by little.
First point, Rachab has been changed to Rahab in many translations, creating some of the confusion.
http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B40C001.htm
http://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat1.pdf
You’re welcome....I had some free time and it is a favorite subject of mine anyway!
It is hard to believe they have those youngsters up so late. I hope he enjoys it as much as my three do. Football camp has started and we’ll be into full practice by the time baseball ends. In fact, it overlaps about two weeks.
"Jesus, why didn't you go to medical school? You could have been a podiatrist. Your cousin Chaim was a podiatrist."
"Mom, you know I love you, but we've been over this. I had a job to do."
"I know, but...couldn't you have been the Savior AND a podiatrist?"
LUKE 1:
[18] And Zechari'ah said to the angel, "How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years."
[19] And the angel answered him, "I am Gabriel, who stand in the presence of God; and I was sent to speak to you, and to bring you this good news.
[20] And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things come to pass, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time."
[34] And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?"
What is the difference?
LUKE 1:
[18] And Zechari'ah said to the angel, "How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years."
[19] And the angel answered him, "I am Gabriel, who stand in the presence of God; and I was sent to speak to you, and to bring you this good news.
[20] And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things come to pass, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time."
[34] And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?"
What is the difference?
The angel seems to have noticed the difference in intent since Ole Zech was punished. Besides,Zechariah was expected to do something he had attempted without success over the years. Mary discerned that what was about to happen would happen IMMEDIATELY. Otherwise why ask since she WAS, for all intents and purposes, married. IAC, she reacted much as Abraham did when he was informed by the three visitors that Sara would give birth. Sara laughed. He believed.
Rahab was the wife of Salmon (one of the Israelite spies) and Boaz was their son. I didn't say Rahab was his wife. Ruth was.
I'm sorry for my error. I corrected it in post #59.
Rahab was the wife of Salmon (one of the Israelite spies).
I cannot find that anywhere in scripture. What I do find is that "Rachab" was the wife of Salmon....the father of Boaz [Matthew 1:5]
[Joshua 6:25] And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho. This is the last place in the Old Testament with reference to "Rahab" the harlot. No where is it mentioned that she was married to Salmon....or anyone else for that matter.
The problem with this story as I see it is the similarity between the names Rahab and Rachab. In the New Testament Rahab is mentioned in [Hebrews 11:3] By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace. She is also mentioned in [James 2:25] Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? Rahab is mentioned in the Old Testament in [Joshua 2:1;2:3;6:17;6:23&6:25. In three of these passages she is referred to as a harlot and the other two passages are in the same paragraphs where she is called a harlot.
[Matthew 1:5] And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse. This lady spells her name differently, is not referred to as a harlot....nor it is mentioned that she helped the spies as it does in all the other verses.
Some how this tradition of Rahab being the wife of Salmon got started and the only thing I can imagine as a purpose would be to put a stain on the genealogy of Our Lord. If Salmon actually did marry Rahab we can assume that it would have been shortly after the fall of Jericho. If Boaz were born shortly thereafter, he would have been 115/120 years old when he married Ruth. The genealogies listed in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 show only four generations from the fall of Jericho to the birth of King David.....some 460 years.
No....we're talking about two different women here and more importantly God's own Laws would not have allowed such a union. [Deuteronomy 7:1-4] When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou. And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.
Furthermore according to what I understand from Jewish law, the offspring of a Gentile father and Jewish mother was a Gentile. But the offspring of a Jewish father and Gentile mother was Jewish, and after that birth, the mother was considered to be a daughter of Israel in good standing.
Yeah, pretty silly really.
It's really silly to think that there is a source other than the bible for pertinent information about Mary and her roll in the Church.
Given that so little of the Bible deals directly with Mary and given that the Bible itself states that it does not contain the stories of everything that Jesus did, the only logical conclusion is that the "pertinent information about Mary" is found elsewhere.
Just on such example would be Saint Ignatius' letter to her and her subsequent response, which can be read on this site as well as others. Here is where we can come to understand her ongoing role in the church.
Your initial statement cannot be supported by fact, logic or reason.
The key is ‘pertinent’. Sure there is more information, but how pertinent is it, and if it was so pertinent, why was it not part of the gospel? What most non-Catholics find odd about Catholics is more than half of the Church’s writings, art, worship centers around Mary. It is completely out of balance with scriptures. Mary is one of the most blessed figures of the Bible, but she is not our Savior.
Given that the bible is written by the Holy Spirit the only logical conclusion is that there is no other pertinent information that pertains to doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness.
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
That does not logically follow actually. We believe in the correctness of Scripture but there's nothing in the teachings of the Early Church, including Scripture itself, that declares Scritpure to the lone source of information.
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
And this also speaks to the same thing, but it does not address the completeness of Scripture in this regard (indeed, Scripture itself puts that notion to an end) nor does it suggest that Scripture is the only such source, which Scripture also indicates.
I can’t think of any place in the bible that points to an additional source of doctrine that is not contained in the bible. That being the case and with the weight of scripture about scripture I can think of no argument, because it would only be a human argument and not scriptural, that would trump the fact that the bible offers no other source for new doctrine. I hope that was clear, sometimes my writing is pretty spastic. I’m speaking here of doctrine not found in the bible like doctrines about Mary. The bible doesn’t point to a source of completely new doctrine unmentioned in the bible.
FALSE ASSUMPTION # 1: The Bible was intended to be the last word on faith, piety, and worship.
a). Does the Scripture teach that it is "all sufficient?"
The most obvious assumption that underlies the doctrine of "Scripture alone" is that the Bible has within it all that is needed for everything that concerns the Christians life — all that would be needed for true faith, practice, piety, and worship. The Scripture that is most usually cited to support this notion is:
...from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (II Timothy 3:15-17).
Those who would use this passage to advocate Sola Scriptura argue that this passage teaches the "all sufficiency" of Scripture — because, "If, indeed, the Holy Scriptures are able to make the pious man perfect... then, indeed to attain completeness and perfection, there is no need of tradition."1 But what can really be said based on this passage?
For starters, we should ask what Paul is talking about when he speaks of the Scriptures that Timothy has known since he was a child. We can be sure that Paul is not referring to the New Testament, because the New Testament had not yet been written when Timothy was a child — in fact it was not nearly finished when Paul wrote this epistle to Timothy, much less collected together into the canon of the New Testament as we now know it. Obviously here, and in most references to "the Scriptures" that we find in the New Testament, Paul is speaking of the Old Testament; so if this passage is going to be used to set the limits on inspired authority, not only will Tradition be excluded but this passage itself and the entire New Testament.
In the second place, if Paul meant to exclude tradition as not also being profitable, then we should wonder why Paul uses non-biblical oral tradition in this very same chapter. The names Jannes and Jambres are not found in the Old Testament, yet in II Timothy 3:8 Paul refers to them as opposing Moses. Paul is drawing upon the oral tradition that the names of the two most prominent Egyptian Magicians in the Exodus account (Ch. 7-8) were "Jannes" and "Jambres."2 And this is by no means the only time that a non-biblical source is used in the New Testament — the best known instance is in the Epistle of St. Jude, which quotes from the Book of Enoch (Jude 14,15 cf. Enoch 1:9).
When the Church officially canonized the books of Scripture, the primary purpose in establishing an authoritative list of books which were to be received as Sacred Scripture was to protect the Church from spurious books which claimed apostolic authorship but were in fact the work of heretics (e.g. the gospel of Thomas). Heretical groups could not base their teachings on Holy Tradition because their teachings originated from outside the Church, so the only way that they could claim any authoritative basis for their heresies was to twist the meaning of the Scriptures and to forge new books in the names of apostles or Old Testament saints. The Church defended itself against heretical teachings by appealing to the apostolic origins of Holy Tradition (proven by Apostolic Succession, i.e. the fact that the bishops and teachers of the Church can historically demonstrate their direct descendence from the Apostles), and by appealing to the universality of the Orthodox Faith (i.e. that the Orthodox faith is that same faith that Orthodox Christians have always accepted throughout its history and throughout the world). The Church defended itself against spurious and heretical books by establishing an authoritative list of sacred books that were received throughout the Church as being divinely inspired and of genuine Old Testament or apostolic origin.
By establishing the canonical list of Sacred Scripture the Church did not intend to imply that all of the Christian Faith and all information necessary for worship and good order in the Church was contained in them.3 One thing that is beyond serious dispute is that by the time the Church settled the Canon of Scripture it was in its faith and worship essentially indistinguishable from the Church of later periods — this is an historical certainty. As far as the structure of Church authority, it was Orthodox bishops together in various councils who settled the question of the Canon — and so it is to this day in the Orthodox Church when any question of doctrine or discipline has to be settled.
We were having such a nice conversation, then you downgraded me to a cut and pasted response?
Sorry about the cut-and-paste. ;-)
But Fr. Whiteford presented the topics far better than I ever could.
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.