Posted on 12/25/2012 9:50:07 AM PST by narses
Thanks for that. But if your magisterium confounds the law, what then? The commandment of Yeshua is to uphold the Torah and the prophets. If the magisterium is found to have broken the laws of YHWH, how then is it any less fallible than your average milkmaid?
You must have missed the link I provided in my original argument in #154... Which no one has made any attempt to refute.
The earliest documentary evidence that we possess is in Greek. If the books are indeed translations from the Hebrew into the Greek, wouldn’t it be more likely that the first documents we possess would also be written in Hebrew, not Greek?
considering the paucity of extant texts prior to 350AD (of any kind), when the Hebrews had been dispersed for a couple of generations already, and considering the campaign to discourage anything of the Jews in that time and onward, it is of little surprise that such texts have been lost to time.
But, that does not explain the Aramaic structures within the Greek, and certainly does not explain the Hebrew structures hidden to the casual eye. One must translate the Greek back to Hebrew to find them.
And btw, my position is that what we possess is third generation... From an Hebrew original, to Aramaic, to Greek... That cannot be specifically defended as well, but it is the only way to account for both Hebrew and Aramaic structures therein contained - Unless one cares to assert that some amalgam of the two was present in the original, which I must needfully deny.
>> “All of Christianity believes in the traditional cross...” <<
.
Then explain why there is no mention of such in any epistle, nor in the Revelation?
Roman crucifixion is well described in colateral writings, and always the vertical post was a permanent installation, and the cross bar was placed on top.
Peter had no cross, and the bronze figure on display at the Vatican is of Jupiter/Zeus, not Peter; it came from Greece originally.
>> “Why are you citing someone that you don’t regard as authoritative?” <<
LOL!
It’s you that I cite, and your hypocrisy.
Solid analogy!
Taking tolls or selling groceries, no difference to the change maker. Its the money that counts, not the language of he who forged the coin.
Can’t you do better than that?
“No. Because it disagrees with the Torah.”
So the Torah says that if it’s only in one verse, it doesn’t count? Where?
“Nothing really. Just a sure knowledge that the Bible can say anything you want it to, especially if one is free to build it out of a verse here and a verse there.”
So again, you don’t believe you are called to follow scripture then in it’s entirety - only sometimes and in some places. Where do you draw the line? Where are we supposed to say, “thus far and no further”? What makes you different from the Arians per se?
“What locks it down into it’s meaning is the law and the prophets. And necessarily, if it destroys the law or the prophets, it cannot be true - ‘Every jot and tittle’, as it were.”
Which is contrary to what you are teaching here. Christ himself teaches that not the least jot will be struck from the Law - we are called to obey all of it, not just the parts we like.
This is also crucial to Romans, it’s the foundation of the distinction between Law and Grace.
“Work with that and see how far your tradition holds up.”
No, the burden is on you to show why your opinion on these matters should be taken into consideration. You’ve offered nothing except one word. “torah”.
“Nope.”
Yeah, it does. You’re taking a rule that you yourself have devised, which has no connection with scripture, and when challenged haven’t succeeded in citing a passage.
If this is all you’ve got, this matter is pretty much closed. :)
“Thanks for that. But if your magisterium confounds the law, what then? The commandment of Yeshua is to uphold the Torah and the prophets. If the magisterium is found to have broken the laws of YHWH, how then is it any less fallible than your average milkmaid?”
I might ask of you the same question. What happens when you confound the law and teach what is wrong? Is anyone going to come along and correct you, or will you simply continue on, blissfully unaware? What would the consequences be for getting it wrong?
“Taking tolls or selling groceries, no difference to the change maker. Its the money that counts, not the language of he who forged the coin.”
Nonsense. A tax collector is empowered by the state to collect taxes on their behalf. Such is hardly the case of a shopkeeper.
Obviously false analogy. There’s a very substantial difference between the two.
In any case, where’s the actual evidence that you have that the disciples only spoke Hebrew? Personal opinion with no basis in fact hardly construes ‘evidence’.
“It’s you that I cite, and your hypocrisy.”
Nope. You’ve already outed yourself as someone who believes that the magisterium is authoritative. Rather than admit the consequences of said Catholic doctrine, you’d rather gash yourself and say, “well I didn’t really believe in that anyways.”
So which is it? Is Papias authoritative or no? If he’s not - then you can’t use him to support your own argument.
Because Jesus told the fledgling Church that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide them and that He would be with them until the end of world. We believe in His word. Notice that even Paul uses, over and over, terminology that says that the teaches whether oral or written by the Church is to be believed and followed over any man's interpretation.
Occasionally the tau cross was used, but again, where would the inscription be nailed? The usual cross was the lower case T.
Your hypocrisy is now amplified.
Those that you cite as authoritive disagree with you.
Obviously Papias is not in any way authoritive on doctrine, but his observation of fact still stands and shows your ignorance in vivid neon colors.
You embrace him and he calls you a liar - wonderful!
On the crossbar above his head seems most likely, although there is no definitive revelation on it.
>> “Notice that even Paul uses, over and over, terminology that says that the teaches whether oral or written by the Church is to be believed and followed over any man’s interpretation.” <<
Slippery falsehood!
Paul told his flock to hold what he said and what he wrote, and both of those are the same, exactly to the word.
Paul was not a deceiver, and would never speak that which he didn’t put in writing for the future. Paul was especially aware of the coming falling away and corruption, and the absolute requirement for all to be preserved in the written word, as it was, and spoke to it by telling each congregation to share the letters they received with all the other congregations.
Paul also knew that the church was only a mystic body, and never spoke nor wrote otherwise.
The Lord has called us out of Churchianity, calling it the Harlot and her daughters.
We were discussing a need for languages for accepting currency, thus the analogy is perfect.
Do you wish to make a bigger fool of yourself?
Yes, and the ability to communicate with your Roman supervisors would be essential for a tax collector.
Do you contest this?
“Paul also knew that the church was only a mystic body, and never spoke nor wrote otherwise.”
Where did Paul teach that the Church was a mystical body?
Arguing that he ‘never spoke or wrote otherwise’, is an argument from silence.
“Obviously Papias is not in any way authoritive on doctrine”
Then why are you citing him?
All over the place. "Out of the mouth of two witnesses" is mentioned literally in Deut 17:6 and Deut 19:15 in the law, and is practiced throughout the Torah and the prophets. Why do you think that everything is repeated at least twice?
And the same principle is amplified in the writings and the New Covenant. There is not a thing that YHWH has transmitted that He didn't give at least two ways, if for no other reason than the legal prerequisite of Deut... How can He justly convict a man without the same two witnesses that he requires of us?
So it is good, if one is defining a thing, that it is mentioned more than once. And foundational things (the principle things) are repeated over and over again, and differently, just exactly so they cannot be misinterpreted (IMO).
That does not mean that there are not things that are hidden, but foundations are made with very broad and apparent strokes.
So again, you don’t believe you are called to follow scripture then in it’s entirety - only sometimes and in some places. Where do you draw the line? Where are we supposed to say, “thus far and no further”? What makes you different from the Arians per se?
That is not true. I am not saying to ignore any part. I am saying that how one interprets any given thing must necessarily conform to that which has gone before. This is quintessentially the signature of YHWH, and is exactly why the law cannot be changed in one jot or tittle.
He is the only one claiming to be a god who has made what he has said in the beginning a sure and enduring thing. Every other 'god' has a mechanism in place which allows for changing the original thing (Islam's hadiths as an example). YHWH does not, because YHWH's Word is sure. He does not change.
More may be revealed, that is true - but that which is revealed cannot step upon that which is already defined, in both the law and the prophets. It cannot add to it, nor can it take away from it. What is said is said. And that, FRiend, is an unique and extraordinary thing.
Which is contrary to what you are teaching here. Christ himself teaches that not the least jot will be struck from the Law - we are called to obey all of it, not just the parts we like.
That should, in all honesty, give you pause, rather than me... How does one know that he loves YHWH? When he is walking in the commandments.
This is also crucial to Romans, it’s the foundation of the distinction between Law and Grace.
Indeed. But grace does not take away the law. Nor is it license. Sin is always sin - and sin is violation of the law, by definition. What grace has done is that it has taken away the curses of the law, because one who is innocent of your debt has taken on your debt.
We are not anymore caused to keep the law out of fear of reprisal, but rather because we love YHWH. We are bound to the law by love of YHWH which is a much stronger binding.
A child learns the law of his father in love, but that law is enforced ultimately in fear. A teen rebells, and goes his own way without any law. A young man, learning that law must be, makes his own law, in spite of his father, and learns the hard way what his father tried to teach. But a man understands, and keeps the law of his father in his own house, in fear no longer, but out of respect, love, and understanding. 'The Way' of his father has been learned.
No, the burden is on you to show why your opinion on these matters should be taken into consideration. You’ve offered nothing except one word. “torah”.
The burden is not on me - YHWH does not change. I am merely following (however poorly) His advice that the law of His house does not change, ever. The burden is upon YOU to show that the changes y'all have inflicted upon the Torah are ordained... And as the Torah cannot be changed, you will have little luck with that.
and THAT, FRiend, is the canary in the coal mine. Necessarily, the law cannot be changed. One may set up all the popes and magisteriums one can, but if their teaching is against that law, then they must needfully also be against Yeshua, or ultimately, one makes Yeshua a false prophet...
Yeah, it does. You’re taking a rule that you yourself have devised, which has no connection with scripture, and when challenged haven’t succeeded in citing a passage.
No, I have taken no liberty. And I need not cite the passage that says the law cannot be changed - you have cited it yourself.
I cited YOU being called a liar by him.
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.