Posted on 07/14/2013 3:02:43 PM PDT by NYer
“Right, a coincidence with 100 percent congruence.”
You can play the Sophist all you like, but the fact is Jerome understood the Jewish system, and so his opinion was vastly greater than simply lacking a copy in Hebrew. If he thought he had a copy of something that the Jews accepted as scripture, though not in Hebrew, he probably would have used it. Josephus and the Jews essentially give the same opinion as he does, and that’s the real 100 percent congruence.
I'm not even loing to bother wading in here... :o/
Last I checked the Septuagint was written by Jews...
Again, the division is a linguistic division between the hebrew and the greek and Jerome considered hebrew originals to be more superior than the Greek.
It really doesn’t surprise me that you don’t know.
Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."
1 Cor. 3:11, "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,"
Non hordeum
non frumentum!
Ok, so which church gets the official stamp of CB’s approval as being 100 percent Jesus filled?
“That Origen has too many books is still not the same as the modern canon. Is my point really that difficult to grasp?”
Except that Origen himself even qualifies his statements when he refers to them, and only speaks securely on the standard New Testament canon which had the most support. If we took your logic seriously that we needed Rome to figure out what is in the scripture, as opposed to what was accepted by the majority, then we would have to believe that the RCC with divine authority kept out the epistle to the Hebrews, and then re-instated it by divine authority at another time. I’d much rather believe that it is God who is the one truly preserving these works, despite fickle Rome and its teachings.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
“If we took your logic seriously that we needed Rome to figure out what is in the scripture.”
The conclusion follows from the premises.
Again, Origen considers many books not in the canon today as ‘divinely inspired’, which is the exact same criteria that you use. So by your standards, Origen has too many books.
“then we would have to believe that the RCC with divine authority kept out the epistle to the Hebrews”
[[citation needed]].
Saul got in trouble for (a) visiting a witch; (b) conjuring, via the witch, the ghost of Samuel (not Elijah, who wouldn’t be born for another 400 years); for the purpose of (c) telling Saul’s fortune. So he had three strikes against him, none of which were merely for communicating with Samuel. If any sort of communication with the dead were evil, Jesus set a terribly bad example for us by doing it himself in the presence of his three principle disciples.
Ok, then where did Jesus tell us to pray to dead people and why don't Catholics only pray to the Father as Jesus taught?
“Last I checked the Septuagint was written by Jews...”
Last I checked, I already corrected you by pointing out that the myth of the creation of the LXX only includes the translation of the Books of Moses as being sanctioned by the Jewish authorities. The rest was translated or put together at unknown times, by unknown people, and the only copies we have of the LXX today are Christian copies with varying books within them starting in the 4th or 5th centuries. But by then we already had Jerome giving his historical reasons for what is and isn’t scripture, and lots of explanations for why some books are included, though they are not actually considered scripture. For example, the Epistle of Barnabas was considered useful for edification, but not for confirmation of doctrine. Maccabees was included, but was called by Pope Gregory “non canonical,” but “useful for the edification of the people.”
“Jerome considered hebrew originals to be more superior than the Greek.”
Well, of course. Why wouldn’t you want the original over a Greek copy? But there is no question that he rejected Tobith, Judith and such, because the Jews also did not regard them, as seen in his explanation of the Jewish division of the scripture.
Just your question indicates to me that you don’t even understand what the “assembly” of Christians really is.
The assembly I belong to is much older than the RCC. It was started by Christ and the apostles.
Romans 16:5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my well-beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.
Colossians 4:15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.
Philemon 1:2 And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house:
We see the RCC which was established thousands of years later this way.
Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
The self aggrandizing leadership in many organized religions today is not what God ordained.
1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence. You see, our way is much, much older than the apostate RCC organization and survived despite the evil oppression and persecution of the RCC. We don’t set up idols or revere mere men.
2 Corinthians 4:5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
>>Tell me, what church do you go to?<<
It’s time we get off this Catholic Protestant meme and see what scripture says. I couldn’t care less which “religion” someone claims to be or what supposed “church group” they belong to. Either they follow what scripture says and put their full faith in Christ alone or they don’t.
Get this straight. I’m not a Protestant, Catholic, or any other moniker people like to attach to either themselves or others.
Let it be known that I am born again follower of Christ. A member of His universal world wide church called “The Bride of Christ”.
1 Peter 2: 9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
“[[citation needed]].”
For the second time, it’s already been cited in this thread. Your constant sophistry and trolling knows no bounds.
Petra – Peter rock
Matthew 16:18 - http://bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm
Jesus said that Peter was *petros*(masculine) and that on this *petra*(feminine) He would build His church.
Greek: 4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros (”small stone”) then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra (”cliff, boulder,” Abbott-Smith).
“4074 (Pétros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (pétra) is a cliff” (TDNT, 3, 100). “4074 (Pétros) always means a stone . . . such as a man may throw, . . . versus 4073 (pétra), a projecting rock, cliff” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
4073 pétra (a feminine noun) – “a mass of connected rock,” which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is “a detached stone or boulder” (A-S). 4073 (pétra) is a “solid or native rock, rising up through the earth” (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.
4073 (petra) is “a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
It’s also a strange way to word the sentence that He would call Peter a rock and say that on this I will build my church instead of *on you* as would be grammatically correct in talking to a person.
There is no support from the original Greek for the idea that Jesus meant Peter to be that which He was going to build His church on. The nouns are not the same as one is feminine and the other masculine and denote different objects.
In Jewish tradition (I know I know...another troll... check it out though, you’ll find it interesting...) When Caleb “...came to Hebron” [Num 13:22] it was to pray at the graves of the Fathers to give him the strength to avoid the counsel and council of the spies. In Hebron, the Cave of the Machpela, in Jewish tradition, is where Jacob and Leah, Isaac and Rebecca, Abraham and Sarah, and Adam and Chava (Eve) are burried. It’s the same cave Abraham purchases from Efron in Gen 23:10-20.
FYI our intent at any gravesite (and it is still done today, particularly before the Jewish New Year) is to ask the departed soul to intercede and beseech the Almighty, not that the departed has a power independent of G-d, G-d forbid.
I hope you have found this interesting...
“The assembly I belong to”
Ok, what’s it called? What’s the name for it?
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.