” 1) You’re most likely using translations like most people do. So you are very dependent on “what others believe”. This not only shows the short falls of sola scriptura, it shows the inherent intellectual dishonesty of Protestantism.”
Actually, the translations are extremely good. They are made by groups of outstanding scholars, whose knowledge of Greek and Hebrew exceeds anything I could learn. There are also excellent commentaries available to discuss the various meanings possible where the Greek or Hebrew allow it.
For example, this discussion of John 6:
http://www.studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?bk=42&ch=6
My study is not based on what others tell me to believe. That is the Roman Catholic approach - don’t read for yourselves, just trust ‘tradition’.
“2) Early Christians had no problem seeing the Eucharist in John 6. They knew Greek as their first or second language. And you?”
Reading it into John 6 is simply bad reading. It takes it out of context. The CONTEXT comes immediately after the feeding of the 5000, and years before the Last Supper. Hmmmm...context. It is amazing how much easier it is to understand the scriptures when you accept the context, instead of pretending it doesn’t exist so you can read human theology into the text.
This is not a “Greek vs English” issue. Nor does using Latin as your authoritative version hellp.
I’ve never seen anyone read the Lord Supper into John 6 UNLESS they were told to by people with an agenda. It simply isn’t something a person reading on their own would do.
And yes, there is ample evidence that Jesus and the Apostles accepted the Jewish canon for the Old Testament - as Jerome understood. The comments of Jesus, recorded in scripture, sets it out: “Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures...”
Those are the 3 sections used by the Jews as the Old Testament, as attested to by Josephus:
“..we do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with one another, [as the Greeks do]; but our books, those which are justly believed, are only 22…Of these, five are the books of Moses…the prophets after Moses wrote the events of their own times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life.”
The Psalms were sometimes rolled into the Law, as when Jesus spoke in John 10:34: “34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? [Cited from Ps. 82:6]. When that is done, we have 2 sections - The Law and the Prophets:
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. Matthew 5:17
“For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. Matthew 11:13
“The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. Luke 16:16
Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” John 1:45
After the reading of the Law and the Prophets the synagogue officials sent to them, saying, “Brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say it.” Acts 13:15
I have no objection to someone reading the Apocrypha, but Jesus did not refer to it as scripture.
As for the New Testament, it was in common acceptance with minor variations very early on.
“The only books about which there was any substantial doubt after the middle of the second century were some of those which come at the end of our New Testament. Origen (185-254) mentions the four Gospels, the Acts, the thirteen Paulines, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation as acknowledged by all; he says that Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James and Jude, with the ‘Epistle of Barnabas,’ the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the ‘Gospel according to the Hebrews,’ were disputed by some. Eusebius (c. 265-340) mentions as generally acknowledged all the books of our New Testament except James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, which were disputed by some, but recognised by the majority.” - F.F. Bruce
You will notice they were in common acceptance as scripture centuries before Augustine and Jerome argued about the canon, and some 1400 years before the Council of Trent.
This is why I say were are not trying to be different than the Catholic Church. Our reasons for accepting the Old Testament as used by the Jews is that Jesus and the Apostles accepted it as such. The New Testament was largely settled by 150-200 AD, although even good Catholics could argue about the disputed books into Luther’s day without fear of condemnation.
God’s Word is amazing - as Jesus said: ““Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”
And please notice I do not cite Luther as an authority, or Calvin, or any other Reformers. Take off the chains of human tradition, and simply read the Word of God.
Basing a MAJOR doctrine on a Similtude is bad theology. So is basing the papacy on the response of Jesus Christ to a profession of faith. I wonder what the Roman church can come up with a literal doctrine of plucking eyes out and cutting off hands?
You would think just once Paul would have said "foolish Galatians, don't you know you are eating actual flesh and blood. Make sure the remaining hosts are properly handled." No we don't even see a hint of that. All we see is Paul telling the Corinthians not to come to the Lord's Table drunk and hungry.
“Actually, the translations are extremely good.”
Did I say they weren’t? Is a good translation less dependent on “what other believe” than a bad? Not really.
“There are also excellent commentaries available to discuss the various meanings possible where the Greek or Hebrew allow it.”
Again, doesn’t “what others believe” enter in commentaries? Seriously, did you even think about what you’re posting here?
“My study is not based on what others tell me to believe.”
I’m beginning to think that Protestants here at FR are just stupid. Seriously, how can somebody just get done talking about using commentaries and translations and a website and then say, “My study is not based on what others tell me to believe.”
“That is the Roman Catholic approach - don’t read for yourselves, just trust ‘tradition’.”
Buddy, again, you’re not reading for yourself if you’re using commentaries and translations and websites. Seriously, how can you not see that point when it is so obvious?
“Reading it into John 6 is simply bad reading. It takes it out of context. The CONTEXT comes immediately after the feeding of the 5000, and years before the Last Supper. Hmmmm...context. It is amazing how much easier it is to understand the scriptures when you accept the context, instead of pretending it doesn’t exist so you can read human theology into the text.”
No, the context makes it clear that Jesus was saying exactly what He meant and meant exactly what He said – the Eucharist.
“This is not a “Greek vs English” issue. Nor does using Latin as your authoritative version hellp.”
It wouldn’t hurt any either. I doubt you even understand the status or role of the Vulgate judging by what you written so far.
“I’ve never seen anyone read the Lord Supper into John 6 UNLESS they were told to by people with an agenda.”
The one “reading into” something is you. When you say “I’ve never seen anyone read the Lord Supper into John 6” you’re assuming from the start a couple of things:
1) That your limited experience means something
2) That someone must “read into” John 6 to see the Eucharist.
Scott Hahn, for instance, admits he became convinced that John 6 was about the Eucharist when he was still very much a Protestant. He’s not the only one either. The reading into the text seems to be done by you. You apparently have decided you don’t ever want to see Catholic doctrines in scripture and so you don’t. By your own standards you’re no different than the people you are attacking.
“It simply isn’t something a person reading on their own would do.”
Yes it is – as I mentioned about Scott Hahn. Now, you’ll probably discount Scott Hahn as so many anti-Catholics do. The point still stands, however. He came to believe that John 6 was about Jesus giving His flesh to eat BEFORE he came to believe in the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist.
“And yes, there is ample evidence that Jesus and the Apostles accepted the Jewish canon for the Old Testament - as Jerome understood. The comments of Jesus, recorded in scripture, sets it out: …Those are the 3 sections used by the Jews as the Old Testament, as attested to by Josephus:”
Hilarious. You’re relying on Josephus to define the canon for you. This coming from you after saying you don’t rely on “what others believe”. Again, do you actually think about what you’re posting here?
And, quite frankly, your attempt to prove the “Jewish canon” this way just doesn’t work. The simple fact is Josephus is not a source to be relied on in that way.
“I have no objection to someone reading the Apocrypha, but Jesus did not refer to it as scripture.”
How do you know? The New Testament doesn’t contain all Christ said or did and Christ didn’t issue a table of contents. I’ve encountered anti-Catholics dumb enough to say the deuterocanonicals are not scripture because Jesus never cited them. They forget – actually they’re just too ignorant to know – that Jesus also never cited Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, or Song of Solomon.
“As for the New Testament, it was in common acceptance with minor variations very early on.”
Minor variations? Gee, and who solved that problem? Do tell.
“You will notice they were in common acceptance as scripture centuries before Augustine and Jerome argued about the canon, and some 1400 years before the Council of Trent.”
And you will notice that St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and the Council of Trent were all Catholic. This issue was resolved by Catholics.
“This is why I say were are not trying to be different than the Catholic Church.”
Yeah, that’s really working out well: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3089343/posts?page=23
“Our reasons for accepting the Old Testament as used by the Jews is that Jesus and the Apostles accepted it as such.”
You have yet to even come close to proving that Jews had a closed canon which didn’t include the deuterocanonicals.
“God’s Word is amazing..”
I think it is more amazing than you seem to realize. That is ultimately the saddest part of the Protestant rejection of the Bible’s proper role in the faith life of Christians. Protestants have no idea of what they’re missing in the Word they so often praise. Recently I was talking to a young couple – a Protestant couple. The husband is coming into the Catholic Church. He’s been studying and reading, learning everything he can about the faith. His wife, however, who – at least as of a few weeks ago – had no desire to come into the Catholic Church was amazed as how much she was learning in Catholic Bible classes. She said she had never learned so much about the Bible as a Baptist.
“And please notice I do not cite Luther as an authority, or Calvin, or any other Reformers. Take off the chains of human tradition, and simply read the Word of God.”
You cited Josephus. Look up “hypocrite” in the dictionary. You need to.