Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
The extremes which tend toward a denial of either the agency of God or the agency of man are heresy. Both sides can admit that it takes hard work, and a lot of it.
" That, my beloved sisters and brothers, is the Spiritual discernment I have received of John 6 - we are to feed on Him, The Living Word of God. That is the meaning of Lord's command, "take, eat, this is my body" and "Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matt 26)"
Who told you this, AG?
I was wondering when someone was going to post The Confiteor.
Thanks.
I'm afraid you really are in error what the Church teaches on sin and thoughts and 'act'.
See The Confiteor above for one obvious example. The Confiteor is said often in Mass.
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. - I John 1:5-10
Don't get me wrong, I'm not presenting the guy as a source of inspiration. I just don't see any point in demonizing him either.
Josephus was following his own agenda. He did and wrote what was good for him.
And pray-tell, what is your evidence that the matter of the Jewish canon was something that he saw fit to lie about for his own purposes? And exactly what would those alleged purposes be, anyway?
The unfortunate part is that there is almost nothing to go by to corroborate his writings from independent sources.
The unfortunate part is that about 90+% of what we know about ancient history is single-sourced. So what then is your point?
Even the one piece that exists about Christ is rendered in four versions.
Thanks to Christian scribes who saw fit to interpolate their own prejudices into Josephus' writings and thereby almost destroy the value of the earliest non-Biblical source on the existence of Yeshua the Messiah.
I don't see how the stupidity of later Christians in regards to one passage of Josephus somehow discredits his comment on the canon of the Tanakh in a completely different work. Nor for that matter do I see how Josephus' undeniable knack for spinning the Jewish wars in favor of his Roman patron and the party of the Pharisees has anything to do with his ability to report the established Jewish canon of the first century--a matter that the Romans wouldn't have given two shakes about and which those Jews who would not have been happy about him "turning traitor" would have been happy to rip him on (a rip which would have been recorded in the Talmud, most likely) had he been inaccurate.
Do you have any alternate evidence to present that the Apocrypha were widely accepted by any Jewish group in the first century? Or for that matter by any Christian group in that period? No? Then stop wasting my time with poisoning the well techniques and just admit it.
Apprently not if "There are a handful of places where the LXX may be the more accurate than the Masoretic" as you point out.
As opposed to dozens of places where the LXX is less accurate?
Look, the differences in the LXX are often due to the fact that the LXX, like the Targums, is more a dynamic-equivalent translation than a word-for-word translation. That's actually one of the things that makes it so useful as a historical resource, since it gives us insight into the understandings of the translators. However, to rely on it is like relying solely on the NIV instead of taking the time to learn Greek and Hebrew and study the Bible in its original languages--you limit yourself.
Other reasons for the differences are discussed here--it seems that there were multiple textual traditions, all of which were found among the DSS.
Now, if you wanted to use the LXX as a guide as to which textual tradition to follow (the Egyptian as opposed to the Masoretic, for example) in places where the existent Hebrew manuscripts were in dispute, okay, fine. That's normal textual criticism, and we do it all the time with the LXX, the Targums, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac text, the DSS, etc. I think it's foolish to rely too much on a single tradition, but I can understand your reasoning.
But that's not what you're saying. You're saying that the Greek translation of the LXX is actually superior to and should be referred to instead of any Hebrew manuscript of the Tanakh. You're not just using it for a guide, you're pretending that God came down and gave the Torah in Greek on Mt. Sinai.
Well, He didn't. He chose instead to give the Scriptures in Hebrew to men of Oriental culture and thought. Instead of reading the Scriptures in their original context, you're filtering them through your own Western prejudices--and not interpreting them correctly.
Paul preached his own gospel. I will leave it at that.
And . . . ? Not seeing a point here.
It seems to me that the Gentiles should have been preached the same Scripture preached by Christ in the Gospels, which is LXX.
If you think Yeshua was preaching in Greek in Galilee and Judea, you don't know enough about the history and sociology of the area to even be having this conversation with. Do you know why the Romans let Josephus live? Two reasons: A) He "prophesied" Titus' ascendancy, and B) they needed someone to translate for them because most Judeans didn't speak Greek!
Well, I was right--this has indeed been every bit as fruitful as debating with a KJV-Only fanatic would be. "If the King James' was good enough for Peter and Paul, then it's good enough for me!"
Waitwaitwait . . . you're saying that one should accept the Vulgate as definitive--but not follow Jerome's example in going back to the original languages of the Scripture to do any new translation?
From what I know, the Septuagint was in the Early Church's mindspace generally speaking, more than the Hebrew originals. St. Paul might be an exception here, since he was a trained pharisee; and of course all the quotations he most likely did from memory.
So again . . . you're saying that we should not follow the Apostle--and Rabbi--Sha'ul's example in becoming intimately familiar with the text in its original language before doing any translation? Well by golly, forget this Vulgate-Septuagint-Masoretic debate, I'll just go by the good ol' King James!
Or not. I think I'll follow the example of the good Pharisee. And while I have issues with Jerome on other matters, I have to give the man credit enough for being the first person in two or more centuries by his time to be smart enough to realize that its stupid to do a translation from another translation, and return to the original!
Understand that it is the mindset of the early Church that closes the deal with me and most Catholics, not the letter of the Old Testament.
Yes, yes, just like it was the mindset of the rabbis that closed the deal for the Pharisees who sided against the Messiah rather than return to the letter of the Tanakh. Ever notice how seldom Yeshua corrected them from tradition rather than the written text, by the way?
Secondly, there is no guarantee that the Hebrew original is what we know from the post-Jamnia Hebrew Canon; since Jamnia is the same council that also condemned Christianity and put a demarkation line between it and Judaism, we as Christians cannot be commanded by their decisions.
Already dealt with some posts ago; no other contemporary source considered the Apocrypha to be canon, so the mere fact that Jamnia ratified what was already accepted hardly makes it wrong. The disputes were all about whether books we now accept as canon (most notably Esther and Song of Solomon) belonged in the canon, not over, for example, 1 and 2 Maccabees.
Lastly, of the the extant copies of the Old Testament is is the Septuagint that is the oldest, is it not?
No. The DSS are far older than any extant copies of the LXX.
For these reasons I take the Septuagint extremely seriously, and expect it to reflect the mind of the Church very well, even if the Vulgate is the perfect expression of it.
Yep, KJV-Onlyists.
I'm often told that. In my defense I would say that half the Catholics here don't understand what the Church teaches. Also, I have yet to find a succinct Catholic-for-Dummies Guide published by the Vatican so don't blame me.
The Catholic Church doesn't single out heterosexual priests simply because they may have impure thoughts about women, do they?
I believe this conversation all started when it was suggested that Protestants cater to the gays while Catholics do not. You will find that most Protestants still look at homosexuality as a sin, not as a human condition brought on by the environment as the Catholic Church.
Kolokotronis: Who told you this, AG?
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. 1 Cor 10:1-4
Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. - John 6:28-35
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. - John 6:47-58
Our minds are not completely out of control simply because of God. If you think otherwise then that is pride. Our natural spiritual tendency is towards evil with one of the greatest of evil being that of sodomy. The only reason we resist is because of God.
Beautiful work.. just lovely.. bullseye..
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.