Posted on 05/17/2012 5:40:57 PM PDT by Gamecock
You can say that again!!!
Amen...
As a point of order, while some apocryphal books were found with the DSS, I don't believe all 7 (DC) are present - not to mention the 14 included in the Apocrypha (which includes the DC). Perhaps four of the books were found... I am quite sure Baruch and Sirach are there (which really isn't a surprise).
In addition, the Apocryphal books found were not plentiful - a single copy, or a few of each. It is clear that there were not enough copies to be considered teaching books... Unlike Enoch I and Jubilees which were found in abundance, and which most Christian canons reject, even though they are referred to directly and explicitly within the New Covenant. So the mere presence of a few of the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical books does not prove anything, not to mention proving a definition of canon.
The Hebrew 'canon' as count-your-change partly inferred, is the Torah, PERIOD. Accompanying it are the Writings and the Prophets,. which compose the Tanakh, which the Protestant Old Testament closely follows. There really is no contention among the Hebrews as to what has historically been their Scriptures for time immemorial. I find it LUDICROUS that the Roman church would presume to correct them.
And furthermore, While some of the Apocryphal books are present, and while some biblical texts found among the DSS may follow the Septuagint (Daniel being the only or most important), By far and away The DSS prove to follow the Masoretic (proto-masoretic) strain by a very high percentage... To the degree that among historians it has pushed the Masoretic back from c.600AD to c.250BC. To put it plainly, The DSS nearly defy the Septuagint, and uphold the Masoretic - which you quaintly refer to as the "Palestinian Canon".
And I will take a profound exception to your description of two Jewish canons (not to mention the concept of 'canon' at all, which is a clearly Greek/Roman idea). As long as the Temple stood in Jerusalem, there was only ONE authority for the Hebrew Scriptures, and that being the Temple Scrolls. While the 'seventy' were Temple sanctioned to provide a Greek translation, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the authoritative 'canon' was the original Hebrew one. And that only makes sense - the Temple Scrolls where what the Septuagint was taken from, giving your "Palestinian Canon" a profound precedence. When (EVER) is the copy more correct than that which it was copied from?
The 7 Books tossed called the Septuagint [...]
No, The Septuagint was a Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures, and includes the 7 contended books.
Jesus referred to them many times in His teaching, this is how you know they are “God inspired.”
I find that to be a fairly broad claim. I have traced the references claimed to be attributed to the DC, and found for the most part that the reference can be found elsewhere in non-contended Scriptures. And again, Enoch, Jasher, and Jubilees are not only referred to by ethereal quotes, but mentioned explicitly BY NAME... It seems by your standard that these too must be considered "God inspired", no?
That depends entirely upon whether the Roman church had the authority to put them IN in the first place - And every argument toward that authority that I have ever witnessed is invalid and circular in origin.
And the point is moot, not only then, but especially now, with hundreds of years of Protestant research confirming it's canon as it is - Luther has no sway in the matter anymore.
Palestinian Jews also rejected the Gospel.
The entire core of the Early Church were nearly exclusively 'Palestinian' Jews, who, by the way, were instructed from those terrible Temple Scrolls which you consider the 'Palestinian Canon'.
Because the ingestion of human flesh and any blood is a direct offense against the Law - Had Yeshua encouraged such a thing, he would have broken the law, and His sacrifice would have been impure (and unable to save anyone), not to mention that he would be a false teacher, and false prophet.
Certainly, a different interpretation is called for.
Then you have "went back, and walked no more with him." (John 6:66...how fitting)
I can’t keep up with your posts. I must...I’ll skip some.
You are dear but no the word I am trying to remember is not
“Charismata” or if you mean charismatic.
The term I am trying to think of is the divine gift given the Church, the RCC, to interpret Scripture.
You originally said and I replied to a comment you made
to metmom.
Here it is:
To: metmom
It is noteworthy that one of the gifts of the spirit Paul listed was the ability of some individuals in the congregations to distinguish between true and false writings. (1 Cor, 12:10)
What you described above is not on Paul’s list of gifts in 1 Corinthians 12:10. You want so BADLY to believe private
interpretation of Scripture. No way, it’s heresy.
Magisterium?
According to Jesus, the scribes and Pharisees occupy Moses’ seat” (Matt. 23:2), having the authority and ability to interpret the law of Moses correctly; here “seat” is both a metaphor for judicial authority AND also a reference to a LITERAL stone seat in the front of many synagogues that would be occupied by an authoritative teacher of the law.
“Well of course it’s a metaphor...Did you think Jesus was speaking of a polished mahogany, gold inlaid throne that the Pharisees passed from generation to generation like your religion does???
The ‘seat’ was wherever Moses sat down (or stood) to teach and judge the Tribes of Israel...
And it can be found all over the OT”...
~ ~ ~
Hi, thanks for replying.
You’re denying there is a “literal” seat of Moses back
then in the synogogue. You exaggerate saying “throne”,
actually, there was a real seat.
The metaphor, the description of Moses’ authority is in Exodus but not the literal.
LOL! Certainly not. Those were folks who turned away from him because they would not think a little further to the spiritual truths He espoused in His statement.
In order to be the Kinsman Redeemer for the Abrahamic Covenant, He has to do what Abraham and no other human being has been able to do, Else He could not fulfill the role. If He were to break the Law (or the prophets), His sacrifice would be nullified. So breaking the Law (which includes changing the law) cannot have occurred, and any interpretation that supposes He did must be false, or our Christ is not Christ.
In my mind, that premise is undeniable - and the resulting conclusion must follow. It is a simple thing.
Partly true - But Yeshua said *not* to follow the Pharisees... Not to DO as they DO, their Ma'asim and Takanot... Their !!TRADITIONS!! which they had bolted on to Moses. So their authority was limited to what was already written. He was hedging them in with Moses just as they tried to hedge in Moses with their additions. So the only way to read the passage is to assume that Yeshua said the Pharisees DO sit in the seat of Moses and have the authority of Moses, so do as MOSES said - which is the inference.
Hence, any claim to authority is limited to what is written.
To borrow from Ronaldus Magnus: It's not that our liberal friends are ignorant; it's that they know so much that isn't so.
That rationale is as absurd and contrived as the denial of Matthew 16:18.
Certainly, the Pharisees who accused the disciples of "harvesting on the Sabbath" though they had a rabbinical "slam dunk'" too.
BTW, how is the denial you posit NOT applicable to being "born again" aside from the fact that no one left him, with his approval, over it?
Conversely, how is our denial of your dogma any less legitimate?
You can't have it both ways.
That is an odd assertion, as what I made mention of is the essential mechanics of His primary purpose.
Certainly, the Pharisees who accused the disciples of "harvesting on the Sabbath" though they had a rabbinical "slam dunk'" too.
I am not speaking of any legalism, but rather observing the legal instruments which are the contracts (covenants) - To do otherwise means that YHWH's Words are empty, which cannot be. These contracts simply must run their course, because He has uttered them... Or God is not God.
Your words are hitting me in a convoluted fashion. Please reiterate or explain your thought a bit more... IOW: Huh?
No hurry though... Heading for the crib. I will catch up w/ you tomorrow.
Good night.
And therein lies your problem....
If that is so then please, explain what discernment of spirits is, what did Paul mean?
It's ever so easy to sit back and cry “Heresy!” when you have nothing to offer other than, “No way, it's heresy”.
“The term I am trying to think of is the divine gift given the Church, the RCC, to interpret Scripture.”
That word is “fantasy” like the flying house tradition.
Sure, no problem.
You take a, for lack of a better term, philosophically literalist position on being born again. I do so with regard to the Body and Blood, though in point of fact neither of us are pointing to an action recognizable by a third party as what we describe.
You. can not, at least while maintaining any kind of intellectual integrity, claim your "second birth" is in any sense literal, while also denying my assertion consuming the bread and wine is literally consuming the Body and Blood, without cutting off the interpretational limb you're standing on.
Not to mention that if Christ had cone that, He would have been a liar because of what He said here.
Matthew 5:17-20 17 “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. 18 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. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Catholics always end up in such a mess because they don't know Scripture.
Then they spew some more nonsense that it's just *a mystery* of *the faith*.
Long and short of it is the bread and wine remained bread and wine as a symbolic representation of the new covenant, just as the bread and wine of the Passover was a symbolic representation of the Passover.
That shows that you still do not understand Catholicism. The Catholic Church is not just another human organization among many that we can choose to join or quit or to selectively and conditionally follow and to self declare our adherence to. It is who we are, not what we are. The Church as an organism is an old Catholic analogy predicated upon it being both visible and structured.
The Church has a standard of legitimate membership, that in concept, is very simple; if one believes in and lives the doctrines and dogmas of the Church, they are members of the Church (in Communion). If individuals act in conflict with those doctrines and dogmas they are not in Communion and have excommunicated themselves. That does not require a formal action or recognition by the Church as God Himself is the judge. Those who place their need to be the masters of their own theology place self over unity.
"As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called ; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." - Ephesians 4:1-4
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.