Posted on 12/25/2012 9:50:07 AM PST by narses
“Oh, but I believe the Word of YHWH just fine... It’s the Roman church and it’s supposed authority that I disbelieve... for reasons just like this one.
The text is the text. Either the bible is authoritative when it disagrees with your own personal interpretation or it is not, and your own personal interpretation reigns supreme.
Where is there a ‘one verse exception’? I don’t see that anywhere in scripture.
“Get real! - They were poor working class men.”
Some were, some weren’t. Matthew was a tax collector, that’s not ‘working class’. Luke was a physician, and he wasn’t ‘working class’ either.
Sounds like you’ve picked up the Gospel according to Marx, not scripture.
“Further, the Hebrew language is YHVH’s language, given specifically for conveying his word to all.”
Did Adam speak Hebrew?
“It is not likely that anything in the NT was first written in any other language”
And what evidence besides speculation do you possess to confirm this statement to be true? Do you have any manuscript evidence to confirm this? No. Is it true that they were probably more familiar in Hebrew? Sure. But I don’t see the evidence, and the textual evidence contradicts you. It is quite possible that Christ’s teachings were passed around orally, and then when recorded in Scripture some 20-30 years after his death, that they were written in Greek.
It’s also possible that the Apostles in the bible, had fewer skills than their counterparts 20-30 years later, about whom the bible does not talk about. People do learn things as they get older, especially when they leave their former life behind and take up another.
“Paul was the only apostle commissioned to the gentile world.”
Was he the first? Sure. Was he the only one? No. He was accompanied on his missions. There is considerabl textual evidence supporting a Greek origin of every NT book. There is zero supporting a Hebrew origin in terms of actual documents.
“Matthew was a toll collector, and needed only to understand Roman coinage.”
Would that not suggest facility in languages other than Hebrew?
If you believe in sola scriptura, why are you citing him as authoritative?
Because I figured that you would accept the word of one of your church fathers. Papias CLEARLY states that Matthew was written in Hebrew.
If he is authoritative on this issue, then you’ve just affirmed the teaching authority of the magisterium. You can’t cite the Fathers whenever convenient.
Baloney.
Your choice, accept the magisterium or reject them and stick to sola scriptura.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Oh there's PLENTY of it that I have a hard time swallowing. There are hard things to ponder within the Word. This verse, though, is not one of them... And what your church has extrapolated from this verse proves out that the original premise (as interpreted by y'all) is stone-dead wrong.
Where is there a ‘one verse exception’? I don’t see that anywhere in scripture.
Context and witness. Two invaluable friends when deciphering the oracles of YHWH. And if one studies the fault of the Pharisees - Actually looking at what they did- It is very much the same thing y'all are attempting to do here... Taking a single sentence (sometimes even half a sentence) and building their own context from it.... From that false context, an extrapolation... from that extrapolation, a law. SOSDD.
. Peter had no cross, it was originally the cross of Mithra.
Really? Jesus died on a cross of Mithra as well?
The Greek NT contains Hebrew colloquialisms and puns directly translated to greek from Hebrew, and they make no sense whatsoever in Greek, but to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the Greek MS were translated directly from Hebrew.
They were primarily written by native Aramaic speakers (not Hebrew) and as such would bring their own idiomatic references and structure to the Greek. Try Engrich.com for an illustration of foreigners trying to get the hang of English.
Those Hebrew words and phrases of usually 6 or less words, require whole paragraphs to translate their meanings into Greek, and the greek translators were not sufficiently educated in the Hebrew culture to understand what they were reading.
The Septuagint was translated by (traditionally) 70 rabbis from Alexandria who knew the Jewish culture very well. The rest of the NT has no evidence that it was originally wholly or in part written in Hebrew.
Thanks Yeshua for exposing the fraud!
I think that the nature of the fraud exists at a tangent to your postings.
You’re allowing yourself to be deluded.
There is nothing Aramaic related to the gospels. They were written in Hebrew, and the Hebrew Colloquy (definitely not Aramaic) that got translated into the Greek copies is perfect proof that the originals had to be Hebrew. Hebrew puns can’t be translated into any other language with meaning, just as English puns cannot be translated into spanish and make sense.
The Greek translators didn’t realize that they even were puns, that is the irony, but it serves to give us the truth.
>> “Would that not suggest facility in languages other than Hebrew?” <<
.
Absolutely not.
The Peruvian grocers that I gave US money to last month didn’t speak a word of english, but they gladly took the money, and made change for the difference in Soles without any problem.
>> “If you believe in sola scriptura, why are you citing him as authoritative? If he is authoritative on this issue, then you’ve just affirmed the teaching authority of the magisterium. You can’t cite the Fathers whenever convenient.” <<
.
LOL! - You accept him as authorative except when he proves that you don’t know what you’re talking about?
That is about as catholic as anything can get!
.
>> “Really? Jesus died on a cross of Mithra as well?” <<
.
Honestly, is that what serves for logic in your mind?
The ‘cross’ Yeshua died on was the standard 6’ long wood timber that was placed on the top of a post that was permanently set in the soil.
The cross of Mithra that the RCC decided to adopt and call the cross of Peter is a bit different than that, isn't it!
“The Peruvian grocers that I gave US money to last month didn’t speak a word of english, but they gladly took the money, and made change for the difference in Soles without any problem.”
Is the Peruvian grocer a tax collector? No? Then I cite false analogy.
“Because I figured that you would accept the word of one of your church fathers.”
And why would I do that? Why should we care about what the Fathers of the Church wrote?
“Papias CLEARLY states that Matthew was written in Hebrew.”
And? So what? Who cares? Do you? What books of the bible did he write? Any of them?
“Oh there’s PLENTY of it that I have a hard time swallowing. There are hard things to ponder within the Word. This verse, though, is not one of them... And what your church has extrapolated from this verse proves out that the original premise (as interpreted by y’all) is stone-dead wrong.”
How so? Because it disagrees with your own personal interpretation?
“Context and witness. Two invaluable friends when deciphering the oracles of YHWH.”
Ahh. I see. So Christ nowhere says that “if it’s only in one verse, it doesn’t count”. I suppose that goes for ‘except for in cases of marital infidelity.
You’re making this all up as you go along, aren’t you? What other ‘special rules’ do you have that appear nowhere in scripture?
Do these ‘special rules’ count as Tradition?
“You accept him as authorative”
Why are you citing someone that you don’t regard as authoritative?
. Honestly, is that what serves for logic in your mind? The ‘cross’ Yeshua died on was the standard 6’ long wood timber that was placed on the top of a post that was permanently set in the soil.
Oho, you now profess the tau cross? If that is so, then how was the sign "Jesus King of the Jews" nailed above His head?
The cross of Mithra that the RCC decided to adopt and call the cross of Peter is a bit different than that, isn't it!
All of Christianity believes in the traditional cross and not the tau cross.
Okay, produce some proofs. Some fragments, some early communications that it was so. I'll bet that you cannot tell the difference between Aramaic and Hebrew anyway, so who are you relying on for this information?
The Greek translators didn’t realize that they even were puns, that is the irony, but it serves to give us the truth.
Interesting. Let's see who you think wrote the Gospels and who you think translated them into Greek, and where you think that the "original Hebrew Gospels" were dustbinned.
And why would I do that? Why should we care about what the Fathers of the Church wrote?
'WE'? I don't care. If you read upthread, Papias is hardly my first defense. But apparently, The Roman church listens to it's own fathers the same way it listens to the Word - Take what 'confirms' and throw out the rest. Frankly, I should have been expecting that.
Individual Church Fathers are not the Magisterium. Individual opinions, of Augustine or Jerome or anyone else, can be erroneous. That is why we reject the 'any milkmaid' interpretation of the Word or the word. If you read the Gospels and the rest of the NT, it is the collective interpretation of the Church that is to be considered correct, not anyone's whim or opinion.
” ‘WE’? I don’t care. If you read upthread, Papias is hardly my first defense. But apparently, The Roman church listens to it’s own fathers the same way it listens to the Word - Take what ‘confirms’ and throw out the rest. Frankly, I should have been expecting that.”
Indeed, Papias is irrelevant to your position. So, where’s your defense here? What evidence do you possess that the Gospels were originally written in Hebrew not Greek? All you’ve provided in this thread is plent by of opinion, but precious little fact. My argument is simple.
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?
No. Because it disagrees with the Torah.
Ahh. I see. So Christ nowhere says that “if it’s only in one verse, it doesn’t count”. I suppose that goes for ‘except for in cases of marital infidelity.
Again, Torah, and the example of the Pharisees. Them that do not know history are doomed to repeat it... and repeat it, they do.
You’re making this all up as you go along, aren’t you? What other ‘special rules’ do you have that appear nowhere in scripture?
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.
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.
So a literary interpretation must conform to the Torah, and if a prophecy, must be built upon the prophets that have come before. Work with that and see how far your tradition holds up.
Do these ‘special rules’ count as Tradition?
Nope. Torah. You should read it sometime. :)
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.