Posted on 07/14/2013 3:02:43 PM PDT by NYer
“Let me know if you get an answer cause as of yet, I NEVER have.”
I do not believe there is a list of traditions Paul referred to. I’ve asked, but it isn’t forthcoming.
Apparently, without a real list, anything - even hundreds or thousands of years later can become “an Apostle’s Tradition”... and has.
“He is not a God of the dead, but of the living!”
No it’s not.
In Matthew 16 Jesus is talking to all of the Apostles. They were all asked the question of who they thought He was. Though Peter was the one who answered for the group Jesus was talking to them all. When Peter said that they believed He was “Christ the Son of the Living God” Jesus replied and said that it was not flesh and blood that had revealed that to Peter but that it was “my Father which is in heaven”. He then says to Peter “and thou art Peter”, acknowledging that He knew who Peter was just as Peter knew who Jesus was. Then Jesus, referring back to “my Father which is in heaven”, says, “upon this rock I will build my church”.
In other places in scripture Jesus is referred to as the “corner stone”, but the rock that the church is build on is the Father.
If you want reference to God as the Rock here are some verses.
Deut. 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
2 Sam. 22:2 And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; 3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.
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."
From the link:
“More than once Origen refers to the Gospel of the Hebrews, sometimes without further comment (Comm. in John 2.12; Comm. in Matt. 16.12), sometimes with a qualifying phrase, such as ‘if any one receives it’ (Hom. in Jeremiah 15.4; Comm. in Matt. 15.14). See p. 137 of [Metzger].”
“If anyone cares to accept was is written in the Acts of Paul, where the Lord says: ‘I am on the point of being crucified afresh’ ... (Comm. in John 20.12)”
His qualifying phrase certainly indicates a lack of agreement on those particular works. At worst, Origen believed in too many books, but not too few, putting out those works which were accepted almost universally, save Rome’s rejection of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Greeks’ rejection of the Revelation during the 4th century.
“At worst, Origen believed in too many books”
Thank you for proving my point.
Ok, if it’s not the Catholic church, who is it CB?
I’ve told you before. I believe what scripture teaches. Not what the RCC has corrupted. Twisting my words or injecting something I didn’t say then asking a leading question is reminiscent of Satan’s comments to Eve.
Oh really?
Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. 6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.
“Saint” Michael is an archangel and praying to him is futile. There is no hint anywhere in scripture that he’s at your, my or any other human’s beck and call. He and all angelic beings are recorded as being quite fearsome, but have only been messengers to humanity, not from humanity.
There are occultists, those who practice so-called “Enochian” magic, who believe themselves to be able to summon angels to do their bidding. Is this a good thing to you?
Then arguing that ‘Catholics pray to the dead’ is a lie. If Catholics believe that the dead are alive in Christ, then Catholics are not praying to the dead.
Opinion is the lowest form of knowledge - Plato.
Total hypocrisy. Sad thing is they believe it.
You didn’t read the whole post again did you.
““Jerome believed that the language of the original must dominate”.
Again, this is not hard to find.”
In his translations. It doesn’t mean that he put out books merely because he had no Hebrew copies. It doesn’t put out his detailed explanation of the Jewish system, and therefore his suspicion for anything not accepted by them.
“The first of these books is called Bresith, to which we give the name Genesis. The second, Elle Smoth, which bears the name Exodus; the third, Vaiecra, that is Leviticus; the fourth, Vaiedabber, which we call Numbers; the fifth, Elle Addabarim, which is entitled Deuteronomy. These are the five books of Moses, which they properly call Thorath, that is, ‘Law.’
The second class is composed of the Prophets, and they begin with Jesus the son of Nave, which among them is called Joshua ben Nun. Next in the series is Sophtim, that is the book of Judges; and in the same book they include Ruth, because the events narrated occurred in the days of the Judges. Then comes Samuel, which we call First and Second Kings. The fourth is Malachim, that is, Kings, which is contained in the third and fourth volumes of Kings. And it is far better to say Malachim, that is Kings, than Malachoth, that is Kingdoms. For the author does not describe the Kingdoms of many nations, but that of one people, the people of Israel, which is comprised in the twelve tribes. The fifth is Isaiah; the sixth, Jeremiah; the seventh, Ezekiel; and the eighth is the book of the Twelve Prophets, which is called among them Thare Asra.
To the third class belong the Hagiographa, of which the first book begins with Job; the second with David, whose writings they divide into five parts and comprise in one volume of Psalms. The third is Solomon, in three books: Proverbs, which they call Parables, that is Masaloth; Ecclesiastes, that is Coeleth; and the Song of Songs, which they denote by the title Sir Assirim. The sixth is Daniel; the seventh, Dabre Aiamim, that is, Words of Days, which we may more descriptively call a chronicle of the whole of the sacred history, the book that amongst us is called First and Second Paralipomenon [Chronicles]. The eighth is Ezra, which itself is likewise divided amongst Greeks and Latins into two books; the ninth is Esther.
And so there are also twenty-two books of the Old Law; that is, five of Moses, eight of the prophets, nine of the Hagiographa, though some include Ruth and Kinoth (Lamentations) amongst the Hagiographa, and think that these books ought to be reckoned separately; we should thus have twenty-four books of the ancient Law. And these the Apocalypse of John represents by the twenty-four elders, who adore the Lamb and offer their crowns with lowered visage, while in their presence stand the four living creatures with eyes before and behind, that is, looking to the past and the future, and with unwearied voice crying, “Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, who was and is and will be.
This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted [i.e. defensive] introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd [of Hermes?] are not in the canon.” (Jerome’s Prologue to the Books of the Kings)
That nothing that has no Hebrew original, and exists only as a writing in the Greek, is put out, is simply a coincidence with his knowledge of what the Jews did and did not consider to be scripture.
I’m honestly curious. If it’s not the Catholic church, who is it?
“Thank you for proving my point.”
So far, I’m not even convinced you know what your point is.
Nah.
You had better study your Greek. Peter, GR. - Petra - rock.
Peter is from the Greek word for rock, Petra. Jesus was directly referring to Peter and his mission on Earth - to establish His Church. “Upon THIS rock (Peter), I will build my Church”
Without Peter, would there be a Church?
But in closing. We all digress here.
It is NOT an argument.
It is a decision...
“is simply a coincidence”
Right, a coincidence with 100 percent congruence.
No, it’s not. Do you not read scripture? God has already said what will happen to Satan and when. Do you honesty want to subvert God’s plan? Why would you ask for something that is contrary to what God has ordained to happen?
That Origen has too many books is still not the same as the modern canon. Is my point really that difficult to grasp?
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.