Fulton Sheen and the Anti Christ

Standing on my head ^ | 11/23/2013 | Fr Dwight Longenecker

[Mrs. Don-o]

Need a link.

[editor-surveyor]

You need a link to your Bible?

Reading the text, there are hundreds of sentences whose wording could only have come from a translator with minimal familiarity with the original language, and zero familiarity with the culture and practices of the apostles.

Reading critically, as a real scholar always does, one cannot miss them.

Here is one that shows up in three or four places: “they came together on the first day of the week...”

This is obviously a clumsy mistranslation of “havdalah.” To a Hebrew, the first day of the week was only significant as to the traditional meeting celebrating the end of the Sabbath at sundown on the pagan “saturday” night. That was when it was permissible to bring money, which is not permissible on the Sabbath. Where the text reads “early on the first day of the week” sundown is what is being invoked, not 12 hours later when the sun rises, when the day was half over.

Failing to reckon how Yehova’s days occur completely destroys the meaning of many passages of the NT. Only a non-Hebrew translator would make that kind of error. Had the books been written in Greek by the original author, a more successful transliteration of the traditional and cultural factors would have resulted.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Ed-surv, I do not read Hebrew or Greek. Consequently I have to rely on scholars who do. There have been 50-100 generations of scholars over the past 2,000 years --- depending on how you want to count a generation --- many of them native Hebrew or Greek speakers, and many who were not, but who spent their whole lifetime studying the texts and the nuances of the languages. I can't name a one of them who thinks the Gospel of John and the Epistles of John were not written in Greek.

Having read your brief explanation, I still can't name "a one", since I don't know who you are or what your credentials might be as a translator, or why your credentials must be better than the 50 generations of scholars who came before you.

Thus my skepticism should not be surprising.

Still no link?

Then I must suppose that you're essentially a stand-alone guy with a--- shall we say, a unique hypothesis. Just a guess on my part. Otherwise, you would be citing and linking to truly dispositive evidence.

I'm still interested in a citation or a link, though. I'm here to learn.

[jjotto]

Here’s a link on the subject (scroll down to the end for “sources”):

http://www.promotethetruth.com/id23.html

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you, jjotto. This is exactly what I was looking for, and the sources at the bottom look substantial. Do you know who wrote this article? Or whether this represents the view of some church or organization? I moused around bu couldn't find anything.

Happy day-after-Thanksgiving!

[jjotto]

There are a handful of scholars who propose Hebrew originals of the Gospels. Most non-academics who believe this, however, seem to do so for theological reasons, not because there’s evidence. Many who deny the possibility also do so for theological reasons instead of on the basis of evidence. It’s one of those subjects.

Try googling “Hebrew origins of the Gospels” or something similar.

Somewhat related is another thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3096066/posts

where it is pointed out in later posts that the Catholic Church is quite modernist and academic in its view of all Scripture.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I actually don't care whether the originals were Hebrew or Greek. And as I mentioned elsewhere, since I don't even read Hebrew or Greek, it would be truly dumb for me to pretend to any personal expertise. I read the scholars 3rd hand, at the Readers Digest level or thereabouts.

I do have a few criteria

• Catholic dogma. (Which most emphatically does NOT mean the Catholic Theological Society of America.)
• the Pontifical Biblical Commission, but not necessarily de fide to the extent of every jot and tittle, and
• the late Jaroslav Peliken, just because I'm fond of him and the Orthodox in general, and I'm entitled to fondness, like anybody. I do like Bruce Metzger, too.

[editor-surveyor]

No link would read your bible for you.

No need to read the Greek to see that more than 90 % of the English translations have approximately the same words, regardless of who did the English translation, thus there is scant reason to believe that you would render a different result if you did read the Greek.

The English translations deliver solid evidence that the
Greek text from which they came were not the words of an original author.

Denial, not skepticism, is the applicable term.

[editor-surveyor]

An excellent essay.

Thanks for posting.

[Mrs. Don-o]

This is all irrelevant to me, since I don't much care whether the originals were Hebrew or Greek. I don't see how it makes a big difference.

I am not a credulous person. Asking for links to more evidence is reasonable. Your failure or refusal to honor such a request makes me wonder whether it's really evidence which brought you to the opinion you now hold.

When you throw in a little contempt (calling my request for evidence "denial") it certainly deepens this impression.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “ I don’t see how it makes a big difference.” <<

.
The difference is in understanding what really was done/said, as opposed to confusion that has nullified many Bible passages to the casual reader.

This is where the error of “Sunday” worship was born. Granted, there are far worse sins than breaking the Sabbath, but who wants to sin at all?

[editor-surveyor]

>> “Asking for links to more evidence is reasonable.” <<

The link would be the verse anyway.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Are you a member of one of the Seventh Day churches?

[editor-surveyor]

Absolutely not!

I am a follower of the original Way.

[Mrs. Don-o]

No Church?

[editor-surveyor]

“Assemblies” or congregations (Kehilot) was what were refered to in the NT epistles.

By church I assume that you mean an org that owns buildings and such?

[Mrs. Don-o]

So, you ar a member of an "Assembly"? Where is it? How would I get in contact with this "Assembly"?

Building ownership isn't the relevant thing. "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic" --- rightly defined --- are the relevant things. Given that, members of Christ's Church can gather around their bishops [episcopoi] in rented rooms, houses, barns, fields, or catacombs.

The Church has to be be nameable, definable, and findable: not just one of these set-ups where a website, an e-mail address and a P.O. Box are about all the contact information you can get.

Tagline.

[editor-surveyor]

Nicolaitan ‘churches’ are certainly all named, but Yeshua’s church has no other name, no address, nor phone, email, nor bank accounts.

[Mrs. Don-o]

So all churches that you could find in the Yellow Pages, all churches that have a name and an address, even an e-mail address, are false? invalid? Nicolaitan? Whereas the mark of the true Yeshua churches is that nobody can actually find them?

Yet, "find them" is what one would have to do in order to get a letter delivered to them, as all the authors of the Epistles were able to do. One would have to be able to find them, in order to bring their judgment to bear in a matter of dispute as in Matthew 18:1.

Let's suppose I were to say I am a member of this Yeshua Church. Where would I find my fellow believers?

[editor-surveyor]

You like to put words in my mouth.

The assemblies that are solidly Biblical communicate through their members as needed. No need to advertise anything; the Holy Spirit knows how to work.

The bigger a church is and the more they spend announcing themselves, the less likely it is that they worship Biblically. Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, David Jeremiah, etc. for example.