Posted on 10/03/2014 2:33:43 PM PDT by NYer
I'm not trying to argue with you, but I don't think anyone can read Mary's "Song" as told in Luke 1:47-49 and NOT think she recognized a miracle had happened to her. It is hardly implying she lacked humility, just the opposite. She said:
My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me holy is his name.
You are being evasive, ES, I’m sure your denomination, organizaton, fellowship, group, or whatever it is, must have a name. Sample Man asked you, now me. Inquisitive minds would like to know. Thanks.
Fact? LOL.
Timothy’s father was Greek. Doesn’t get more hellenized than that. And, why was the Septuagint and later the entire New Testament written in Greek?
I stand my my succinct statement. Again, St. Paul wrote “all scripture” that Timothy, a hellenized Jew knew “from infancy” is inspired by God. That’s all I need to know on the subject. The Holy Ghost inspired all Scripture and all its translations, except of course the Protestant mistranslations and obfuscations.
The codices of the LXX that have the deuterocanonicals were the not the immediate product of the Jewish magisterium, but were apparently the result of 4th-5th Century Christian scholarship. See Roger Beckwith here (also see his book, “The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church: and its Background in Early Judaism”):
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/evangel/04-1_012.pdf
So Timothy’s OT was, best we know, absent the deuterocanonicals, and your claim for their inspiration cannot be substantiated.
Peace,
SR
Sure it is. The entire premise is equivocation.
In one hand your cohorts appeal to post 70AD Jewish oral law and ignore the tradition that written Torah was always authoritative.
You should reformat your paste from the source you used...Please.
Quite a few bold coulda shoulda in there.
Hebrews 11:35:
One only has to read the accounts of Elijah and Elisha to know the women. And this is a far cry from quoting I may point out as well.
No the Sadducees denied the Resurrection. Probably because they were obstinate in not reading the oracles of YHWH and the Psalms.
My point before your insulting digression was that Talmud is a far cry from Torah. The post Temple Judaism is much different than the Pharisees of Christ’s ministry. Thus by Catholics using Talmudic references to uphold oral traditions or justify certain Apocryphal works is just compounding error.
LOL the man needed the Palm tree to keep from falling down on the ground.
Plus what if the tree was pine or oak?
Shabbath 41a.
I shudder to think that the above I violated at least three times a day while deployed in the middle of a desert.
God didn't ask her permission any more than He asked Moses' permission, or Jeremiahs's, or Gideon's, or Samson's, or the Apostle Paul's, or any other of a whole host of people whose lives He crashed into with an assignment they weren't looking for and didn't necessarily want.
Now, I have to believe that Mary was thrilled to be chosen to be the mother of the Messiah. No doubt that would be the dream of any Jewish virgin girl, so of course she would have *accepted* the assignment.
But the angel didn't ask her, he TOLD her how it was going to be. She could either accept it or fight it.
For more than one reason. One, Paul was a Jew, a Pharisee, and knew the Hebrew Scriptures IN Hebrew probably better than any of the other Apostles - he didn't NEED to refer to the Greek. Second, he never mentions any of the Apocryphal books in his epistles either directly or as inspired like he did nearly every one of the 39 actual inspired OT books. He obviously WROTE his letters in Greek, but there is nothing to prove he only had the Septuagint to go by when speaking of the Law and the Prophets. Not to mention, there is NO proof that the Greek Septuagint EVER included the seven books (or the other EIGHT) in any section at all associated with the non-contended OT books that Jews and Christians hold as divinely inspired works. There is even a question of what books even WERE part of the Septuagint, seeing as it began only containing the Pentateuch (first five books of Moses) and went through development over centuries, its history is clouded with legend and myth.
I would think seeing that several of those Apocryphal books overtly testify to NOT being the word of God but thoughts of men, contain outright errors - which God would NOT have made, come right out and admit that there WERE no prophets of the Lord in that intertestament period, it should be more than adequate proof that the Apostle Paul, nor any of the others, would have thought of, much less relied upon such writings for anything.
It would be refreshing to see a Roman Catholic just come right out and admit what we already know that the ONLY reason they argue in favor of those seven books is because their magesterium at Trent declared them to be God-breathed Scripture so that they could settle the question of the canon in the face of the challenges of the Reformation. They're basically stuck with having to defend them - not all that different from many of the other invented dogmas over the years.
Well of COURSE you do, what choice do you have really? Your magesterium declares it, you MUST obey. What I question is this ridiculous claim that the Holy Spirit inspired "all its translations". Do you include the original Latin Vulgate?
If Paul meant the Septuagint as "Scripture" in his letter to Timothy, then what about the OTHER eight books besides the seven RCs now claim are Scripture? The Septuagint had fifteen additional books besides the 39 universally acknowledged books. Are these ALSO inspired by God in your view or is it only the redacted version the Council of Trent came up with?
The Roman Catholic church has a low view of the term "inspired by God" if they accept the Apocrypha in that group. Maybe, that IS really the point - so that they can sit in judgment and authority OVER God's word instead of the opposite - the church is subject to the authority of Scripture.
Now, days latter you bring reply --- in mere re-assertion of that which has just been well enough falsified.
After it was just blown to smithereens...utterly destroyed, shown to be the grossly ill-founded opinion that it is -- even after on this thread alone it has been shown how some portions of the "ill" of the foundations for it came about.
Those whom you would likely identify as of your own church, including Jerome, the very man Benedict XV is attributed [9.] to have spoken of as St. Jerome, the greatest Doctor of the Sacred Scriptures -- refutes you.
That leaves more than a few in support perhaps -- but those chiefly since the 16th Century -- with even there the very word itself deuterocanon indicating secondary status even as in the minds of some they took that to mean "equal to" all the rest of actual OT Scripture, cementing there the error of mistaking what had previously been regarded as "ecclesiastical" writings (which could be read from in church) with Holy Writ, Scripture itself.
How so very "Catholic" --to make such errors while using wording which 'splits the difference' so to speak, during the last stages of the fuller transition into ERROR.
It the way the skids are greased, the better for it to slide downhill.
The Apocrypha (in it's beginnings) was never "Scripture", not in the same sense as the rest of what Melito of Sardis termed Old Testament.
Would you care to try again, and this time actually address the issues --- such as the BIG problem (to your own contention/position) of all the now-ancient witnesses arrayed against your expressed opinions?
Yet you say of Scripture generally "inspired all it's translations" now too? "Inspired", other than those which you vaguely allude to while spitting at those...
So tell me --- which English language translation is the "inspired" one?
The Challoner version of Douay-Rheims?
How about what the USCCB have on their own web pages? Is that the one?
I hate to ask those last two above questions, for they will just lead further away from the very questions which you have been avoiding, thus enlisting myself in the oh, so typical on these pages, FRoman squirming and wiggling away from THE LIGHT of TRUTH.
Perhaps (if you reply) I will again set the previous matter before you, regardless if that not be possible to be "succinct".
For we all know by now it is much easier to say a few words which are or could be in error, than it is to take erroneous statements fully apart, and examine them in light of critical evidences in order to determine the truth of the matter.
Yes.
That's one for the library (I would like to have). Can we copy and paste here book reviews from Amazon.com? I gave the like above in the [above] exclamative. yes, I was yelling...though if I could come across a hardbound copy (some place other than Amazon), I do think I would prefer that. ;^')
Linking to the book itself as offered on Amazon, and to the reviewer also [as follows] I'm helping Mr. Bezos in doing so, perhaps?
Here we go, from Fr. Charles Erlandson;
Roger Beckwith's "The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church" is a magisterial work on the issue he pursues. He has a masterful command of the material at hand and along the way provides the reader with an education in the fallacies of other works dealing with this issue; witnesses to the Canon; the facts of the Canon; the structure of the Canon; and the identity of the Canon. It's not an easy read, but if you're interested in issues related to how we got the Bible, the Canon, the Apocrypha, and the early Church's use of the Old Testament, then this is an important work that should be consulted. Canonical studies are making a comeback, and so revisiting Beckwith's work is a very worthwhile pursuitAs a matter of fairness, I should state that Roman Catholic readers will not agree with all of his conclusions, especially regarding the Apocrypha (even though I find his arguments persuasive on this point). Both Protestants and Catholics, however, should welcome Beckwith's work on account of its careful scholarship, even if one doesn't agree with all of his conclusions.
Other reviewers have covered some of Beckwith's material in detail, so I'll conclude with a list of his major conclusions:
1. Standard titles in the canon, a standard structure, a standard order and two standard counts (these are all interrelated) can probably be traced back to the second century B.C.
2. Disputes about 5 of the Old Testament books were only of limited scale and significance and probably arose out of exegetical work on books already ranked as canonical.
3. There was no wider Alexandrian (Greek) canon which accepted the Apocrypha, and even if there had been a distinct Alexandrian canon, it is the Palestinian one the first Christians would have taken over and used.
4. Pseudepigrapha were placed in a separate category from canon.
5. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha were only included later, and not in an agreed way, by Christian Gentiles after the church's breach with the synagogue, among those whose knowledge of the primitive Christian canon was becoming blurred.
6. The three Jewish schools of interpretation all essentially agreed about the canon.
7. There is a general correspondence between the Christian canon and the Jewish. Christian evidence from New Testament endorses the Jewish titles for canon, their 3-fold structure, the traditional Jewish order, and possibly one or two standard Jewish numerations of the books. 8. On the question of the canonicity of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha the truly primitive Christian evidence is negative.
While Beckwith's word on the Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church may not be the last word, it is a very weighty one that any serious scholarship will have to contend with.
I notice there in the next review yet another "Catholic" (likely not a priest?) disparaged the work with vague allegation, then changed the subject! How so very typical of the fearful...
I have the immense luxury of having had my own faith built up supernaturally -- by the Author and finisher of our faith.
If that were not so, then no earthly 'authority' could do so, including Scripture itself (if we can call that earthly...being as it is in physical form, so to speak) even though I do more than hold that the Scriptures are true --
Here's a blurb mentioning a few statements of Beckwith's outside of his writings per se;
After dinner, Dr. Roger Beckwith continued with a second session on The Bible and Higher Criticism, showing why human reason cannot be made the measure of all things. Dr Beckwith spoke of how Essays and Reviews published in 1860, shook Britain by introducing Liberalism and destructive Higher Critical theories, but its message was penned by men whose strength did not lay in source and text critical studies and was condemned by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Church of England Synod. Nevertheless, Essays and Reviews sold 22,000 copies in two years, which was more than Darwins Origin sold in twenty years. However, many complained that the national church ought not to proscribe doctrinal belief and the Bible was subject to individual scrutiny. The cry went up that Moses had never existed but one of equal powers must have done his work. Such rationalism brought scholarship nowhere. Dr. Beckwith showed how Biblical prophesy cannot be dated after the events as Liberal theology supposes. Many prophesies extend beyond even the late dates given them by Liberal critics. His conclusion was that archaeological evidence overwhelmingly supports the Biblical accounts. The days sessions were closed by Evening Prayer.[bolding added]
The kind of Christianity that Moses preached?
Well, ok then. I think that sums everything up.
Only Prot. ones can be excluded per individual RC decree. Thus the RC NAB is sanctioned despite its problems even noted by Richard John Neuhaus, while if some of the notes/commentary that have been in it (esp. study versions) for decades now (and also criticized by this RC) were found in the KJV it would be roundly used by RCs as an example of what happens without the RC magisterium.
Last i looked, the current edition will not use render porneia as sexual immorality or anything sexual in places such as 1Cor. 5:1; 6:13; 7:2; 10:8; 2Cor. 12:21; Eph. 5:3; Gal. 5:19; Col. 3:5; 1Thes. 4:3; but simply has immorality, even though in most cases it is in a sexual context.
But some RCs defend Rome while attacking Prots at any cost to credibility.
Which leads to the problem of which LXX mss.
Edward Earle Ellis writes, No two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha, and no uniform Septuagint Bible was ever the subject of discussion in the patristic church. In view of these facts the Septuagint codices appear to have been originally intended more as service books than as a defined and normative canon of Scripture, (E. E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity [Baker 1992], 34-35.
Manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era, and since in the second century AD the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin.
Nor is there agreement between the codices which the Apocrypha include...Moreover, all three codices [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus], according to Kenyon, were produced in Egypt, yet the contemporary Christian lists of the biblical books drawn up in Egypt by Athanasius and (very likely) pseudo-Athanasius are much more critical, excluding all apocryphal books from the canon, and putting them in a separate appendix. (Roger Beckwith, [Anglican priest, Oxford BD and Lambeth DD], The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church [Eerdmans 1986], p. 382, 383; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/01/legendary-alexandrian-canon.html)
Likewise Gleason Archer affirms,
Even in the case of the Septuagint, the apocryphal books maintain a rather uncertain existence. The Codex Vaticanus (B) lacks [besides 3 and 4] 1 and 2 Maccabees (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 1 Esdras (non-canonical, according to Rome). The Sinaiticus (Aleph) omits Baruch (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 4 Maccabees (non-canonical, according to Rome)... Thus it turns out that even the three earliest MSS or the LXX show considerable uncertainty as to which books constitute the list of the Apocrypha.. (Archer, Gleason L., Jr., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction", Moody Press, Chicago, IL, Rev. 1974, p. 75; http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Integ/B-1101.htm)
The German historian Martin Hengel writes, Sinaiticus contains Barnabas and Hermas, Alexandrinus 1 and 2 Clement. Codex Alexandrinus...includes the LXX as we know it in Rahlfs edition, with all four books of Maccabees and the fourteen Odes appended to Psalms. ...the Odes (sometimes varied in number), attested from the fifth century in all Greek Psalm manuscripts, contain three New Testament psalms: the Magnificat, the Benedictus, the Nunc Dimittis from Lukes birth narrative, and the conclusion of the hymn that begins with the Gloria in Excelsis. This underlines the fact that the LXX, although, itself consisting of a collection of Jewish documents, wishes to be a Christian book. (Martin Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture [Baker 2004], pp. 57-59)
Also,
The Targums did not include these books, nor the earliest versions of the Peshitta, and the apocryphal books are seen to have been later additions, and later versions of the LXX varied in regard to which books of the apocrypha they contained. Nor is there agreement between the codices which of the Apocrypha include. (Eerdmans 1986), 382.
And Cyril of Jerusalem, whose list rejected the apocrypha (except for Baruch) exhorts his readers to read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters, the latter referring to the Septuagint but not as including the apocrypha. (http://www.bible-researcher.com/cyril.html) ^
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.