Posted on 06/29/2009 1:56:47 PM PDT by NYer
I thought the word “Bible” included both the old and new Testaments. Jesus based His entire life path on the Old Testament. If the author of this apologetic meant New Testament, he should have said New Testament.
Thats awesome! I like that site
You wrote:
“I thought the word “Bible” included both the old and new Testaments.”
The Bible includes both the Old and New Testaments.
“Jesus based His entire life path on the Old Testament.”
No, the Old Testament was a prophecy of Jesus’ life.
“If the author of this apologetic meant New Testament, he should have said New Testament.”
No, he’s still right. Look again:
“Ingrain this into your psyche...the Bible is a Catholic book! The Catholic Church gave it to the world!”
1) The Bible, if we use your logic (i.e. “...the word “Bible” included both the old and new Testaments”), can only be called Catholic because its two parts were coupled together by the Catholic Church.
2) The Catholic Church did give the Bible to the world. a) The Bible - as you yourself mentioned - has two testaments. They, once again, were coupled together by the Catholic Church so what is called the Bible can only have come about and have become known to the world through the agency of the Catholic Church. b) The Catholic Church copied and disseminated the Bibles of ancient and medieval times. Thus, the Bible became known to the world only through the Catholic Church.
Biblical scholar Mark Hamilton states that the Greek phrase Ta biblia ("the books") was "an expression Hellenistic Jews used to describe their sacred books several centuries before the time of Jesus,"[7] and would have referred to the Septuagint.[8] The Online Etymology Dictionary states, "The Christian scripture was referred to in Greek as Ta Biblia as early as c.223."[4]
You wrote:
“You seem to be quibbling in saying that the Catholic Church gave the Bible to the world when it combined the Old and the New Testaments.”
What I am doing is being logically consistent. Let me show you how you are not being logically consistent (again):
You originally wrote:
“...the word “Bible” included both the old and new Testaments”
Now, instead, you’re emphasizing this:
“Biblical scholar Mark Hamilton states that the Greek phrase Ta biblia (”the books”) was “an expression Hellenistic Jews used to describe their sacred books several centuries before the time of Jesus,”
So, which is it? Is the Old Testament THE Bible or isn’t it? I would say - and I am irrefutably correct in this regard according to the post are arguing about - that the Bible IS NOT just the Old Testament, but that it includes the New Testament as well. And you agree with me. Or at least you did a couple of posts ago. Now, however, you are emphasizing something else.
Get your story straight.
“But the word Bible was used before Jesus lived, according to Wikipedia:”
No. The word Bible as we know it was not used. The Greek word, biblia, not BIBLE, but BIBLIA was used. Biblia means books. It’s just the Greek word (plural) for books. When we use the word Bible it doesn’t mean many books. It mean ONE book. ONE book with two testaments - and Jews never had more than ONE testament.
My argument is consistent. Yours is not.
“Biblical scholar Mark Hamilton states that the Greek phrase Ta biblia (”the books”) was “an expression Hellenistic Jews used to describe their sacred books several centuries before the time of Jesus,”[7]”
And yet I have NEVER heard anyone in a typical English language conversation say “the biblia” or “the books” when he meant to just say “the Bible”. And, again, as you yourself said at the earlier: “...the word “Bible” included both the old and new Testaments”
Be consistent.
Bi⋅ble /ˈbaɪbəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [bahy-buhl] Show IPA Use bible in a Sentence –noun 1. the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments. 2. Also called Hebrew Scriptures. the collection of sacred writings of the Jewish religion: known to Christians as the Old Testament. 3. (often lowercase) the sacred writings of any religion. 4. (lowercase) any book, reference work, periodical, etc., accepted as authoritative, informative, or reliable: He regarded that particular bird book as the birdwatchers' bible. Origin: 1300–50; ME bible, bibel < OF bible < ML biblia (fem. sing.) < Gk, in tà biblía tà hagía (Septuagint) the holy books; biblíon, byblíon papyrus roll, strip of papyrus, equiv. to býbl(os) papyrus (after Býblos, a Phoenician port where papyrus was prepared and exported) + -ion n. suffix
Deal Hudson has written a great piece here.
You wrote:
“1. the collection of sacred writings of the Christian
religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments.”
Now, did Jews have THAT? Did Jews then (or now) have a New Testament?
NOPE.
“2. Also called Hebrew Scriptures. the collection of
sacred writings of the Jewish religion: known to Christians
as the Old Testament.”
And let’s remember what you said the Bible was: “...the word “Bible” included both the old and new Testaments”
“3. (often lowercase) the sacred writings of any
religion.”
So you would be just fine with saying the Qur’an is the Bible too now? ROFLOL!
“4. (lowercase) any book, reference work, periodical,
etc., accepted as authoritative, informative, or reliable:
He regarded that particular bird book as the birdwatchers’
bible.”
Clearly doesn’t apply to what we’re talking about.
“Origin:
1300–50; ME bible, bibel < OF bible < ML biblia (fem.
sing.) < Gk, in tà biblía tà hagía (Septuagint) the holy
books; biblíon, byblíon papyrus roll, strip of papyrus,
equiv. to býbl(os) papyrus (after Býblos, a Phoenician port
where papyrus was prepared and exported) + -ion n. suffix”
Nothing here disputes what I said in the least. THE Bible is what we were talking about. Remember, it has TWO testaments as you said:
“...the word “Bible” included both the old and new Testaments”
Do Jews have two testaments or not?
As I said in the last post (and you have been utterly unable to refute):
So, which is it? Is the Old Testament THE Bible or isn’t it? I would say - and I am irrefutably correct in this regard according to the post are arguing about - that the Bible IS NOT just the Old Testament, but that it includes the New Testament as well. And you agree with me. Or at least you did a couple of posts ago. Now, however, you are emphasizing something else.
Once again, here are your words: “...the word “Bible” included both the old and new Testaments”
Your words. You have to live with them, not me. I have been consistent and consistently right all along here.
Again, how many testaments do the Jews have?
Once upon a time, I received a 16 MM film of Mortimer Adler’s lecture on Epictetus. The can was supposed to contain a film on calculus. I said what the heck and showed the film to my high school class. To my great surprise, they were enthralled by the film. He had about 50 IQ points on the brightest of us, yet he made it all clear and entertaining without condescending. Unfortunately, it was the only film by him in the district film library, because the kids wanted more, and not just to avoid work. He was a great teacher.
“despite the best work of the Inquisition, a huge percent of all Spaniards have some Jewish ancestry.”
Oh, good grief. I guess the lies will never stop until Our Lord returns to cast the father of lies into the pit.
Jews were (shouting here) encouraged (back to inside voice) to convert. Encouraged.
Further, no person who could say, “I am a Jew. Everyone knows it, and I have never claimed to be anything else,” was ever laid a hand on by the Inquisition.
The Inquisition tried only people suspected of pretending to convert, while secretly remaining Jewish. Further, the Inquisition was far more just than the secular courts that would have tortured and executed suspects on the flimsiest of evidence.
Pop quiz: Of all the people tried by the Spanish Inquisition, how many were executed?
Anybody? It’s been posted here many times. Hasn’t even one of the Church’s detractors bothered to attend to that figure, and what it signifies?
Well, “Old” Catholics found it convenient to accuse a lot of people of pretending, because it was a good way of getting hold of their estates. Probably the Jews who converted were about as sincere as the Christians and Jews who had converted to Islam in earlier years, but the times were uncertain and the Catholic kings didn’t trust the Jews, Christian or not, thinking that blood was thicker than water, The proof is, of course, the expulsion of Jews in 1492.
The writing of the Old Testament begins with Adam writing the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th chapters of Genesis.
You wrote:
“The writing of the Old Testament begins with Adam writing the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th chapters of Genesis.”
Sorry, but that is not an orthodox Jewish or Christian belief. Your idea is essentially a recent quack idea based upon NOTHING. Well, there is that whole misinterpretation of Genesis where some poor benightedly ignorant people believe that Adam wrote a few chapters just because it says that “This is the book of the generations of Adam” (Genesis 5:1). It is, of course, utter nonsense to believe Adam wrote any part of Genesis based up Genesis 5:1, but in this day and age in which so few people truly study the scriptures or their history such crack pot ideas shouldn’t surprise anyone. Look at how many people believe the Dake Bible’s assertions that there were people BEFORE Adam who lived on into Adam’s era. Nutty. Just nutty.
Adler bumpus ad summum
Why?
The expulsion of the Jews was basically because Isabel felt that she didn;’t have the resources to protect them anymore. There had been anti-Jewish riots in some cities in Northern Spain, egged on primarily by people who were jealous of the Jews, who often held good positions in court. This was right after the unification of Spain (when the Muslims were finally overcome and territorial unity under Ferdinand and Isabel was achieved), and there were power struggles between the King, the local nobility, and the growing non-titled middle class.
The Jews were perceived as favorites of the King, and hence were often targets of the jealousy of other people who either wanted to be favorites themselves or wanted to get rid of the king altogether.
In southern Spain, a group of Jews was found conspiring with the Muslims to help restore them to power, and this turned into a key incident that led to more rioting, with the result that Isabel finally announced that she couldn’t guarantee their safety anymore.
Under Spanish agreements with the Jews, Jews lived in their own communities within Spanish cities, but were protected by the Crown. They swore allegiance and paid taxes to the Spanish Crown and in exchange were protected and permitted to run their own communities. While she confiscated much of the wealth of these communities (although many of them had seen the handwriting on the wall and already moved it), the expulsion cost the Crown a huge amount of taxes and income, and also removed some of the Court’s most valuable members. Thus, it was something that she didn’t want to do and delayed for a long time.
Most Muslims were also expelled at that time, because they had violated their agreements after the fall of Granada and were re-arming to attack Spain again, but a large number of Muslim peasants and agricultural workers were allowed to stay because they were not considered a threat. However, only a few years later, encouraged by Arab contacts, they also began to arm and began attacking their non-Muslim Spanish neighbors. Some years after that, after some particularly bloody attacks, all the Muslims were expelled as well.
You wrote:
“Why?”
1) There’s no written evidence for it.
2) There’s no historical evidence for it.
3) There’s no reliable tradition for it.
4) Moses has always been considered the author according to Jews and Christians.
5) Adam as the author is a recent invention.
6) Adam as the author is a recent invention by Christians who are already on the fringes of Christianity.
7) Those who believe in it are crackpots in other respects regarding the faith.
8) There is no evidence Adam could write.
9) The belief is not supported at all in the New Testament.
10) There’s no logic to the theory.
Well, indeed. The upshot of the efforts of the Crowns to unite the country was similar to what happened in our own times in the former Yugoslavia. Henry Kamin says that after about twenty years, the Inquisition began to settle into its major long term role which was to certify the “purity” of families, Ironical, because the process invited corruption. Over the centuries, families had crossed and recrossed the religious divide, to the extent that many had an ancestery they had to conceal. To me, the great irony is that the English created the Black Legend, and depicted the horrors of the auto de fe,” even though few Protestants were actually molested, and at a time when Elizabeth’s government was ruthlessly ferreting out priests and drawing and quartering them and not treating “puritans” much better. “Star-Chamber” has
long since passed out of the historical consciousness while the Inquisition has never been forgotten.
Everyone one of your points is an assumption, not evidence. There is very interesting research being done in this area which you apparently are not aware of. I would be happy to send you links to that research.
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.