Posted on 01/12/2012 7:27:57 PM PST by rzman21
Someone who claims to have a complete understanding of Scripture unfettered by any other influence.
Your comment strikes me as kind of a haughty thing to say.
Does that mean "ouch"?
What is a 'scriptural primitive'?
Someone who claims to have a complete understanding of Scripture unfettered by any other influence.
I think what he meant to say, wafflehouse, is "someone who believes that silly stuff in the first eleven chapters of Genesis (which we now know who could never have happened) while rejecting the fact that Mary played basketball with the sun in Portugal on October 13, 1917."
Mas cerveza, do you have any comments on this? Do "traditionalist Catholics" like yourself also believe that the ancient Hebrews only "thought" G-d commanded this stuff?
You know, rzman, you once said that the Catholic/Orthodox churches are “agnostics” in the creation/evolution debate. Yet every time you post something it doesn’t seem to endorse “agnosticism.” It endorses evolution. Why else attack “naive literalism?” What is there about “naive literalism” that is so deadly to the ancient liturgical churches? I mean, it’s not as if they are never literal . . . you and I both know they are. But never about Genesis 1-11.
>>What that means is there is NOT a defined dogma on how the first 11 chapters of Genesis should be interpreted.
So people are free to take sides and remain within the pale of orthodoxy.
I fail to see why you place so much emphasis on that part of the Bible.
You can see what they think of so many western chrstians! Perhaps they should turn to the atheists in academia for sympathy?
>>So. Perhaps, Western Christians should be a bit more circumspect about their own beliefs, following St. Augustine’s theories as slavishly as they do.
St. Augustine was a great and holy man, but Protestants and Roman Catholics have elevated his opinions to the level of infallible dogma.
So people are free to take sides and remain within the pale of orthodoxy.
Then why don't you occasionally post an article by someone in the Catholic/Orthodox churches who take the side of creationism? Is it because there aren't any? If that is the case, then obviously people are not "free to take sides."
I fail to see why you place so much emphasis on that part of the Bible.
You're looking at the question from the wrong side. I emphasize it because it's there (and at the beginning, at that). The question is why so many people who have it in their bibles reject it.
If it's just Babylonian mythology pieced together in the Second Temple Period as the higher critics say, then it's not "holy scripture" at all, is it?
Believe all the stuff in your bible. Take out the stuff you don't. That would be the intellectually honest and consistent thing.
It’s not all black and white.
You can see what they think of so many western chrstians! Perhaps they should turn to the atheists in academia for sympathy?
So. Perhaps, Western Christians should be a bit more circumspect about their own beliefs, following St. Augustine’s theories as slavishly as they do.
St. Augustine was a great and holy man, but Protestants and Roman Catholics have elevated his opinions to the level of infallible dogma.
Get off your high horse. You're not Orthodox; you're Catholic. Melkite Catholics are still Catholics, acknowledging the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. They're also stuck with all the Latin theology that actual Eastern Orthodox reject (such as original sin, the immaculate conception, Augustine, Aquinas, etc.). As a matter of fact, the last I heard, Orthodox don't think much of Uniates such as yourself. I hold no brief for Orthodoxy, but your continual attempt to blur the differences between the two at every opportunity is indefensible and dishonest.
Furthermore the source you posted isn't Catholic or Orthodox; he's Non-Chalcaedonian, a clergyman of the British Orthodox Church which is under the authority of the Coptic Church of Egypt. That makes him a heretic by the standards of both Catholics and Orthodox. Oh well. At least you didn't post an article by an atheist academic this time (as you once did).
As per your usual non-answering tactics, you refused to comment on this author's apparent belief that the Pentateuch isn't actually inspired at all, and that the Divine Commandments it claims to contain aren't really Divine Commandments but merely what the poor backwards Hebrews "thought" were Divine Commandments. I take it that means you also reject the idea that G-d ordered the exterminations of eight separate nations (doubtless because if He actually did so He'd be a "big meanie"). It occurs to me that both you and the author, different as you are, are affiliated with Arab churches (he the Copts, you the Melkites). I've heard that "palestinian" chrstians don't like the "old testament." That may have something to do with it.
Oh, it's not, is it? How about abortion. Maybe that's not "black and white?" Or how about homosexuality; maybe that's not "black and white" either? Or how about "the real presence?" The resurrection of J*sus? The miracles narrated in the gospels? Or the alleged miracles since that time (like your Portuguese sun miracle, assuming that a Byzantine Catholic wants to have anything to do with such a "Western" devotion)? Are they "black and white," or are they shades of gray? Maybe everything is shades of gray? Maybe there is no such thing as right or wrong?
Maybe just because A-mighty G-d says something doesn't make it so. Is that what you superior, "non-rationalist" Easterns claim? If that's "non-rationalism," I'll take "rationalism" any day.
What you absolutely refuse to respond to is the reason you and so many of your ilk choose the first eleven chapters of Genesis to be "not black and white." It's pure sociological bigotry. The first eleven chapters of Genesis are for "inbred trailer trash." It's not science! If it were, you'd reject every other miracle in history (which science insists are equally impossible). You're ashamed of "J*sus with a Southern accent" and your whole history of posting on this forum is merely to drive that point home: "Don't judge us ancient, authentic, mystical, sophisticated chrstians by those inbred morons who live in the Southeastern United States!" It drips from every article you post here.
I wish I'd had the foresight to be born among another ethno-cultural group. What made you decide to be born somewhere else?
And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. (John 14:16)
But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you. (John 14:26}
The Apostles established that the Paraclete would make His will known through the official teaching of the Church. Based on this establishment, the Church reserves for her magisterium the definitive interpretation of scripture. She has never ruled on how literal or figuratively the early chapters of Genesis should be interpreted, only that they are truly inspired.
Any speculation by St. Augustine or anyone else is only that.
I wish I’d had the foresight to be born among another ethno-cultural group. What made you decide to be born somewhere else?
>>Spare me the self-pity.
They’re also stuck with all the Latin theology that actual Eastern Orthodox reject (such as original sin, the immaculate conception, Augustine, Aquinas, etc.). As a matter of fact, the last I heard, Orthodox don’t think much of Uniates such as yourself. I hold no brief for Orthodoxy, but your continual attempt to blur the differences between the two at every opportunity is indefensible and dishonest.
>>You show your ignorance. The Melkites have a close relationship with the Orthodox to the point that our clergy are in de facto intercommunion in the old country.
We aren’t stuck under “Augustine or Aquinas” as you put it.
http://www.melkite.org/eastrole.html
I’ve been studying Eastern Orthodox theology for the better part of 15 years. This has led me to the conclusion that the differences are really matters of politics and semantics.
We are far more alike than different. Far more than say Baptists and Lutherans.
You did not WRITE (attempt to transmit) the Devil's OT name in Hebrew. You transliterated it into Aramaic letters and tagged those letters in html, including the definite article. Then in the comment above, you did not translate the wicked one's name into English, you transliterated it (from Aramaic, not Hebrew), but only partially; leaving out the phoenetic 'sh' sound, rendering it in English with a letter that represents the sound 'ess' -- so you did not Devil's name exactly, either.
Did you 'know' that? If you did, you are trying to 'toy' with me. If you did not, you are dabbling in linguistics and semantics with no background. Either way, you got burned.
For an exercise, write the name of Moses' army general-in-chief in Hebrew, then into Aramaic, then into Koine, then into Old English, then into American English, and see what you get. Recognize that a rose by any other name is still a rose.
Do you then understand what Hebrews 4:8 says, as from Koine translated into KJV English? If you do not, then you ought to find someone who can explain it to you. Same for everything else in my note from which you are quoting, and for which I said before that I don't have time to engage.
If ancient sheep herders can read it and understand it, i can too. That doesnt mean it wont take study and work.
They can't, and don't. And neither could Galilean fishermen. The were offered the opportunity to learn how to understand the Bible from a master teacher and took it. If you haven't, you might. So did the ancient sheep herder(s). But you cannot do it by yourself. It is uneconomical. If you try, you deny The God's offering in training a teacher to help you communicate better with Him. So you then would be selfishly stealing from The God the time that He has given you. One of the parables in the article demonstrates that. Find that and be instructed.
Finis
What you absolutely refuse to respond to is the reason you and so many of your ilk choose the first eleven chapters of Genesis to be “not black and white.” It’s pure sociological bigotry. The first eleven chapters of Genesis are for “inbred trailer trash.” It’s not science! If it were, you’d reject every other miracle in history (which science insists are equally impossible). You’re ashamed of “J*sus with a Southern accent” and your whole history of posting on this forum is merely to drive that point home: “Don’t judge us ancient, authentic, mystical, sophisticated chrstians by those inbred morons who live in the Southeastern United States!” It drips from every article you post here.
>>Your ethnicity and sociological background are really irrelevant to me. But your theology does matter, as it passes for what secular culture characterizes as “Christianity”.
Liberal Protestants and Conservative Protestants are two sides of the same coin because both elevate the individual conscience over God. We’ve seen how well that has turned out.
The Religious Right has thundered for generations now, but American society is less Christian now than when it started.
Dr. Clark Carlton, a Southern Baptist WASPish convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, explains in the following podcast.
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/carlton/where_the_religious_right_went_wrong
Sorry, I apologize — your shin is written as a ‘sin’ — that was correct. I was wrong.
you may be missing my point here.. Satan is a perfect transliteration.. but Jesus sounds nothing like Yeshua. There is no 'J' in hebrew and its only a few hundred years old in english. (wafflehouse)
1. The point I am making not only encompasses your attempt to make some kind of statement, but goes way beyond.
1.a. Only paleographers now read the Hebrew in which the Old Testament Bible was written.
1.b. The sounds of the Hebrew language are now rendered in the squarish Aramaic letters, a transition brought into the Jewish culture by Ezra after the return from the Babylonian exile. I suppose the residence in exile resulted in enough assimilation into the foreign culture led to the commonality of the Aramaic language and spelling.
1.c. So all the 'Hebrew" you read today has already been transliterated into Aramaic spelling.
1.d. Even in Biblical times, there were variations of pronunciation of Hebrew words. (Would you say "sibboleth" or "shibboleth"?)
1.e. In order to get the pronunciation correct, the current vowel pointing was introduced about 600 AD, for which the Qames-Hatuph pointing under the shin and the teth would give the pronunciation "saw-tawn" in, and only assuredly in, today's Ashkenazian/Tiberian accepted use.
1.f. As for the American English pronunciation, which is "say-ten," it is _not_ a transliteratiom of the original Hebrew word for Satan. It is a translation, giving the word for the designation of the Devil in our language. Found several times in Job (perhaps the oldest book of the Bible), no one really knows how exactly how it was pronounced then. You need to go look up the difference between transliteration and translation. Jewish scholars are still debating pronunciation. If so, how do you know the right _transliteration_?
1.g. So your position that "Satan is a perfect transliteration" is a greatly overconfident claim that betrays your ignorance in this matter.
2. Does a greater difference in pronunciation of "Yeshua" and "Jesus" create any lack of assurance about whom the translation of the Bible refers?
2.a. The letter J in 'Jesus' sounds like 'dzh' in American/British English; but sounds like Y in German. Does the transliteratiion make any difference in whom we are talking of, in translation to English or German? No.
2.b. Moses (translated from Mosheh) renamed his chief general from Oshea (O-shay-ah) to Jehoshua (translated as Joshua with J sounds as 'dzhy') (in Hebrew sounds as yeh-haw-shoo-ah); otherwise spelled as you have, Yehoshua (Num. 13:16)(Heb. 4:8)
2.c. Translated to Greek, that would be iota, epsilon, sigma, omicron, sigma -- sounds like ee-ay-soos, but translated in English letters: Iesus (actually same in Latin). Since Greek has no "shh" sound, and since the "hoo" sound was dropped, it comes out Iesus translated into English.
2.d. When _translated_ (not transliterated), in English His Name is Jesus (sounds like dzhee-zuhs).
2.e. When _translated_ so, does it make any change in the sense of a passage to an English speaker/reader? No.
3. But what is your underlying point or assumption? What are you trying to show? Hard to guess. Why don't you just come out and say what your 'hot button' is?
3.a. The article in view in this thread is one proposing a theme of "How to Study the Bible." To what purpose are your meandering assertions bringing us in addressing the value of the author's thesis, which is the importance of hermeneutics (interpretation) to understanding Scripture -- not tramslation. Any?
3.b. You have just shown that you do _not_ understand what you are talking about -- that is, not very deeply.
3.c. When I said it in shorter form, my point of the insubstantiality of your thrust to anything contributing to the discussion was made.
Do you then understand what Hebrews 4:8 says, as from Koine translated into KJV English? (imardmd1)
i know the direction things are going in the beginning of Hebrews, but im not familiar with that section. I shall study it. (wafflehouse)
I just showed you above -- why couldn't you either (a) say you didn't understand (which is the great insight of the article: the response of a wise man); or (b) simply look at the verse to see that there the name Jesus refers to the Joshua/Yehoshua of the OT, not the Lord Jesus Christ?
They can't, and don't. And neither could Galilean fishermen. The were offered the opportunity to learn how to understand the Bible from a master teacher and took it. If you haven't, you might. So did the ancient sheep herder(s). (imardmd1)
I think you are sorely mistaken. They can and did. The Galilean fishermen werent Torah scholars, but they certainly understood it. Jesus, in bringing the word of God to earth in a personified fashion did not bring a new message. EVERYTHING Jesus taught is in the Old Testament, several times over. (wafflehouse)
Don't be silly. you argue against yourself. The Jews assumed that Jesus was unlettered (Jn. 7:14-15), being a Galilean (Mt. 26:73, Lk. 22:50), and were amazed that He dared to teach in the temple, with authority (Mt. 21:23-27). That was not their customary expectations from ordinary laborers and farmers. Of the twelve disciples, were the fishermen schooled? Not likely, although their training in practical arts and memorization of verbal Scripture was probably far superior to anything seen today. Jesus taught them (and the multitudes) orally -- mouth-to-mouth -- the same way He as the preincarnate Yahovah spoke to Moses and the prophets. He didn't generally communicate details by writing. So were they illiterate? Some, but we don't know or need to know in this phase. But Levi, an official, was likely schooled in keeping records, as were the antagonistic religious adversaries.
In Matthew 13, Jesus told thousands of people secrets that The Godhead had hidden since Creation. But the people could not understand, lest they be converted without The Faith. To the disciples He had to explain these parables as if to second or third graders. Yet, contrary to your idea that they understood the Scriptures, why was it absolutely required that Jesus needed to reveal its meaning to them? To interpret them as a Master, a Didaskala?
(Also, it is clear that memorization is only the prerequisite for the meditation that brings understanding.(Psalm 1) So, the disciples probably had a grasp of the Scriptures, read again and again in synagogue, although much of it they did not understand)
Even the didskaloi of the Sanhedrin did not understand some very basic precepts (ex.: Jn. 3:1-21). And the concepts introduced by Jesus, hidden in the Tanach, but revealed in His novel interpretations and applications, highly offended the scribes, Tzaddukim, and Pharusim so that they conspired to kill Him. His message _was_ new, both in kind and in covenant. Have you never heard that God's revelation was always progressive and everunfolding? Not to account for that is to miss His entire plan for redemption.
Why would I continue to respond to your silly claims? Only to get you to turn for discipling to someone trained for it, as both the fishermen and Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea did. Even young Josiah needed Shaphan to read/teach the meaning of such Holy Scriptures as The God had yet revealed. And under the New Covenant, new believer-disciples needed Paul, John, Peter, James, Jude -- all the apostles and elders -- to explain to them the interpretation of the meaning of the New Covenant, subsequent to the fulfillment of the Old Covenant by Jesus and His ordination as The Eternal High Priest. Remember, He taught them post-resurrection facts in His 40-day time with them. They were the only primary officers commissioned by the Risen Christ to do so.
While the New Testament is hidden in the Old, and the Old Testament revealed in the New; there is more than the Old that is the completion of the final content of the New out to about 100 AD. One of the concepts is the law of double reference. (Unbelieving Jews have never seemed to understand that The Suffering Servant and The Glorious Messiah were both the very same person described in the Tanach.)
But now, Christ's way of building His Church is not much by talking heads engaging in fruitless Sunday 20-minute homilies; but rather in disciplers personally supervising other believer-disciples into maturity, the same way they themselves were trained.
The fruit of the Spirit is the character of Christ formed in the regenerated believer-disciple, but the fruit of a true disciple is more disciples. If one is not a converted and regenerated disciple-believer committed to this life of eternally following The Christ, one is not fit for the outward sign of water-baptism that gives a public testimony of the inward new birth.
So much for now ---
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.