Posted on 03/11/2004 11:48:05 PM PST by Salvation
What a load of baloney. Didn't you read the other posts? They were found with the DSS that certainly predate the NT authorship.
Try the same argument against the alternative version. There is NO manuscript evidence for the Hebrew version within about 750 years of the Septuagint. Does that mean it didn't exist?
The "Spetuagint didn't even exist in Jesus' time" is a "novel" argument. What version do you think the NT authors quoted? It sure doesn't match up with the Hebrew version.
Very kind of you. :-)
I think you understand what I mean.
True. But I also think you know what he meant as well?
Are you willing to accept everything found in the Dead Sea Scrolls as the basis of your Scripture. Are you willing to accept the Pseudepigrapha contained therein as Scripture?
It appears you are claiming there is such a thing as a Septuagint. There isn't. Why don't you just tell me how old the earliest available version, or portion of one, is.
I don't have to. YOU set the standard at "the existence" of the LXX. Which CAN be established with the DSS.
It appears you are claiming there is such a thing as a Septuagint. There isn't.
Oh... so you ARE denying it existed at all now? Can you cite a single reputable scholar who makes that claim? Tehre are dozens of qorks comparing the NT citations of the LXX vs. the MT but none of them really understood that the LXX never really existed?
Why don't you just tell me how old the earliest available version, or portion of one, is.
Didn't we just go over this? The oldest semi-complete manuscripts of ANY Scripture are the DSS, Though first and second century church fathers refer to them and the oldest codices are obviously based on them.
What's the "oldest available version" of the OT that is NOT the Septuagint?
When Luther was also "invited" with a promise of safe conduct he might have been a little sceptical. No?
If you have better numbers I would appreciate a source.
Is Unum Sanctum infallible? If so, what is open to discussion?
Of course not.
We know that it included books that you would prefer not to see there.
Never said that.
The Jews later removed them largely because they were used by Christians - this is not compelling reason for Christians to remove them.
Anything to which you can link me that indicates this was the reason the Jews removed them? I haven't read anything of the kind.
Jerome had problems with more than just the Apocrypha (as did Luther and plenty of others) - should we take Jerome's word for what goes in the canon?
Nope, just demonstrating that all was not unified.
See "circular reasoning" in the dictionary for my reply.
I fail to see how that is circular. During the time the Apocrypha were written, there were no prophets in Israel. Period. I think that's telling.
Nice try yourself. It can only mean "restrict the entrance of" if there is no evidence that it was there to begin with.
The Hebrew translations did not include them, so the argument stands.
...again, we know the Septuagint DID include them AND that Jews not represented at Jamnia still use them today.
Doesn't mean they consider(ed) them inspired. There is of course no disputing that they existed and were highly regarded. The dispute is regarding to what extent. And again, why classify them separately if they are/were on equal footing with the earlier books?
Funny, isn't it, how they AND the Catholics AND the orthodox churches all added them independently AND the earliest protestant Bibles all have them too?
Careful, you used the word "added." :)
Again. Because it was in the Scriptures they received.
Disingenuous. The Septuagint included them. The Hebrew translation did not. And besides, a LOT more went into finalizing the canon than "because it was in the scriptures we received."
A frequent argument, but Trent is not the first place that they are considered inspired.
Please cite for me examples of earlier, thanks. Again, honest question - I don't know the answer.
If so, why would Ethiopian Jews still have them? Why would the Orthodox churches use them (they broke of LOOONG before Trent). The council affirmed their canonicity in the face of challenge.
Why wouldn't they have them? Judaism in general still "has them." Question is, do they - the Ethiopians - consider them to be inspired? And you failed to at all address the fact that they are "deuterocanonical" and classified separately by the RCC.
I'm not denying the value of the Apocrypha. I'm trying to track down exactly why the RCC determined those books were as important (or nearly so - can't get past that separate classification) as the other 39. I have read a lot about "how we got our bible." It involved much criteria, some of which we have marginally discussed. What criteria was the Apocrypha measured against in that regard? Was the Apocrypha specifically addressed as a body of books, or were they individually considered along with all the others?
Honestly, I've read plenty on how those books simply do not measure up with regard to historical accuracy, authorship etc. Any thoughts? I'd love to check Catholic sources as well - provide me with links. I've been trying with no avail to get on the Catholic Encyclopedia website for two days now and the pages refuse to fully load, very frustrating.
By the way, thanks for the discussion. :)
It appears what Catholic Answers is saying the Catechism modifys the Infallible Teaching of the Pope. No?
I have gotten more than a few angry responses when I say There is no teaching of the RCC which cannot be denied or modified as required. I believe this.
It strikes me that what we have, here, is a failure to communicate. I thought about our conversation last evening during prayer time and realized that when I as a Catholic say "love" you may be hearing something different than what I mean. Certainly, in our modern culture, "love" often is used to connote some 'warm, fuzzy' feeling of affection we may experience. This is not what I, nor the Church, means by love. Indeed, the three theological virtues often given as being, "faith, hope and love" are, for this reason to my way of thinking, better stated as being, "faith, hope and charity," in that the latter formulation more succinctly indicates the giving of self and, ultimately, the abandonment of self. "Love" used in its modern connotation, then, with its emphasis on the 'good feeling' engender in the self is, in many ways, contrary to true 'love' with its emphasis on the abandonment of self.
Consider, for example, Matthew Chap. 5. From the Sermon on the Mount to 'turning the other cheek' to the admonition we are to "love our enemies" Jesus continually drives home the point we follow him when we abandon our 'self.' And we are to do this, so that we may be made "perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."
Essentially, we become perfect as Our Father in heaven is perfect when we 'love God with all our hearts, minds, bodies and souls and when we love our neighbor as our self for the love of God.' We become perfect when we abandon our 'self' totally to God, in the same way He abandoned Himself totally for us. We may get a few 'warm fuzzies' along the way, but most Catholic writers of any merit recognize such a process is far more painful than joyous. What makes the journey worth it is the promise of eternal life with a loving God.
Hence, I see no conflict between 1John's statement 'God is Love' and Deut. 4:24. To totally abandon one's self to God perforce means God is 'all-consuming' and 'jealously' demands everything from us. God IS Love. And if we wish to partake of that Love we must be willing to love in return.
Please consider the following: “Then I heard a loud voice from the temple, saying to the seven angels, “Go and pour out on the earth the seven bowls of the wrath of God.” Rev 16:1
Again, you seem to believe this verse ADDS something to the notion God is Love. But it doesn't. Now, it may be possible to act justly without loving, but it is not possible to love without being just. How can love be unjust? Thus, God's wrath derives from His Love. Having created everything, and having poured out Himself on the Cross, is would be unjust to not be wrathful with those who refuse Him.
You know, its interesting. Every time I go to confession, after confessing my sins I say an Act of Contrition. The one I use goes something like this: "Oh my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended thee. And I detest all my sins, because I fear the pains of hell and the loss of heaven(some versions say "thy just punishments") but, most of all, because they offend you, My God, who are deserving of all my love. I resolve, with the help of Your grace, to avoid sin and the near occasion of sin."
Now, look at what I'm saying, here. First, I'm saying I am sorry for my sins because I fear God's just punishement. This is variously called, "attrition," or "imperfect contrition." And, frankly, this is good enough for forgivenss. But, remember, fear of the Lord is only the BEGINNING of Wisdom. Now look at what comes next, "but most of all, because they offend you, my God, who are deserving of all my love." This gets us closer to 'perfect contrition' -detesting sin not just because we fear punishment, but because we love God so much we don't want to offend Him. It's like what happens with children. First, they learn to listen to "No" because they will get a spanking or a time out. Hopefully, as they grow, they do what they should because they don't want to disappoint. First, they obey out of a sense of justice, then they obey out of a sense of love.
Consider the commandments. In the original Torah, there are 613 of them, really. And all of them were God's revelation teaching Man such virtues as Temperence, Prudence, Justice, etc. Yet, when Christ came, He told us all the cammandments boil down to just two (which He draws from Deut. and Leviticus.) -Love God with all your Heart and Love your Neighbor as your self. Love, then, is the pinnacle of all else God is.
"If we truly understood the wrath of God that is coming, we’d be in church everyday in earnest prayer."
Concur.
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.