Posted on 07/11/2012 6:23:41 AM PDT by NYer
The Council of Jamnia was after Christ. At the time of Christ, there was no set list of which books constituted “the Scrolls” or “the Prophets.”
I hope so.
They wouldn't need to, as the printed Scripture readings are provided.
There is no such rule. Some people do bring them, but it is not necessary as the printed Scripture readings are provided.
Interesting statement.
My church is set up to enter the 'gathering area' or small hall and then enter the church itself through internal double doors. On the table just outside the doors is a family sized St. Joseph edition leatherbound (impressive - I bought one - from the church), as well as a pile of softcover NAB and Jerusalem Bibles. There might even be a D-R Challoner or two, I forget.
I carry the NAB on a variety of electronic devices and have for many years carried the D-R going back to the early Palm Pilots. I go online for the NAB RE including usually when I respond with Bible quotes here or elsewhere.
Spunkets, you may have gotten an outlier on the data chart.
The parish where I grew up (heavily Irish and Italian) probably had enough Bibles in the entranceways to supply every family that attended.
Let us not be contentious in our journey towards God.
The Catholic Bible contains the entire OT as written in the Septuagint, which was at the time of Christ, the most widespread and utilized Scripture by the Jews - including Jesus and the Apostles.
The Jews don't believe in the Council of Jamnia. That makes it an imaginary council, with imaginary motivations and results. IOWs, it's fiction.
Any discussion of the Jews as single, monolithic block that all agree on anything is specious. In the first century there were at least four major competing Qahals each with a different canon; the Pharisee, the Sadducee, the Essene and the Hellenistic.
Peace be with you
None of them believe in the Council of Jamnia. None of them believed in original sin either.
Well, there are some historians who are skeptical... but precisely because there’s no mention of a Hebrew canon until after c. 135! What we do know is that at the time of Jesus, there were loads of versions of the Old Testament. And the extant ones (Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls) include the deuterocanonicals. Back to you.
Agreed, the existence or importance of the council is largely a figment of Protestant desire to establish a legitimacy for the exclusion of the Deuterocanonicals.
What we do know is that Jewish authorities specifically rejected the Gospels as new revelation and with them the books of the Deutercanonicals.
Peace be with you
Yavneh became important when Yochanan ben Zakkai received Roman permission to establish a Jewish religious school there, and it became home to what would have been the Sanhedrin had the Temple remained.
Claiming textual variants meant variant canons is like claiming the JPS translation of the Bible, or the Soncino Chumash, is authoritative.
Jewish canon had been closed for several generations at least by this time, so much so that teachings of the school became sharply differentiated as the Mishnah. No one would have dared change the established books except to correct obvious textual errors in specific copies.
Interesting point: The late Book of Daniel was not considered a book in ‘Prophets’, but is instead included in the ‘Writings’.
As I tried to explain previously, neither you, nor I, nor any number of priests, gets to override what the Missal says.
I don't care if 150 priests "commented on the appropriateness of the particular reading chosen". If it's not in the Missal, it's not one of the readings permitted.
That's called "holy obedience". You'll recall that a lack of obedience was what got Satan in trouble.
And that's what this thread is about. You improvised, spunkets, and it appears you are trying to blame the Church for the problems it caused you.
What was the purpose of the prepared notes you forgot?
Without Paul... you’re going to have a very thin Bible.
So you willingly engage in cannibalism?
Do you willingly engage in symbolic cannibalism?
NGZ said he believes that it is the literal body and blood of Jesus, not a symbol. Therefore my question is still valid.
What is your answer to my question?
No, I do not.
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.