“Actually, the translations are extremely good.”
Did I say they weren’t? Is a good translation less dependent on “what other believe” than a bad? Not really.
“There are also excellent commentaries available to discuss the various meanings possible where the Greek or Hebrew allow it.”
Again, doesn’t “what others believe” enter in commentaries? Seriously, did you even think about what you’re posting here?
“My study is not based on what others tell me to believe.”
I’m beginning to think that Protestants here at FR are just stupid. Seriously, how can somebody just get done talking about using commentaries and translations and a website and then say, “My study is not based on what others tell me to believe.”
“That is the Roman Catholic approach - don’t read for yourselves, just trust ‘tradition’.”
Buddy, again, you’re not reading for yourself if you’re using commentaries and translations and websites. Seriously, how can you not see that point when it is so obvious?
“Reading it into John 6 is simply bad reading. It takes it out of context. The CONTEXT comes immediately after the feeding of the 5000, and years before the Last Supper. Hmmmm...context. It is amazing how much easier it is to understand the scriptures when you accept the context, instead of pretending it doesn’t exist so you can read human theology into the text.”
No, the context makes it clear that Jesus was saying exactly what He meant and meant exactly what He said – the Eucharist.
“This is not a “Greek vs English” issue. Nor does using Latin as your authoritative version hellp.”
It wouldn’t hurt any either. I doubt you even understand the status or role of the Vulgate judging by what you written so far.
“I’ve never seen anyone read the Lord Supper into John 6 UNLESS they were told to by people with an agenda.”
The one “reading into” something is you. When you say “I’ve never seen anyone read the Lord Supper into John 6” you’re assuming from the start a couple of things:
1) That your limited experience means something
2) That someone must “read into” John 6 to see the Eucharist.
Scott Hahn, for instance, admits he became convinced that John 6 was about the Eucharist when he was still very much a Protestant. He’s not the only one either. The reading into the text seems to be done by you. You apparently have decided you don’t ever want to see Catholic doctrines in scripture and so you don’t. By your own standards you’re no different than the people you are attacking.
“It simply isn’t something a person reading on their own would do.”
Yes it is – as I mentioned about Scott Hahn. Now, you’ll probably discount Scott Hahn as so many anti-Catholics do. The point still stands, however. He came to believe that John 6 was about Jesus giving His flesh to eat BEFORE he came to believe in the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist.
“And yes, there is ample evidence that Jesus and the Apostles accepted the Jewish canon for the Old Testament - as Jerome understood. The comments of Jesus, recorded in scripture, sets it out: …Those are the 3 sections used by the Jews as the Old Testament, as attested to by Josephus:”
Hilarious. You’re relying on Josephus to define the canon for you. This coming from you after saying you don’t rely on “what others believe”. Again, do you actually think about what you’re posting here?
And, quite frankly, your attempt to prove the “Jewish canon” this way just doesn’t work. The simple fact is Josephus is not a source to be relied on in that way.
“I have no objection to someone reading the Apocrypha, but Jesus did not refer to it as scripture.”
How do you know? The New Testament doesn’t contain all Christ said or did and Christ didn’t issue a table of contents. I’ve encountered anti-Catholics dumb enough to say the deuterocanonicals are not scripture because Jesus never cited them. They forget – actually they’re just too ignorant to know – that Jesus also never cited Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, or Song of Solomon.
“As for the New Testament, it was in common acceptance with minor variations very early on.”
Minor variations? Gee, and who solved that problem? Do tell.
“You will notice they were in common acceptance as scripture centuries before Augustine and Jerome argued about the canon, and some 1400 years before the Council of Trent.”
And you will notice that St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and the Council of Trent were all Catholic. This issue was resolved by Catholics.
“This is why I say were are not trying to be different than the Catholic Church.”
Yeah, that’s really working out well: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3089343/posts?page=23
“Our reasons for accepting the Old Testament as used by the Jews is that Jesus and the Apostles accepted it as such.”
You have yet to even come close to proving that Jews had a closed canon which didn’t include the deuterocanonicals.
“God’s Word is amazing..”
I think it is more amazing than you seem to realize. That is ultimately the saddest part of the Protestant rejection of the Bible’s proper role in the faith life of Christians. Protestants have no idea of what they’re missing in the Word they so often praise. Recently I was talking to a young couple – a Protestant couple. The husband is coming into the Catholic Church. He’s been studying and reading, learning everything he can about the faith. His wife, however, who – at least as of a few weeks ago – had no desire to come into the Catholic Church was amazed as how much she was learning in Catholic Bible classes. She said she had never learned so much about the Bible as a Baptist.
“And please notice I do not cite Luther as an authority, or Calvin, or any other Reformers. Take off the chains of human tradition, and simply read the Word of God.”
You cited Josephus. Look up “hypocrite” in the dictionary. You need to.
Now that's funny...I don't care who ya are...
“Is a good translation less dependent on “what other believe” than a bad? Not really.”
Wrong. Translations can be objectively looked at. A translator doesn’t tell you what to believe, but what the text means. That is why we can translate languages...kind of like Jerome did in producing the infallible Vulgate.
“Seriously, did you even think about what you’re posting here?”
Yes. That is why I use reason, while you use insults. Again, a commentary discusses the meanings of words. It does not tell you what to believe, but what words mean, how they were used in other places, etc. Perhaps you could TRY doing some Bible study some time.
“Buddy, again, you’re not reading for yourself if you’re using commentaries and translations and websites. Seriously, how can you not see that point when it is so obvious?”
Really? Do I interpret it based on a catechism? Do I take any commentary at face value, or rely totally on one translation? No. But yes, I DO interpret scripture without asking a priest (who in theory should be using a Latin translation, or an English translation of the Latin translation). That is why I discuss passages, while Catholics refuse to examine them.
“Scott Hahn, for instance, admits he became convinced that John 6 was about the Eucharist when he was still very much a Protestant.”
I’ll call him a liar to his face if I ever see him. Or an idiot. There is no hint of the Lord’s Supper in a passage taking place BEFORE the Lord’s Supper - by years. Only someone fixating on ‘bread’, without reading about the feeding of the 5000 immediately prior could be that stupid. I’d bet on Scott Hahn simply being a liar.
“Hilarious. You’re relying on Josephus to define the canon for you.”
No. I’ve pointed out that Jesus defined the canon as the Law & Prophets and Poets. Those are the 3 sections the Jews accepted, and are NOT the Apocrypha. The Apostles also defined the canon, not as a list of books, but as a list of what SECTIONS were scripture. Thus they rejected those Jews who claimed only the Law was Scripture, or the Pentateuch.
Josephus listed specific books in those categories, but NO ONE claims the Apocrypha was included in the Law and Prophets.
“Minor variations? Gee, and who solved that problem? Do tell.”
Not the Roman Catholic Church, which didn’t try to give an authoritative list until the 1500s. Yet the NT canon was known and accepted for 1300-1400 years before the Catholic Church decided to deal with it. And the Old Testament canon was known by Jesus and the Apostles...
“You have yet to even come close to proving that Jews had a closed canon which didn’t include the deuterocanonicals.”
Hmmm...seems Jesus Christ isn’t authoritative enough for you. I gave you multiple scriptures, and you...just deny.
“You cited Josephus. Look up “hypocrite” in the dictionary. You need to.”
No. I cited Jesus and the Apostles. Josephus merely listed the books in the categories that JESUS called scripture. And NO ONE claims the Apocrypha was part of the “Law and Prophets”.
Let me use small words to help you out. I do not use the New Testament OR Old Testament based on Josephus. I use them because of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, who said what was in the Old Testament and who wrote the New Testament.
I use them by the authority of Jesus Christ. Josephus DOES tell us about the practice of the Jews, and that they held to what Jesus said - the Law & The Prophets & the Poets. Josephus agrees with what Jerome believed, although modern Catholics reject the judgment of Jerome. And why do they reject Jerome? Because they are DEFINING Catholicism to contrast with Protestants.
What the Reformers said about the Canon was in agreement with Jerome, and even Trent refused to contradict Jerome - but it requires some study to find that little fact out.
The Catholic Church has NEVER said the Apocrypha was good for doctrine. How they managed to claim it is scripture when they don’t know if it is good for doctrine or not defies reason, since “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
But then, someone who focuses on the Word of God will come into conflict with the Word of Man.
That is why the Catholic Church opposed vernacular translations for hundreds of years - because the more one studies the Word of God, the less Catholic one will become. Assuming, of course, it is a sincere study, and not the parsing of apologists.
Protestants do not define ourselves by ‘the opposite of Catholic”. We define ourselves by what Scripture says, and that makes it LOOK like we are the opposite of Catholics. If Catholics honored the Word of God, there would be no priests, Purgatory, Indulgences, or a perpetual sacrifice of Jesus in contradiction to the teaching of Scripture.
“For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
“This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”
The Holy Spirit is the Vicar of Christ, not the Pope.
Sarah Palin: Billy Graham Transformed my Life
Dominic Gover - November 08, 2013 1:52 PM GMT
"Palin, a former republican governor of Alaska who spoke at the dinner, told USA Today: "His message transformed my mum's life. "In the 70s, she would tune into the Billy Graham crusades, televised. My mom was raised Catholic, and she ... was yearning for something more.
"His invitation for people to know that they could have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ - my mom understood that from the way that he could articulate it. She became a Christian, led the rest of the family to Christ, and that I believe transformed our family."
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/520703/20131108/billy-graham-last-sermon-hope-american-sarah.htm