[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
2Sa 23:9-12 (KJV))
[/quote]
Did you just call us Philistines?
This impasse has NOTHING to do with intelligence or the lack thereof Chris. You are putting words in my mouth. It has to do with discernment. I used up all my time now at work. Please believe I am not insulting you. At least not intentionally.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
One last thing. Are there any other Protestants in here concerned with the pursuit of truth? Our Catholic brothers ask good questions, and their answers reflect genuine research. Though holding to their beliefs, they seem to be wiling to admit (Gasp) that they don’t know all the answers.
Posters like Mr. Chen seem to have an answer for everything, but his answers generally betray a lack of research and knowledge about the very issues he speaks so confidently on.
Is the point of this forum to find the truth together, or do we Protestants merely assume that we have everything right, and that its our duty to persuade our Catholic friends of the error of their ways?
Once again, I am not a Catholic, but I don’t think its right to win anyone to your side (even if you think your side is the right one) with poor arguments. It’s really disrespectful.[/quote]
The civil pursuit of Truth together is certainly a noble idea. Perhaps there can be a separate thread for that. It would be interesting to see how far it would get before degenerating into insult, criticism, arrogance, one-upsmanship, bigotry, name calling and disrespect that usually infiltrates these threads and alienates most everyone.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This impasse has NOTHING to do with intelligence or the lack thereof Chris. You are putting words in my mouth. It has to do with discernment. I used up all my time now at work. Please believe I am not insulting you. At least not intentionally.[/quote]
Are you saying that even a 4-year-old could understand what you are saying?
I am sorry, once again. I must have made a dear mistake of not making myself clear.
I was not trying to say you were insulting me (the only time I mentioned insult was when I was discussing having offended Mr. Chen. I was saying you were attacking my intelligence, instead of the argument. Thus, I was showing evidence that you had made the fallacious argumentum ad hominem.
To use modern language. I was not saying you were insulting my intelligence, but that your answer was focusing on my intelligence rather than my question.
However, doth thou protest too much?
Anyway, regards.
BC
I am not “attacking” you at all Christopher. =[ What ad hominem? You have told me yourself that you are not at liberty, and neither am I, to reach conclusions from scripture apart from the magesterium. I am simply repeating to you what you have yourself declared. I am telling you that this posture has positioned you in such a way that you are unable to so much as entertain another view, despite the fact that some passages are so clear that rank pagans like bodyguard simply read them and rightly discern what they say. (Like Romans 3) You can’t have them saying that though because that would make the Church wrong and you have made your, yes, epistemology, proceed from the church and not from God. Yes you have Chris.
I’m not attacking you OR insulting you? I’m only telling you what I see. Let me ask you this. Why do you suppose I am not a Catholic? Why do I see the empire that you revere as the bride of Christ as the synagogue of Satan? PLEASE bear with me. What is the cause of this horrifically evil, heretical and very possibly damning in your view error on my part? I am asking you to answer this with all due honesty and severity as you see fit. I WANT you to tell me. I have not even been sarcastic with you since you’ve been back. That’s an accomplishment in sanctification for me man lol. Blessed Lord Jesus how I wish we could meet in person.
Why? Why am I not a Catholic?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
So, you think God would’ve waited until 1947 before the OT canon could be decided upon.[/quote]
Is that when you decided what the OT Canon was? [/quote]
You didn’t follow. My meaning is that the Dead Sea Scrolls have no bearing on the canon.
I’ve been as helpful about the canon as I can be I think. Here’s a link to start at if you want to read more:
Notice the bottom link takes you to 30 more.
Have at it!
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
2Sa 23:9-12 (KJV))
[/quote]
Did you just call us Philistines? [/quote]
You’re sharp Chris. Wasn’t my intent at all. Just throwing something up for Tirib in a lighter vain.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Dude, the writers of the NT are inspired authors. Just because they’re writing in Greek, and referring to the OT, doesn’t mean they’re getting it from the so claimed pre-Christian LXX.
[/quote]
Well, if we match it up to the Masoretic and Septuagint…
What WERE they referencing?
[/quote]
My contention is that the LXX is not pre-apostles. The Septuagint matches them, because it copies them. It was probably done by Origen. I realize of course it’s not the prevailing position. Making it pre-Christ is a ploy to serve other purposes. I’d bet you like to know what other. I’d love to go on about it, but it would require book length posts.
Give what I’ve written some thought, and keep what you thinks valuable.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Dude, the writers of the NT are inspired authors. Just because they’re writing in Greek, and referring to the OT, doesn’t mean they’re getting it from the so claimed pre-Christian LXX.
[/quote]
Well, if we match it up to the Masoretic and Septuagint…
What WERE they referencing?
[/quote]
My contention is that the LXX is not pre-apostles. The Septuagint matches them, because it copies them. It was probably done by Origen. I realize of course it’s not the prevailing position. Making it pre-Christ is a ploy to serve other purposes. I’d bet you like to know what other. I’d love to go on about it, but it would require book length posts.
Give what I’ve written some thought, and keep what you thinks valuable.[/quote]
So it copied them badly quoting the OT. Ok, got it.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
I’m well aware that some later versions of the legend of the Septuagint’s composition cited 70 authors rather than 72,
[/quote]
You weren’t until I alluded to it. Then you had to go back and look it up on the net.
You’re a sham. You’ve exposed yourself to all now. I’m embarrassed for you.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Dude, the writers of the NT are inspired authors. Just because they’re writing in Greek, and referring to the OT, doesn’t mean they’re getting it from the so claimed pre-Christian LXX.
[/quote]
Well, if we match it up to the Masoretic and Septuagint…
What WERE they referencing?
[/quote]
My contention is that the LXX is not pre-apostles. The Septuagint matches them, because it copies them. It was probably done by Origen. I realize of course it’s not the prevailing position. Making it pre-Christ is a ploy to serve other purposes. I’d bet you like to know what other. I’d love to go on about it, but it would require book length posts.
Give what I’ve written some thought, and keep what you thinks valuable.[/quote]
So it copied them badly quoting the OT. Ok, got it.
[/quote]
That’s why it doesn’t deserve attention. Go back and read about what kind of a guy Origen was.
But, If you really like it, or feel bound to it for some reason, I’ll say nothing more.
It was an enjoyable discussion, thanks.
[quote]
Sloth Wrote:
So it copied them badly quoting the OT. Ok, got it.
Mr. Chen wrote:
That’s why it doesn’t deserve attention. Go back and read about what kind of a guy Origen was.
But, If you really like it, or feel bound to it for some reason, I’ll say nothing more.
It was an enjoyable discussion, thanks.[/quote]
That’s why what doesn’t deserve attention?
Let’s try this again…
What “OT” does your New Testament make references to. You’ve implied that the Septuagint was written to cover up embarrassing discrepancies.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
I’m well aware that some later versions of the legend of the Septuagint’s composition cited 70 authors rather than 72,
[/quote]
You weren’t until I alluded to it. Then you had to go back and look it up on the net.
You’re a sham. You’ve exposed yourself to all now. I’m embarrassed for you.[/quote]
I didn’t have to look up anything on the net, Mr. Chen. I have scholarly books for that. The internet is too often untrustworthy; I look instead to competent scholars for information. Just because your research skills are limited to the perusal of the world wide web doesn’t mean other’s are. Regardless, if you had any sort of education in the history of Second Temple Judaism, you would know what they teach in introductory level courses, i.e., that the number of scholars listed in the Letter of Aristeas was 72, and that only in later traditions was it dropped to 70. I didn’t even have to look that up.
Just to recap - you mentioned the Letter of Aristeas. You showed that you haven’t read it, or else haven’t read it thoroughly. I called you on it. You bring up information that is not pertinent to the discussion (i.e., the fact that in some later versions of the account of the Septuagint’s origin, only 70 scholars were discussed). What does that have to do with our topic, i.e., the number of scholars listed in the Letter of Aristeas? Absolutely nothing.
I think you’ve betrayed your hand, Mr. Chen. You use the internet for your information; you assume everyone else who knows something does too. But just because I didn’t lay out on the table everything I know about the legends of the Septuagint’s origin in one post, that doesn’t mean that my knowledge was attained through recourse to internet sources. In the future though, since you’ll probably be around, maybe I’ll have to post exhaustive accounts of my reading on every subject.
Also, you’re argument linking the composition of the Septuagint to Origen is historically unfounded. Once again, the Letter of Aristeas, written in the 2nd century BC, provides concrete evidence that Greek translations of Old Testament Scriptures were in existence prior to the birth of Christ. You have yet to provide any evidence refuting that.
Why don’t you deal with the lexicographical and syntactical data from the Septuagint that indicates a pre-Christian origin? Study of such data clearly supports situating the text in the 3rd-2nd century BC. Do you know much about lexicography?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]
Sloth Wrote:
So it copied them badly quoting the OT. Ok, got it.
Mr. Chen wrote:
That’s why it doesn’t deserve attention. Go back and read about what kind of a guy Origen was.
But, If you really like it, or feel bound to it for some reason, I’ll say nothing more.
It was an enjoyable discussion, thanks.[/quote]
That’s why what doesn’t deserve attention?
Let’s try this again…
What “OT” does your New Testament make references to. You’ve implied that the Septuagint was written to cover up embarrassing discrepancies.[/quote]
You might as well forget it, Sloth. Mr. Chen has yet to deal with the significance of the Septuagint to the intellectual satisfaction of anyone but himself. He’s also smart enough to choose not to bite at your insightful (and leading) questions.
Anyway, moving on. Here is a question for Catholic posters. Historically speaking, there do seem to be some significant similarities between the early Christian practice (2nd century AD) of asking saints to speak to God on our behalf and the worship of spiritual beings practiced widely throughout the Greco-Roman world. Greeks and Romans believed spiritual beings inhabited every aspect of reality - trees, rocks, water, etc. - and that they governed their various domains. Consequently, if you wanted a particular type of aid, you would ask the being in charge of it. Since there isn’t an EXPLICIT statement in Scripture describing or clearly supporting the practice of asking saints for aid, what would you say if someone argued that the church adopted a pagan practice (prayer to the spiritual entities governing the various elements of the world) and simply Christianized it?
This is a historical argument. I’d like to hear how Catholics would respond to this one.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
Why don’t you deal with the lexicographical and syntactical data from the Septuagint that indicates a pre-Christian origin? Study of such data clearly supports situating the text in the 3rd-2nd century BC. Do you know much about lexicography? [/quote]
Which fragments did you want to discuss, Mr. Qualified?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Let’s try this again…
What “OT” does your New Testament make references to. You’ve implied that the Septuagint was written to cover up embarrassing discrepancies.[/quote]
Are you supposing that the NT writers had to have a Greek version of their own Scriptures before they could write?
I can’t wait much longer Mr. Qualified, I’ve got to get to work.
We’ll have to use BDB, as it’s what I have access to.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So it copied them badly quoting the OT. Ok, got it.
[/quote]
Well, let’s look at one:
Luk 4:18 (KJV) The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
You know this is from Isa 61:1, however, note the slight change “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me”
Why the subtraction of the “God”? An error, or an inspired record of what Christ said. He was God in the flesh, and it would seem redundant for him to say the Spirit of Himself was upon him, so He didn’t. Jesus changed the quote from His own book.
I hope I’ve tweaked your interest. You do an injustice to your own abilities if you assume popular teachings are surely correct. Remember we’re talking about stuff that was going on 2000 years ago. Most everything about the time period is theoretical to one degree or another. Keep an open mind.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I am not “attacking” you at all Christopher. =[ What ad hominem?
You have told me yourself that you are not at liberty, and neither am I, to reach conclusions from scripture apart from the magesterium.[/quote]
No, I am not at liberty to provide my opinion as divine revelation or doctrine. I can and am at liberty to come to and reach conclusions from scripture apart from the Magisterium. Whether I am right or wrong is another matter. The Magisterium after all has only come to two conclusions on specific verses. That’d be difficult to come to a conclusion about a verse with the help of the Magisterium when the Magisterium has only come to a few itself over 2000 years.
Forgive me if I don’t remember.
Yes, I am brain washed. Please tell this brain washed Catholic how we know which books are in the Bible. I mean I don’t know if being brain washed will allow me to tell if you answer a question, but try me. I’ll be waiting here.
Yes, we’ve established I am brain washed. Please answer my question.
No clue. That is usually an individual answer for an individual person.
I can only speculate I am a part, a member of the Synagogue of Satan.
I think I can handle a few more minutes.
Again, I can only speculate.
I am not familiar with the science of psychology, so I’ll have to refrain from speculating. I’m going to assume though, based off your contemporary line of reasoning that you are going to tell me that you had some kind of private and personal revelation telling you so. And, that’s why you hate our Mother, which I am a particular member of, which means you hate me even if against your protestations.
Why? I am not a mind reader. I don’t have a 1-800 number and I’m not a psychic that you call late at night.
[quote]I have not even been sarcastic with you since you’ve been back. That’s an accomplishment in sanctification for me man lol. Blessed Lord Jesus how I wish we could meet in person.
Why? Why am I not a Catholic?[/quote]
Uh…I’ll refrain from correction at this moment in time.