[quote]pat wrote:
Mary was already the Mother of God.[/quote]
First let me say I do not hate Catholics. What Catholics I do dislike are the ones that never show up to mass, nor practice their faith, and then claim they are Catholic.
We are not disputing that Mary was the Mother of God. What we do dispute is that Mary is an eternal virgin as described in the current Catechism put out by Pope John Paul II. Prior to this current one that was not in there. In Jewish custom to be married you have to have had sex. That did not happen till after Jesus was born of course, but it did happen. Where did James the Brother of Jesus come from and all the other brothers and sisters of Jesus that were sitting with Mary? This is the type of stuff the Protestants were protesting. The changing of the history to make the Roman Catholic Church Traditions even or above the Holy Bible. Are you saying that endulgences happened in the 1st Century Church? Another Tradition that was added by a Pope. This is what we are disputing.
If Peter was the first Pope why wont Catholics consider a Jew for the next Pontiff?
It is the glossing over of the Roman Catholic Church’s sins throughout history that people are starting to question that and the authority of the church not just the Catholic Church. The Pope’s have always tried to cover up their sins, and that of the church.
You’re a fine writer, Pat. I think my struggle comes largely from the fact that you and I had a similar conversation previously, and you were making some of the same points in the context of a discussion of Matthew 25:31-47. Consequently, I have a certain view of where you want to go with this hermeneutical argument, and that view is coloring my statements. I’ll try to clarify things a bit more.
[quote]pat wrote:
I would retort that your own assumptions that these scriptures were written for a particular audience and only them is little more than that. In most cases we are using our best guesses at who the authors actually even were. And we know little more about the audience. There is in fact little evidence to suggest that these scriptures were only intended for the original audience alone. There are several problems with this.
If the scriptures were intended for only the intended audience and nothing more, then why do we even have the Bible Cannon? The fundamental problem with that line of thinking, is that it renders the Bible little more than historical document with no relevance to people outside the original audience. The writings and their meanings would then apply only to them and have little to no relevance to us modern Christians because by that assumption, the writings have nothing to do with us.
[/quote]
Ok, here’s where you are misunderstanding me. Let me clarify my points from before. The question of how texts written 2000 years ago can function as Scripture for Christians today is a huge theological problem. That’s the question you are bringing up in the quote portion above.
The answer you are trying to provide, an answer which is very popular among some Christian groups, is that, since God is the ultimate author of Scripture, the meanings he intended to convey can go beyond those the human authors intended or understood. This answer presupposes a certain view of the mode of inspiration, i.e., the way the Scriptures were composed. It relies on a model in which God dictates the words and the authors write them down. That model has been largely rejected both by Protestants AND by Roman Catholics, as it cannot reasonably account for the variety of styles, vocabularies, personal flourishes, i.e., the distinctive marks of the respective authors’ personalities that we find in the various biblical texts.
Paul certainly wrote under inspiration, but that inspiration does not entail that Paul was “given” certain words to write and only reflected on them. As far as Paul was concerned, HE was coming up with the words; HE had a purpose in mind he was trying to get across; HE wanted to convey something to his community. To argue that the words are God’s rather than Paul’s is to present a false dichotomy; my point is that the human and divine intent are inseparable. Inspiration functions THROUGH the human intent, not outside of or in spite of it.
Inspiration does not always function the same in the composition of the various biblical texts. Some prophetic utterances were given in trance-like states; others required the full use of the prophet’s mind to shape and deliver. You cannot rightly presume that the same mode of inspiration generated Paul’s letters as generated Psalm 91.
As for your claim about the uncertainty of authorship, audience, etc., and your claim that there is little evidence that these texts were “intended for the original audience alone,” you are wrong on both fronts. Regarding the former claim, determining audience, provenance, and authorship from the New Testament documents is nowhere near as difficult as you presume.
The authorship of most NT books has excellent external attestation (and in the case of the epistles, clear SELF-attestation), and the texts are ADDRESSED to specific groups in specific places with particular problems that the authors express clear knowledge of. The OT is in many ways a different story, largely due to the relative lack of historical evidence to enable a reconstruction of the texts’ composition.
Nevertheless, the OT texts were written for the people of Israel, the people of God, not unregenerate humanity in general (thus Paul’s claim that to Israel were entrusted the oracles of God). Consequently, you are, historically speaking, completely wrong in your second claim - there is AMPLE evidence that these texts were intended for specific audiences. The burden of proof lies upon EVERYONE, including myself, who wants to argue that they have relevance beyond their original audiences.
And this is the key point where you are misunderstanding me, Pat - I am not saying that the texts were ONLY intended to speak to one generation. But here I would distinguish between the meaning of a text for its original audience and the RELEVANCE of that meaning for later readers. The bible still speaks to us because the authoritative message given to that audience 2000 years ago still applies to us today, because we, like the original audience, are the people of God.
This is the way the earliest church fathers understood it as well - they did not cite the gospels or the Pauline literature as Scripture, but as authorities. They recognized the problem of particularity, especially with the epistles, and did not deny it. They nevertheless realized that what Paul says about the importance of love in 1 Corinthians 13 or the nature of the gospel in Galatians is as true for later generations as it was for the original audiences. The texts have authoritative implications for us even though they don’t address us directly.
The writings were made accessible to anyone who could get their hands on it? The assembling of the canon made it more accessible? This is all false conjecture, Pat. History completes disagrees. Canonization did not make texts more accessible; it simply determined which texts were acceptable. While some major codices containing entire testaments existed, these were large, cumbersome volumes, and they weren’t available on the street. It’s not as if, after the fourth or fifth centuries, people could just pick a bible. Most people were illiterate!
You seem to think that Bibles were as available then as they are now, and that’s just false. In other words, canonization did NOT make the “bible” widely available; Protestants did that, as did the Renaissance and subsequent social developments that encouraged the spread of literacy among the populace. The availability of Scripture for the common man is a VERY late development.
And even your reference to the bible as “a complete work of God” is misleading. THERE IS NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED CHRISTIAN CANON. Catholics and Protestants differ significantly on which books they believe together constitute “the unified word of God.” As Brother Chris rightly notes, depending on which documents you juxtapose, you will end up with a very different perspective on what the word of God “says.”
Again, this is a false dichotomy. A text can have relevance for us even if its author did not compose it with us in his purview. The relevance series from the fact that we too are the people of God, and it is AS the people of God that Paul and Peter and Jude and James and John addressed their audiences.
Your analogy above confirms my previous point about the model of inspiration you are using. That model cannot stand up to scrutiny - it does NOT account for the distinctive marks of the individual personalities upon the texts; it assumes a completely simplistic writing process unknown to the ancient world (See R. Randolph Richard’s “Paul and First Century Letter Writing”); and it does not jibe with how the early church fathers (especially the ones closest to the time of the apostles) conceived of the way inspiration functioned, i.e., the relation between the divine and human intents.
The apostles were not simply prophetic secretaries; they crafted their words and arguments in response to particular problems in the communities under the authority of the apostolic office in which they functioned.
The biggest problem with your model, Pat, is that it assumes that ANYONE could have written Romans. You might not want to say it like that, but that is an unavoidable implication of your position. My point is essentially the same as B. B. Warfield’s a century ago - inspiration does not mean that God dictated to Paul what to write, but rather, that God was instrumental in crafting and growing Paul into the type of person who would write just such a document as Romans.
The authority of Paul’s writings stems not from the fact that “God is their true author and Paul merely God’s pen,” but rather from Paul’s unique relationship with God and the authority God gave him. Thus, Paul’s “opinion” about the meaning of Romans would not be an opinion at all; it is the final word about what that text meant, because Paul wrote it.
This point is ESPECIALLY significant with reference to John’s Apocalypse. Revelation is NOT a point by point account of a vision that the seer simultaneously experienced AND composed an account of. Read a couple of apocalypses from that time and you’ll see the obvious parallels, and if you know anything about the composition of texts in the ancient world (again, Richards’ “Paul and First Century letter writing”), you’ll realize that the seer couldn’t POSSIBLY have written fast enough to keep up with vision.
So while there were certain things that he was explicitly told to write down, the seer composed Revelation over a period of time after reflection upon the events that had transpired. In other words, the seer was intimately involved in drawing connections between Old Testament prophecies, crafting images, etc.; he wasn’t a passive vessel. There are some in fact who question whether John actually had a vision at all, given the clear similarities between his book and other apocalypses and the conventional tools employed by both.
And before anyone get’s uppity about the above comment, let me just make a quick point - Herbert’s novel “Dune Messiah” begins, “Muad’dib’s imperial reign generated more historians than any other era in human history” (I’ve read that book about a dozen times). Herbert writes of this event in the past tense, but Muad’dib is a fictional character in a series of stories set 10000 years in the future. Is Herbert lying, or is he rather following the conventions of sci-fi literature, conventions which we implicitly recognize and accept?
The same could be true of Revelation - if the claim to experience a vision simply function as a convention of the apocalyptic genre, then John would NOT be lying by following those conventions. While (for a a variety of reasons) I DO believe that John experienced a vision, my understanding of genre and view of inspiration do not NECESSITATE that I believe this way.
Your assumption here is proven false by Colossians 4:16, “after this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.” Despite the clear particularity of his letters, Paul recognized that his letters had relevance beyond the communities he tailored them for. It is not that Paul wrote Colossians with the Laodiceans in mind, but he recognized that he said things in the letter to one group that had significance for the other group as well.
And if you read carefully, I am not saying anything different. I am not opposing KingKai’s view. I am saying that their is more to consider then just what one group thought about it.
Besides, if you guys both believed as 1st century Christians, you’d both be Catholic.[/quote]
This is a COMPLETELY questionable assumption, Pat. This lies at the heart of the protestant/ Catholic divide. Protestants, like myself, do NOT believe that the distinctive beliefs of the Roman Catholic church were either reflected in the NT Scriptures (our primary source on first century Christianity) or were legitimate developments of the beliefs of the first century church. I make that claim on historical grounds. The purpose, mode, and meaning of the Eucharist for Catholics is not, in my estimation, reflected in the biblical texts. Petitioning of saints for aid, prayers for the dead, the belief in purgatory, the recapitulative sacrificial significance of the Eucharist, and the veneration of Mary are NOT reflected in the New Testament (or in the Deuterocanonical texts when read in light of their original Second Temple Jewish contexts).
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote: A better, accurate translation of the first 3 verses seems awkward in English: “In the beginning of God’s creating the heavens and the earth–and the earth was (startling) desolate and empty, with darkness upon the surface of the deep…” Note the tense–its like the past progressive; this is descriptive of events left incomplete in the past. The first action of God is not “created” but saying, “(Let there) be light.” [/quote]Now hold on just a second there Spanky. Are you meaning to imply either incompetence or dishonesty or both in EVERY one of these translators and translation committees? http://bible.cc/genesis/1-1.htm http://bible.cc/genesis/1-2.htm http://bible.cc/genesis/1-3.htm
Furthermore, even if your (or probably Alter’s) past progressive deal is accurate, that could mean 30 seconds. I know you’re not gonna try n say that the preponderance of early Jewish thought, though not uniform in detail, featured a large representation of a belief in millions of years in the Genesis narrative. [quote]DrSkeptix wrote: <<< chooses to follow the literal word of the Bible, one should be a literalist in the extreme, >>>[/quote]Nonsense man! Not every single statement of the bible is intended literally. Also, there are lies reported in the bible as well. [quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< and question the use of venerable but inaccurate translations. [/quote] Don’t take me wrong, you are an extraordinarily capable fella and yes I do remember that Hebrew is a native language for you. I mean no disrespect. However, just to be clear. You ARE advancing Alter’s as THE only reliable translation in history then? Because his method and results are quite often quite unique.
[/quote]
This really wasn’t my conversation, but even a background in modern Hebrew does not qualify one as an exegete. Alter’s The Art of Biblical Narrative is an excellent work, but he is not an exegete either. Moreover, for the record, an ostensibly “literal” translation is not a more accurate translation; certain phrases have to be translated idiomatically into English to be accurately represented.
Regarding your attempt to translate verse 1 as a dependent clause, there are two main problems. First, the arguments in favor of taking verse 1 as a dependent clause hold no water, as they are premised on an tenuous comparison with the beginning of the Enuma Elish and a mistaken assumption about the significance of the definite article’s absence on bereshit. Second, a common convention in Genesis is the beginning of a section with a summative statement. This is evident, for example, in the repetition of the phrase, “these are the generations” found throughout Genesis. Further supporting taking Genesis 1:1 as a summative statement is the parallel in 2:1, the closing verse of the section.
And for the record, though my Hebrew is nowhere near as good as my Greek, I’m not sure why you are taking a qal perfect verb as a past progressive; it is the imperfect that denotes progressive action, and the time designation is determined by context.[/quote]
First, I am not a native speaker of Hebrew. And my grammar is awful without a reliable guide.
Second, the lack of a definite article is irrelevant.
Third, the tense is not qal. In qal, it would read “elohim borach” --“God created.” BUt the text is clear: “borach elohim” a construction in the past tense closest to the awkward English idiom I used. (So the summary staatement issue is nice, and respected, but doesn’t hold here.) I would leave it to JB to correct my understanding of the binyan (construction) here.
Last, this is not taken from Alter’s translation; but from Richard Eliot Friedman’s translation as well as others.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote: A better, accurate translation of the first 3 verses seems awkward in English: “In the beginning of God’s creating the heavens and the earth–and the earth was (startling) desolate and empty, with darkness upon the surface of the deep…” Note the tense–its like the past progressive; this is descriptive of events left incomplete in the past. The first action of God is not “created” but saying, “(Let there) be light.” [/quote]Now hold on just a second there Spanky. Are you meaning to imply either incompetence or dishonesty or both in EVERY one of these translators and translation committees? http://bible.cc/genesis/1-1.htm http://bible.cc/genesis/1-2.htm http://bible.cc/genesis/1-3.htm
…
[/quote]
Yep. They are all inadequate. The KJV is so elegant and simple, how could one not use it, and copy it. But, to a grammarian, to a literalist, it is inadequate.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote: A better, accurate translation of the first 3 verses seems awkward in English: “In the beginning of God’s creating the heavens and the earth–and the earth was (startling) desolate and empty, with darkness upon the surface of the deep…” Note the tense–its like the past progressive; this is descriptive of events left incomplete in the past. The first action of God is not “created” but saying, “(Let there) be light.” [/quote]Now hold on just a second there Spanky. Are you meaning to imply either incompetence or dishonesty or both in EVERY one of these translators and translation committees? http://bible.cc/genesis/1-1.htm http://bible.cc/genesis/1-2.htm http://bible.cc/genesis/1-3.htm
Furthermore, even if your (or probably Alter’s) past progressive deal is accurate, that could mean 30 seconds. I know you’re not gonna try n say that the preponderance of early Jewish thought, though not uniform in detail, featured a large representation of a belief in millions of years in the Genesis narrative. [quote]DrSkeptix wrote: <<< chooses to follow the literal word of the Bible, one should be a literalist in the extreme, >>>[/quote]Nonsense man! Not every single statement of the bible is intended literally. Also, there are lies reported in the bible as well. [quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< and question the use of venerable but inaccurate translations. [/quote] Don’t take me wrong, you are an extraordinarily capable fella and yes I do remember that Hebrew is a native language for you. I mean no disrespect. However, just to be clear. You ARE advancing Alter’s as THE only reliable translation in history then? Because his method and results are quite often quite unique.
[/quote]
This really wasn’t my conversation, but even a background in modern Hebrew does not qualify one as an exegete. Alter’s The Art of Biblical Narrative is an excellent work, but he is not an exegete either. Moreover, for the record, an ostensibly “literal” translation is not a more accurate translation; certain phrases have to be translated idiomatically into English to be accurately represented.
Regarding your attempt to translate verse 1 as a dependent clause, there are two main problems. First, the arguments in favor of taking verse 1 as a dependent clause hold no water, as they are premised on an tenuous comparison with the beginning of the Enuma Elish and a mistaken assumption about the significance of the definite article’s absence on bereshit. Second, a common convention in Genesis is the beginning of a section with a summative statement. This is evident, for example, in the repetition of the phrase, “these are the generations” found throughout Genesis. Further supporting taking Genesis 1:1 as a summative statement is the parallel in 2:1, the closing verse of the section.
And for the record, though my Hebrew is nowhere near as good as my Greek, I’m not sure why you are taking a qal perfect verb as a past progressive; it is the imperfect that denotes progressive action, and the time designation is determined by context.[/quote]
First, I am not a native speaker of Hebrew. And my grammar is awful without a reliable guide.
Second, the lack of a definite article is irrelevant.
Third, the tense is not qal. In qal, it would read “elohim borach” --“God created.” BUt the text is clear: “borach elohim” a construction in the past tense closest to the awkward English idiom I used. (So the summary staatement issue is nice, and respected, but doesn’t hold here.) I would leave it to JB to correct my understanding of the binyan (construction) here.
Last, this is not taken from Alter’s translation; but from Richard Eliot Friedman’s translation as well as others.
[/quote]
You are completely wrong, Doc. bara is a finite verb, a qal perfect 3 masculine singular. Not sure where you are getting your misinformation, but it is a qal form. And the positioning of the subject “elohim” AFTER the finite verb is standard in biblical Hebrew (verb, subject, object) - the sentence reads, “bara elohim,” God created. I’ve got my BIblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (the standard Hebrew text) open right now.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote: A better, accurate translation of the first 3 verses seems awkward in English: “In the beginning of God’s creating the heavens and the earth–and the earth was (startling) desolate and empty, with darkness upon the surface of the deep…” Note the tense–its like the past progressive; this is descriptive of events left incomplete in the past. The first action of God is not “created” but saying, “(Let there) be light.” [/quote]Now hold on just a second there Spanky. Are you meaning to imply either incompetence or dishonesty or both in EVERY one of these translators and translation committees? http://bible.cc/genesis/1-1.htm http://bible.cc/genesis/1-2.htm http://bible.cc/genesis/1-3.htm
…
[/quote]
Yep. They are all inadequate. The KJV is so elegant and simple, how could one not use it, and copy it. But, to a grammarian, to a literalist, it is inadequate.
[/quote]
Take a course on translation theory - good grammarians aren’t literalists. They recognize that you cannot translate “literally” (what a meaningless word) from one language into another. An intelligible English sentence cannot follow the syntax of the hebrew exactly and successfully communicate the meaning.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote: A better, accurate translation of the first 3 verses seems awkward in English: “In the beginning of God’s creating the heavens and the earth–and the earth was (startling) desolate and empty, with darkness upon the surface of the deep…” Note the tense–its like the past progressive; this is descriptive of events left incomplete in the past. The first action of God is not “created” but saying, “(Let there) be light.” [/quote]Now hold on just a second there Spanky. Are you meaning to imply either incompetence or dishonesty or both in EVERY one of these translators and translation committees? http://bible.cc/genesis/1-1.htm http://bible.cc/genesis/1-2.htm http://bible.cc/genesis/1-3.htm
…
[/quote]
Yep. They are all inadequate. The KJV is so elegant and simple, how could one not use it, and copy it. But, to a grammarian, to a literalist, it is inadequate.
[/quote]
I’m guessing you would side more with Young’s literal translation from the links?
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote: A better, accurate translation of the first 3 verses seems awkward in English: “In the beginning of God’s creating the heavens and the earth–and the earth was (startling) desolate and empty, with darkness upon the surface of the deep…” Note the tense–its like the past progressive; this is descriptive of events left incomplete in the past. The first action of God is not “created” but saying, “(Let there) be light.” [/quote]Now hold on just a second there Spanky. Are you meaning to imply either incompetence or dishonesty or both in EVERY one of these translators and translation committees? http://bible.cc/genesis/1-1.htm http://bible.cc/genesis/1-2.htm http://bible.cc/genesis/1-3.htm
Furthermore, even if your (or probably Alter’s) past progressive deal is accurate, that could mean 30 seconds. I know you’re not gonna try n say that the preponderance of early Jewish thought, though not uniform in detail, featured a large representation of a belief in millions of years in the Genesis narrative. [quote]DrSkeptix wrote: <<< chooses to follow the literal word of the Bible, one should be a literalist in the extreme, >>>[/quote]Nonsense man! Not every single statement of the bible is intended literally. Also, there are lies reported in the bible as well. [quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< and question the use of venerable but inaccurate translations. [/quote] Don’t take me wrong, you are an extraordinarily capable fella and yes I do remember that Hebrew is a native language for you. I mean no disrespect. However, just to be clear. You ARE advancing Alter’s as THE only reliable translation in history then? Because his method and results are quite often quite unique.
[/quote]
This really wasn’t my conversation, but even a background in modern Hebrew does not qualify one as an exegete. Alter’s The Art of Biblical Narrative is an excellent work, but he is not an exegete either. Moreover, for the record, an ostensibly “literal” translation is not a more accurate translation; certain phrases have to be translated idiomatically into English to be accurately represented.
Regarding your attempt to translate verse 1 as a dependent clause, there are two main problems. First, the arguments in favor of taking verse 1 as a dependent clause hold no water, as they are premised on an tenuous comparison with the beginning of the Enuma Elish and a mistaken assumption about the significance of the definite article’s absence on bereshit. Second, a common convention in Genesis is the beginning of a section with a summative statement. This is evident, for example, in the repetition of the phrase, “these are the generations” found throughout Genesis. Further supporting taking Genesis 1:1 as a summative statement is the parallel in 2:1, the closing verse of the section.
And for the record, though my Hebrew is nowhere near as good as my Greek, I’m not sure why you are taking a qal perfect verb as a past progressive; it is the imperfect that denotes progressive action, and the time designation is determined by context.[/quote]
First, I am not a native speaker of Hebrew. And my grammar is awful without a reliable guide.
Second, the lack of a definite article is irrelevant.
Third, the tense is not qal. In qal, it would read “elohim borach” --“God created.” BUt the text is clear: “borach elohim” a construction in the past tense closest to the awkward English idiom I used. (So the summary staatement issue is nice, and respected, but doesn’t hold here.) I would leave it to JB to correct my understanding of the binyan (construction) here.
Last, this is not taken from Alter’s translation; but from Richard Eliot Friedman’s translation as well as others.
[/quote]
You are completely wrong, Doc. bara is a finite verb, a qal perfect 3 masculine singular. Not sure where you are getting your misinformation, but it is a qal form. And the positioning of the subject “elohim” AFTER the finite verb is standard in biblical Hebrew (verb, subject, object) - the sentence reads, “bara elohim,” God created. I’ve got my BIblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (the standard Hebrew text) open right now. [/quote]
One other point - qal is not a tense; it’s a stem. The tense is perfect; if progressive action were in view, the imperfect tense or a participle would have been used.
Edit: I apologize for that final comment. It sounded far more dismissive than I intended it. I simply meant that it is unwise to use linguistic arguments without having sufficient familiarity with the language.
Oh how KingKai reminds me of me at his age (maybe still). The tact and diplomacy of thermonuclear warhead LOLOLOL!!! I’m not making fun of any person here(not you either DrSkeptix), I’m jist kinda lightheartedly wincing as I read.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:<<< I’m guessing you would side more with Young’s literal translation from the links?[/quote] Yeah, I saw that. Interestingly that translation is like 150 years old or something.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote: A better, accurate translation of the first 3 verses seems awkward in English: “In the beginning of God’s creating the heavens and the earth–and the earth was (startling) desolate and empty, with darkness upon the surface of the deep…” Note the tense–its like the past progressive; this is descriptive of events left incomplete in the past. The first action of God is not “created” but saying, “(Let there) be light.” [/quote]Now hold on just a second there Spanky. Are you meaning to imply either incompetence or dishonesty or both in EVERY one of these translators and translation committees? http://bible.cc/genesis/1-1.htm http://bible.cc/genesis/1-2.htm http://bible.cc/genesis/1-3.htm
Furthermore, even if your (or probably Alter’s) past progressive deal is accurate, that could mean 30 seconds. I know you’re not gonna try n say that the preponderance of early Jewish thought, though not uniform in detail, featured a large representation of a belief in millions of years in the Genesis narrative. [quote]DrSkeptix wrote: <<< chooses to follow the literal word of the Bible, one should be a literalist in the extreme, >>>[/quote]Nonsense man! Not every single statement of the bible is intended literally. Also, there are lies reported in the bible as well. [quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< and question the use of venerable but inaccurate translations. [/quote] Don’t take me wrong, you are an extraordinarily capable fella and yes I do remember that Hebrew is a native language for you. I mean no disrespect. However, just to be clear. You ARE advancing Alter’s as THE only reliable translation in history then? Because his method and results are quite often quite unique.
[/quote]
This is what you get when you don’t realize that Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint.
Besides, if you guys both believed as 1st century Christians, you’d both be Catholic.[/quote]
Or Eastern Orthodox, I love it when Roman Catholics forget that one. I personally believe the Eastern Orthodox Church is more like the 1st Century Church than the current Roman Catholic Church.[/quote]
Yes, if by that you mean they lack development of Christian Doctrine. Their sacraments are of course valid, as well (because of Apostolic Succession). But, they lack the unifying agent, the man who occupies the Office of St. Peter.
Which traditions are these? And, how are the Orthodox lacking them? What about the teachings of the Apostles that St. Luke tells that the first converts held as true?
When was the New Testament Canonized? Who Canonized it?
Besides, if you guys both believed as 1st century Christians, you’d both be Catholic.
[/quote]
Not hardly.
1st century believers had none of the traditions, rituals, hierarchies and legalisms. They met in each other’s homes for worship.
Not hardly.
[/quote]
A priest came over to my house and celebrated Mass this afternoon and we worshipped the Heavenly Father. It be tough for the rest of my parish to fit into my house though.
None of the traditions? They didn’t even have the tradition of the Canon of Scripture…what do you think the teachings of the Apostles is?
So are apostles, presbyters, and deacons all on the same level?
Besides, if you guys both believed as 1st century Christians, you’d both be Catholic.
[/quote]
Not hardly.
1st century believers had none of the traditions, rituals, hierarchies and legalisms. They met in each other’s homes for worship.
Not hardly.
[/quote]
The traditions as well as the hierarchy started from there and they met in each others homes for mass, i.e. the breaking of bread of which Paul strenuously reminds the Corinthians in 1 Cor 11:17-26, not to understand it as anything other than the Real Presence.
The Apostolic traditions started in the 1st century, Evangelicalism did not start until the 15th century.
[/quote]
Not hardly.
The traditions, hierarchies, ritualism, etc. started in a century other than the first one. Constantine pretty much got the ball rolling in the 4th century.
The Book of Acts describes groups of believers who looked nothing whatsoever like ancient (post 4th century) or modern Catholics.[/quote]
Yes, if by that you mean they lack development of Christian Doctrine. Their sacraments are of course valid, as well (because of Apostolic Succession). But, they lack the unifying agent, the man who occupies the Office of St. Peter. [/quote]
The Patriarch in Constantinople. Also the Tradition of Priests and Nuns not being allowed to marry. The Eastern Orthodox church allows their Priests to marry, but if you want to be the Patriarch then you can not be married.