Luke 7:50

Originally posted by no1marauder
Why don't we publish some of your letters in the Bible and say they're inerrant Scripture? You claim that Jesus even now is "actively involved with the members of his church", so any one of their letters has the same authority as Paul's, right??

I think it is written in a couple places OT and NT not to add or subtract...
Anyway, I am nowhere near as knowledgeable, committed, etc as any of the Apostles, Paul or anyone in the 1st century church.
I don't know if there is anyone in the world today like these men. Christianity is certainly weak today. I admit that. But not because Christ is weak. We are. We are slow to believe His word, and the distractions today are a zillion times more than 2000 yrs, ago.
But I can say this...I am hot and cold...I know... but I have seen Christ work in my life. You didn't know me before, heck, you don't know me now. But I was headed in the wrong path, let's say. My life has changed in a dramatic way. I would have to say miraculous. And I know other Christian friends who can say likewise. And no, it is far more than coincidence. Maybe someday I'll have the courage to explain...have to call it a night....later.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I think it is written in a couple places OT and NT not to add or subtract...
Anyway, I am nowhere near as knowledgeable, committed, etc as any of the Apostles, Paul or anyone in the 1st century church.
I don't know if there is anyone in the world today like these men. Christianity is certainly weak today. I admit that. But not because Christ is weak. ...[text shortened]... coincidence. Maybe someday I'll have the courage to explain...have to call it a night....later.

It is written at the end of Revelation where is says:

I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone
adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this
book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic
book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy
city described in this book. (22:18-19)

It refers specifically to adding to the contents of Revelation, not
to the NT as a whole (which wouldn't even be put together in anything
resembling its current form for over 100 years after Revelation, not to
mention that consensus on adding Revelation happened significantly
after the other parts of the NT to boot!).

Do you believe Sirach and Baruch are Scripture, Checkbaiter?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
The issue isn't whether or not you have read them, but if you regard
them as Scripture. It is clear that the Jews of the early- to mid-
1st century regarded the contents of the Septuagint as Scripture and
those contents were what was incorporated into the RC Bible. After
over 1000 years of tradition, the Protestant Reformation decided that,
because [ ...[text shortened]... Jew.

So, I'll ask you again: do you accept 'Wisdom' or 'Baruch' as Scripture?

Nemesio

To that extent, English translations of those passages are translations of a translation. Hebrew is a radically different language than Greek. There is a saying somewhere in the Talmud about what a tragedy it was when the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek (i.e., the Septuagint). All the depth of the Hebrew language is lost, and we accept one-word translations as “right,” whereas, in the Hebrew there is no such thing as a one-and-only “right” meaning to any word—only layers and possibilities of meaning.

Originally posted by vistesd
To that extent, English translations of those passages are translations of a translation. Hebrew is a radically different language than Greek. There is a saying somewhere in the Talmud about what a tragedy it was when the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek (i.e., the Septuagint). All the depth of the Hebrew language is lost, and we accept one-w ...[text shortened]... ch thing as a one-and-only “right” meaning to any word—only layers and possibilities of meaning.

Naturally!

I have no objection to turning to the Hebrew of any of the
Septuagint's contents for a clearer understanding of that text's
meaning.

My issue here is content. Jesus's 'Scripture' was the Septuagint.
St Paul's 'Scripture' was the same. So, to omit those books and other
assorted contents would be to 'subtract from Scripture' as they knew it.
Whom should we trust for the contents of Scripture? Jesus, St Paul,
and 1000 years of Christian tradition or some grumpy 16th-century
Protestants?

It is this fact which I wish to hear Checkbaiter's commentary on.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Naturally!

I have no objection to turning to the Hebrew of any of the
Septuagint's contents for a clearer understanding of that text's
meaning.

My issue here is content. Jesus's 'Scripture' was the Septuagint.
St Paul's 'Scripture' was the same. So, to omit those books and other
assorted contents would be to 'subtract from Scri ...[text shortened]... y
Protestants?

It is this fact which I wish to hear Checkbaiter's commentary on.

Nemesio

Wait—was Jesus’ “scripture” the Septuagint??!!?? When he read from the scroll of Isaiah, was he reading Greek? Personally, I suspect Jesus was tri-lingual: Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek. Aramaic, the everyday local Semitic language. Hebrew, the religious language. Greek, the marketplace language. I would suspect that what he spoke in a given circumstance would’ve depended on who all he was talking to. Granted that Galilee (ha aretz ha Galeel) was quite “hellenized,” and that the Septuagint was written by Jews for hellenized Jews who could no longer read Hebrew, but…I’m not sure that there’s any evidence that Hebrew was ever supplanted as the liturgical language. In any event, that doesn’t mean that all Jews from Galilee had forgotten their Hebrew. It seems to me quite possible that all of Jesus’ statements in the Gospels were, from his lips, in Aramaic or Hebrew, and translated by the writers for a wider audience…

Paul may have quoted from the Septuagint; the NT writers may have used the Septuagint for their translations of passages from the Hebrew Scriptures—that does not mean that Jesus’ “scripture” was the Septuagint.

EDIT: I understand the question to CB, and the questions of canon and inspiration.

Originally posted by vistesd
Wait—was Jesus’ “scripture” the Septuagint??!!?? When he read from the scroll of Isaiah, was he reading Greek? Personally, I suspect Jesus was tri-lingual: Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek. Aramaic, the everyday local Semitic language. Hebrew, the religious language. Greek, the marketplace language. I would suspect that what he spoke in a given circum ...[text shortened]... ptuagint.

EDIT: I understand the question to CB, and the questions of canon and inspiration.

What you are suggesting is that the writers of the Gospels engaged in a redactive
process rather than faithfully reporting Jesus' literal words! For shame!

If the Gospels quotes the Septuagint, then that must have been what Jesus used!
QED! The literalist must grant this.

In all seriousness, I am unsure. I've heard arguments in both directions -- that
Jesus would have quoted Scripture in either Hebrew or Greek while speaking Aramaic.
The Septuagint was gaining in popularity in that region, so I don't consider it a far-
fetched notion. The only question I have is, if Jesus wasn't using the Septuagint,
what canon was He using (what was its contents)? Would they not be the same
as those in the Septuagint (if so, then the language used is moot)?

I'm ambivalent on the matter (since I am not a literalist), but given the peculiar
translations in the Gospels which indicate the Septuagint rather than a 'on-the-fly'
translation of Hebrew/Aramaic by the authors would strongly support a Septuagint-
reading Jesus to a literalist.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
What you are suggesting is that the writers of the Gospels engaged in a redactive
process rather than faithfully reporting Jesus' literal words! For shame!

If the Gospels quotes the Septuagint, then that must have been what Jesus used!
QED! The literalist must grant this.

In all seriousness, I am unsure. I've heard arguments in both directions ...[text shortened]... c by the authors would strongly support a Septuagint-
reading Jesus to a literalist.

Nemesio

What you are suggesting is that the writers of the Gospels engaged in a redactive process rather than faithfully reporting Jesus' literal words! For shame!

Yep.

The Septuagint was gaining in popularity in that region, so I don't consider it a far-fetched notion.

You’re probably right—again, especially since Jesus was a Galilean.

The only question I have is, if Jesus wasn't using the Septuagint, what canon was He using (what was its contents)? Would they not be the same as those in the Septuagint (if so, then the language used is moot)?

(1) There was no formal Jewish canon at the time, except for the Torah (the five books of Moses). Psalms was certainly recognized, for example, but I’m not sure that Esther was (there was some later dispute over admitting Esther to the Hebrew canon).

(2) No, the language used is not moot. To take a trivial example, the Hebrew word yirah is generally translated into English as “fear.” But the Hebrew term means something like “tremulous awe,” not fright or terror or being afraid of. (Remember, what a word “means” is what it means in the original language; when we say yirah “means” fear—or awe—what we are really saying is that is how we have translated it.) In the Septuagint, yirah becomes phobos, with a much heavier connotation of “fright.”

But the main thing is that the Greek does not allow for all the interplay of meanings embodied in the Hebrew with its consonantal root system--yirah, for example, carries meanings of reverence, wonder, something stupendous; it can also carry other connotations such as to teach or to guide, and to pour (as in water), to name a few. There were no vowels in ancient Hebrew, and the system of vowel points—by which meanings of words otherwise spelled the same can be differentiated by the vowel-points—was not developed until the 7th century C.E. or later. Hence, Biblical Hebrew of Jesus’ time was subject to a lot more “open reading” of the kind that midrash gets a lot of mileage out of. Rabbinical exegesis is based on hermeneutics that not only allow, but to a certain extent compel an “open reading.” All the hermeneutical nuances are lost in translation to a non-Semitic language, and the restrictive readings that sometimes result are antithetical to a reading in Hebrew.

Question: Given, as you say, the fact that the Septuagint was known and used at the time—wouldn’t it have made sense for the Gospel writers—writing in Greek—to look to the LXX for translations of OT passages, rather than do it “on the fly,” as you say? Even passages that Jesus might have spoken in Aramaic or Hebrew?

EDIT: There are two major streams of thought among scholars of the “historical Jesus”: the hellenistic (e.g., John Dominic Crossan) and the Judaistic (e.g., E.P. Sanders and Geza Vermes). They seldom seem to meet.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your groups are too judgmental for me esp. 2. One may well be doing the works described in Matthew 25 without thinking God owes them anything - they might not believe in an afterlife at all. If Matthew 25 is taken explicitly, they will be with Jesus as that passage makes no mention of "faith" or "grace" but speaks only of acts of kindness, mercy and ...[text shortened]... ested in from an intellectual standpoint, not your characterizations of other people's motives.

That is not the only time Jesus spoke about getting right with God,
and what was required. To get a clearer picture of Jesus one must
look at all the times he spoke about it.
Kelly

Originally posted by no1marauder
Do you ever stop writing such tedious posts? It is YOUR judgement that went into the description of the categories in YOUR post; you wrote it, not God. Many here seem to think that THEIR views are the same as God's, but I don't see much evidence of that. Please stop parroting the same bland assertions over and over again; if you have some Scriptural support for your position, use it. Otherwise, I'm not really interested in your vague musings.

I'll put together something for you for support of what I said, and
that will do what for you? Do you believe Jesus is the Son of God,
does what he said matter to you as from God?
Kelly

Originally posted by Nemesio
It is written at the end of Revelation where is says:

I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone
adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this
book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic
book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy
city described in this book. ...[text shortened]... of the NT to boot!).

Do you believe Sirach and Baruch are Scripture, Checkbaiter?

Nemesio

Deut 4:2
2 "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
(NKJ)

Deut 12:32
32 "Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.
(NKJ)

Prov 30:5-6
5 Every word of God is pure; he is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
6 Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.
(NKJ)

I cannot comment on Sirach or Baruch as scripture since I am not familiar with these books. I can only guess that you already know what todays Christian scholars say.
As far as what has been posted thus far, I have this to say....
With all due respect for you, No 1 and Vistesd, I cannot debate the historical knowledge you guys seem to possess. That is in regards to the canon of scripture, church history, etc. Although I am impressed with your knowledge of these matters, I have to say I am only familiar with the bible as it stands. I cannot intellectually debate you. I would have to do some research. Lot's of it.
I am a simple man with a love for God and His word. I can only debate what I know from todays translations. I have to say this....all I know is like the blind man that Jesus gave back his sight. I don't know how, I don't know where He is, I can only tell you that at one time I was blind and now I see.
I have learned over the years that if you look at the things of God looking to find facts on whether it is genuine, authentic, or when such and such a book was written, I believe you will find error or some "concrete" evidence that it is just books, letters and documents written by men. I went in not looking for these facts but for God to "reveal Himself" to me. He has. As I said, I cannot explain it, other than that I was blind and now I see. I cannot get into details on a public forum, since some of the events in my life are too personal.
I look at and read the scriptures today and am overwhelmed with God's plan, His goodness love and mercy.
I enjoy reading what all of you have to say. But I have to tell you, no matter what "evidence" you present, I can now see where before I could not. In other words, God has done a work in my life. He has left His "mark" so to speak, so that my faith is unshakeable.
🙂

You should be careful when you pull single lines out of context.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Deut 4:2
2 "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
(NKJ)

Deut 12:32
32 "Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.
(NKJ)

If you read these quotations in the context of their respective passages, it is clear that
God is saying that you shouldn't add to the commandments, not to Scripture itself.
As such, they have no bearing on our discussion (unless you think that Jesus shouldn't
have added the New Commandment in St John 13:31-35)

Prov 30:5-6
5 Every word of God is pure; he is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
6 Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.
(NKJ)

Let's say that this pertained not to the Torah but to the entirety of the Old Testament
(which had not been collected in any way by the time Proverbs was collated in the fifth
century BCE and likely written much before that). How then can you justify including
the Book of Joel (composed about 400 BCE) or Jonah (5th century BCE) or Malachi
(about 450 BCE)? Or, for example, the NT at all?!

I cannot comment on Sirach or Baruch as scripture since I am not familiar with these books. I can only guess that you already know what todays Christian scholars say.
As far as what has been posted thus far, I have this to say....
With all due respect for you, No 1 and Vistesd, I cannot debate the historical knowledge you guys seem to possess. That is in regards to the canon of scripture, church history, etc. Although I am impressed with your knowledge of these matters, I have to say I am only familiar with the bible as it stands. I cannot intellectually debate you. I would have to do some research. Lot's of it.

Make no mistake. Vistesd and I love the Bible. But we do not tacitly accept the
notion that it contains no error. We recognize that there is great inspiration in it,
things which can move people to a more considered existence. Whether it contains
error or not is immaterial; what matters is that it can drive us to lives of greater
compassion and spirituality.



I am a simple man with a love for God and His word. I can only debate what I know from todays translations. I have to say this....all I know is like the blind man that Jesus gave back his sight. I don't know how, I don't know where He is, I can only tell you that at one time I was blind and now I see.
I have learned over the years that if you look at the things of God looking to find facts on whether it is genuine, authentic, or when such and such a book was written, I believe you will find error or some "concrete" evidence that it is just books, letters and documents written by men. I went in not looking for these facts but for God to "reveal Himself" to me. He has. As I said, I cannot explain it, other than that I was blind and now I see. I cannot get into details on a public forum, since some of the events in my life are too personal.

I wouldn't ask you to reveal anything personal. But, let me ask you this: is it better to
live a life in denial of obvious contradictions or to confront them head on? Do you think
that God wants you to stick your head in the sand or that he wants you to grow in faith and
knowledge?

Furthermore, what do you think matters more? That St Luke and St Matthew don't agree
on various matters or that both of them reveal something about the nature of God that
brings you closer to Him and drives you to live a more Godly life on this earth?

And, at that point, what does 'Scripture' mean anyway? I mean, which of these two passages
is more inspired, more revealing of the Divine:

'When evening came, they went out of the city' (St Mark 11:19)

or

'Those who know all, but are lacking in themselves, are utterly lacking (St Thomas 67:1).

I loaded the deck, of course, by picking a totally inoccuous passage from St Mark
and a rather good one from St Thomas, but the point is clear: you can find revelation
in all sorts of places and, at times, the Bible's text doesn't help much.

I look at and read the scriptures today and am overwhelmed with God's plan, His goodness love and mercy.

You sound like you are looking for comfort. But that is not what Jesus came to bring.
He came to make people uncomfortable. The Pharisees were comfortabe people,
self-righteous and proud, following all he laws of God and making a big spectacle of
themselves. One of Jesus's essential points was, as long as there is suffering in the
world, His followers have a duty to relieve it. That suffering takes the form of hunger,
poverty, and oppression. No true Christian can ever go to bed satisfied or wake up
comfortable as long as some memeber of the human race is in need.

Let me ask you this simple question: Do you think that the Holocaust was part of God's plan?

I enjoy reading what all of you have to say. But I have to tell you, no matter what "evidence" you present, I can now see where before I could not. In other words, God has done a work in my life. He has left His "mark" so to speak, so that my faith is unshakeable.
🙂

I think that this is a shame. I think that to disregard evidence in light of absurd twisting
of language. A person who is interested in revelation is able to transcend words on a page.
The Bible didn't fall out of Heaven as it appears -- it was ratified by a bunch of people at
different times (and then, as I said before re-edited by the Protestants). Scholars may
quibble about this little word and that and some are just plain silly, but by and large, they
make many good points.

So what if St Luke made something up? Does the story arouse in you a greater understanding
of the Divine? If so, then it has done its job. And, so too would the poetry of Hildegarde von
Bingen, or the theological writings of St Thomas Aquinas or the exhortations of Luther or the
music of Ralph Vaughan Williams. It's okay to have a corpus of writing that inspires you
more than other writings, but the idea that God's Word is contained only in that text (especially
when the conditions under which the text was composed is very unsettling) is to deny the
continuous revelation of Truth which is the duty of all the faithful.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
You should be careful when you pull single lines out of context.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
[b]Deut 4:2
2 "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
(NKJ)

Deut 12:32
32 "Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; yo ...[text shortened]... to deny the
continuous revelation of Truth which is the duty of all the faithful.

Nemesio

[/b]You should be careful when you pull single lines out of context.

Your right, I was premature...

I wouldn't ask you to reveal anything personal. But, let me ask you this: is it better to
live a life in denial of obvious contradictions or to confront them head on? Do you think
that God wants you to stick your head in the sand or that he wants you to grow in faith and
knowledge?

To grow in faith and closer to Him, of course, the point I was making was concerning the change in my life. I wasn't very articulate...sorry.

You sound like you are looking for comfort. But that is not what Jesus came to bring.

Everyone wants comfort. Nothing wrong with that when it is needed. But I agree here with your premise. One quote I like is that "a good preacher comes to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable." Don't know the author. But I agree that God hates complacency.

Let me ask you this simple question: Do you think that the Holocaust was part of God's plan?

No. Do you? But I am now thinking, could it have been? I don't know, but I would tend to say no, at least not that He caused it.

You have made an impact on me, that is challenging. For this, thank you. I have some study to do and look forward to more discussions.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
You should be careful when you pull single lines out of context.

Your right, I was premature...

I wouldn't ask you to reveal anything personal. But, let me ask you this: is it better to
live a life in denial of obvious contradictions or to confront them head on? Do you think
that God wants you to stick your head in the sand or th ...[text shortened]... challenging. For this, thank you. I have some study to do and look forward to more discussions.

Don't study too hard Checkbaiter.lol.If you spend your life studying how are you going to live it?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Let me ask you this simple question: Do you think that the Holocaust was part of God's plan?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
No. Do you? But I am now thinking, could it have been? I don't know, but I would tend to say no, at least not that He caused it.

Well, if you believe that nothing comes into being that wasn't part of God's Divine Plan,
then you would have to concede that the Holocaust and all of its horrors, gruesome
deaths, torture and abuse (not to mention the deaths of millions of innocents) was part
of that Plan and that even one death fewer would have been a deviation from that Plan.

Does this make sense to you?

If so, then you would have to agree that God is a pervert, orchestrating the horrible,
suffering deaths of millions of innocent people.

If not, then you would have to concede that God is not in complete control of
what happens on this earth.

I most certainly believe the latter. I bristle every time someone says 'God's Plan.'

Nemesio

Originally posted by vistesd
(1) There was no [b]formal Jewish canon at the time, except for the Torah (the five books of Moses). Psalms was certainly recognized, for example, but I’m not sure that Esther was (there was some later dispute over admitting Esther to the Hebrew canon).[/b]

Of course not, but there were widely accepted books which comprised the
various local canons. It is my (limited) understanding that most of the
Septuagint was

(2) No, the language used is not moot.

You are dealing with specifics here. Of course the original language is critical.
But I wasn't wrestling with specific verses or even the contents. I was simply talking
about what books were considered 'Scripture' by Jesus and His followers. That is,
if Jesus considered Wisdom as scriptural (as the 'yoke is easy' passage indicates),
then Christians ought to accept it as scriptural, too (regardless of the language Jesus
knew it in). You are engaging my point mesoscopically, and I am looking at this
macroscopically.

Question: Given, as you say, the fact that the Septuagint was known and used at the time—wouldn’t it have made sense for the Gospel writers—writing in Greek—to look to the LXX for translations of OT passages, rather than do it “on the fly,” as you say? Even passages that Jesus might have spoken in Aramaic or Hebrew?

Hmm....I think your question would be better formulated like this: Given that the Gospel
writers (particularly St Luke) were catering to an audience who likely used the Septuagint,
wouldn't it make sense for them to use the LXX for Jesus's scriptural references in an effort
to make Him more appealing?

I don't know. It's a compelling question I've never been asked (or asked myself).

There are two major streams of thought among scholars of the “historical Jesus”: the hellenistic (e.g., John Dominic Crossan) and the Judaistic (e.g., E.P. Sanders and Geza Vermes). They seldom seem to meet.

I am not familiar with the Judaistic camp and their associated arguments. 🙁 My main
reading on the topic (which is scattered and incomplete) has been from the Hellenistic
school. 😕

I know you aren't busy with any other threads or topics or anything, so if you have a
summary handy, I wouldn't mind it. 😉

Nemesio