₦airaland Forum

Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 2,163,711 members, 4,714,623 topics. Date: Wednesday, 23 January 2019 at 06:49 PM

Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint - Religion (5) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint (3088 Views)

The Secret Letters Of Pope John Paul II; The Romantic Side Of Him. / Contra Bibliolatreia I Mark 10:5 / Was Pope John Paul Ii The Last Good Pope (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PaChukwudi44: 2:04pm On Nov 16, 2018
abegi the words bible and scriptures are not synonyms.All the books in the bible are scriptures but not all scriptures are in the bible.

The finally the bible does not have 66 books.That is a fallacy.The original bible as canonised by the church fathers had 73 books in it.If your bible is less than 73 books then better look for another name for it
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PaChukwudi44: 2:20pm On Nov 16, 2018
Where does the NT call whatever it is you are referring to (I think you mean the Apocrypha, but if you don't, please clarify) Scripture?

As I said, the Septuagint was popular for Gentiles and Jews who could not read Hebrew. Teachers like the Lord Jesus and the Apostles used it for convenience whenever it was not in error. Otherwise, they translated straight from the Hebrew.
how exactly did you get tis ridiculous conclusion bro?
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ihedinobi3: 5:21pm On Nov 17, 2018
PastorAIO:
LOL! You spout so much rubbish here that even your 2 supporters that have been liking everything you've posted so far have given up. Obviously they felt you needed the moral support.




It's been proving rather impossible so far for you to show the rubbish in my posts.

And you're the one talking about likes, not me. Classic appeal to popularity...or lack of it.


PastorAIO:
I asked you a question: You said I agreed with you on the matter, I asked you where I agreed with you and you responded with copious amounts of trash. All you have to do is show me where you said one thing and I responded in agreement. It's an easy request. I haven't lost any thread of the conversation. You are the one trying to make everything as convoluted as possible in the hope that the thread will be lost.



I'll take this to mean that you're unwilling for reasons of your own to engage productively anymore.


PastorAIO:


Nope! Stop being a dunce. I told you that I have a penchant for making up words. I thought I was making up a word - Bibliolatry. I make up words by deriving them from greek or latin, as a lot of english words are derived this way anyway.

It turns out that the word I thought I was making up actually already existed and it is used in the same way that intended for it to be used. obviously because I was using the same rules that determines how a lot of english words are formed.

If you had simply googled the word you would have found its meaning to be exactly as I had intended it.

And by the way, it is just a word, not an 'argument'. Bibliolatry is not an 'argument'. You really don't know what an argument is, do you?


argument
/ˈɑːɡjʊm(ə)nt/
2.
a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.
"there is a strong argument for submitting a formal appeal"



It is false that you said that you had a penchant for making up words. You said, "I made the word up myself". As I said, you've lost track of this discussion.

And why would I be googling a word in this case if I wasn't researching your arguments?

It should have been obvious by now that as far as you are concerned, there is no stopping my being a dunce since I am not going to agree with you on the reliability of the Bible. That is why I am a dunce, isn't it? Because I disagree with you and have the temerity to say so, right?

1 Like

Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO: 10:18am On Nov 26, 2018
Ihedinobi3:

It's been proving rather impossible so far for you to show the rubbish in my posts.

And you're the one talking about likes, not me. Classic appeal to popularity...or lack of it.


Au contraire, your posts are replete with rubbish. Pick any paragraph and the chances are 50/50 that it is complete utter rubbish. I, and not only I, have pointed this out to you over and over again.
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO: 10:22am On Nov 26, 2018
Ihedinobi3:



I'll take this to mean that you're unwilling for reasons of your own to engage productively anymore.


Nope, wrong again. I simply showed you that you were spouting rubbish. mendacious rubbish. You made a claim that I agreed with you on something. I asked you to show me where I agreed with you and you responded with copious amounts of rubbish instead of just showing where I said anything in agreement with you.
It's your inability to follow such a simple thread of conversation that leads me to concluded that you are an absolute dullard.
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO: 10:24am On Nov 26, 2018
Ihedinobi3:


It is false that you said that you had a penchant for making up words. You said, "I made the word up myself". As I said, you've lost track of this discussion.

And why would I be googling a word in this case if I wasn't researching your arguments?

I've said this so many times in my history of Nairaland, but perhaps you missed it.

Why would you google a word you didn't know, or understand? You tell me smartypants. Especially as you want to respond to the thread, why would you google it to find out what it is you are responding to?
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO: 10:28am On Nov 26, 2018
Ihedinobi3:


It should have been obvious by now that as far as you are concerned, there is no stopping my being a dunce since I am not going to agree with you on the reliability of the Bible. That is why I am a dunce, isn't it? Because I disagree with you and have the temerity to say so, right?

No, wrong again.

You are a Dunce because you cannot follow an argument and you fail to answer simple questions. You are a dunce, not so much because you make daft arguments but because you are stupid enough to think that you can get those daft arguments past me.
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ihedinobi3: 1:57pm On Nov 26, 2018
So, after nine days, you come back to throw more insults and make spurious claims.

I believe we are done now. You have no further arguments to make, no ability to hold up the claims in your OP and no ability to actually effectively counter anything I have said. And I am not just saying that: the proof is in the reading.

Basically, your thread fails to show that the Bible that Christians rely on today has any problems such as you labored to show in your OP. The Septuagint was a fair work as far as it went but it was problematic and the work of the Masoretes later on to produce a faithful reproduction of the original Tanakh did not produce anything that can be considered an invention without connection to what existed prior to the Septuagint nor can it be considered a derivative of the Septuagint in any way.

Furthermore, the Bible is a living book able and ready to declare its identity to anyone who asks. It is not some dumb book that councils pronounce upon and events happen to. It defends itself and has remained accessible through the millennia to all those who seek the Truth in spite of the obvious attacks on it by men like you, PastorAIO.

That is my conclusion.
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO: 2:34pm On Nov 26, 2018
Ihedinobi3:
So, after nine days, you come back to throw more insults and make spurious claims.

I believe we are done now. You have no further arguments to make, no ability to hold up the claims in your OP and no ability to actually effectively counter anything I have said. And I am not just saying that: the proof is in the reading.

Basically, your thread fails to show that the Bible that Christians rely on today has any problems such as you labored to show in your OP. The Septuagint was a fair work as far as it went but it was problematic and the work of the Masoretes later on to produce a faithful reproduction of the original Tanakh did not produce anything that can be considered an invention without connection to what existed prior to the Septuagint nor can it be considered a derivative of the Septuagint in any way.

Furthermore, the Bible is a living book able and ready to declare its identity to anyone who asks. It is not some dumb book that councils pronounce upon and events happen to. It defends itself and has remained accessible through the millennia to all those who seek the Truth in spite of the obvious attacks on it by men like you, PastorAIO.

That is my conclusion.

As idiotic as ever. Why couldn't you just address accurately what I wrote? Why can't you just follow an argument and answer questions that are asked of you when you make claims?

Anyway, in your mind you are very clever and that's all that matters to you, it seems. In spite of the fact that everyone else on this thread has told you you are off point.
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ubenedictus(m): 7:15pm On Nov 28, 2018
JMAN05:


Are you saying that those bible books in that quote aren't there or what?
of course there are books not in that list, that list is actually what a child should read, hence iranaeus and Cyprian make it.

Jerome tells us what he considered to be canonical scripture, 22 books of the Hebrew canon, he also gave a list of what he considered ecclesiastical scripture according to the churches deuterocanonical.

it is books that do not make both lists of scripture that are called aprocryphal.



If you had read the write up where he favored 22 books, you will understand that from context, he never viewed those books as inspired. You will also note that when he used apocryphal, he meant those books you class as deuterocanonicals. I dont know on what he was over ruled, what I know from his writings, is that he doesnt view these books as inspired. Jerome's writing in that paragraph leaves no doubt as to what he meant. read it ursef.

Where is this list in the bold faced words? Is it part where he mentioned the 22 books?
sadly you are the one who seem ignorant on this.

Jerome lists two lists he considered scripture, one list he called canonical, the other list he called ecclesiastical, both he referred to as scripture. the deuterocanon is classed as ecclesiastical scripture not apocryphal.

the first list goes thus;


These instances have been just touched upon by me (the
limits of a letter forbid a more discursive treatment of
them) to convince you that in the holy scriptures you can
make no progress unless you have a guide to shew you the
way...Genesis ... Exodus ... Leviticus ... Numbers ...
Deuteronomy ... Job ... Jesus the son of Nave ... Judges ...
Ruth ... Samuel ... The third and fourth books of Kings ...
The twelve prophets whose writings are compressed within
the narrow limits of a single volume: Hosea ... Joel ... Amos
... Obadiah ... Jonah ... Micah ... Nahum ... Habakkuk ...
Zephaniah ... Haggai ... Zechariah ... Malachi ... Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel ... Jeremiah also goes four
times through the alphabet in different metres
(Lamentations)... David...sings of Christ to his lyre; and on
a psaltry with ten strings (Psalms) ... Solomon, a lover of
peace and of the Lord, corrects morals, teaches nature
(Proverbs and Ecclesiastes), unites Christ and the church,
and sings a sweet marriage song to celebrate that holy
bridal (Song of Songs) ... Esther ... Ezra and Nehemiah.
(Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post Nicene
Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953, Volume VI, St.
Jerome, Letter LIII.6-8, pp. 98-101).


the second list include;
As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of
Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical
Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom
of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the
people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church...I
say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of
Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of
Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables
of Bel and the Dragon...
(Ibid., Volume VI, Jerome, Prefaces
to Jerome's Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of
Songs; Daniel, pp. 492-493).

Jerome was against all apocryphal and advised they should not be read, but not so the deuterocanon, be states it edifies.




You are still quoting Jerome out of context. Jerome was stating the church views the Septuagint as inspired, yet when they read the book of Daniel, they port to the translation by Theodotion. Theodotion and the Hebrew Bible didnt add the book of Daniel as a prophetic book. they added Daniel as among the Writtings, not Prophets. This angered Rufinus, but Jerome was following what was already in place. It wasnt his invention. That was the judgment of the churches he followed. But he however, ridiculed the double standard, asked Rufinus why they would prefer a translation by a Jew and discard his own, a christian.
no dear, I didn't quote him off context, have you read Jerome Vulgate of Daniel? it is from the Greek and contains the dueterocanonical parts, if he considered is apocryphal and not to be read, why did he translate it? Jerome neither liked the theodoton version but he was happy to repeat that he was submitting to the judgement of the churches. that should tell u something

In his reference on the apocryphals, he highlighted a story told by a certain Jewish Teacher mocking the writings of those apocryphals. It is this writings that Rufinus charged against him, but Jerome saw it as laughable why Rufinus will charge such against him. He was not renoucing his view of the apocryphals.
and he denied holding such opinions.
y
In one of his writings he stated this:

"...[b]from the Old Testament which is not found in our manuscripts. For example, `Out of Egypt have I called my Son' (Matt 2:15): `For he shall be called a Nazarene' (Ibid. 23): and `They shall look on him whom they pierced' (John 19:37): and `Rivers of living water shall flow out of his belly' (John 7:38): and `Things which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man, which God hath prepared for them that love him' (I. Cor. 2:9), and many other passages which lack their proper context. Let us ask our opponents then where these things are written, and when they are unable to tell, let us produce them from the Hebrew. The first passage is in Hosea, (11:1), the second in Isaiah (11:1), the third in Zechariah (12:10), the fourth in Proverbs (18:4), the fifth also in Isaiah (64:4). Being ignorant of all this many follow the ravings of the Apocrypha, and prefer to the inspired books the melancholy trash which comes to us from Spain"[/b]

This is just one example of how he view those books.
and the passage quoted by Stephen can't be found in the Hebrew text, the virgin birth can't be found there either nor certain text quoted in the book of Hebrew but they are all in the Septuagint.

of course Jerome hated the apocryphal, but he never classed the deuterocanon as apocryphal, he classed them as ecclesiastical, so the quote above is not about the deuterocanon but about works that came from Spain, the deuterocanon isn't from Spain.

1 Like 1 Share

Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by JMAN05: 4:52am On Dec 28, 2018
Ubenedictus:
of course there are books not in that list, that list is actually what a child should read, hence iranaeus and Cyprian make it.

Jerome tells us what he considered to be canonical scripture, 22 books of the Hebrew canon, he also gave a list of what he considered ecclesiastical scripture according to the churches deuterocanonical.

it is books that do not make both lists of scripture that are called aprocryphal.



sadly you are the one who seem ignorant on this.

Jerome lists two lists he considered scripture, one list he called canonical, the other list he called ecclesiastical, both he referred to as scripture. the deuterocanon is classed as ecclesiastical scripture not apocryphal.

the first list goes thus;


These instances have been just touched upon by me (the
limits of a letter forbid a more discursive treatment of
them) to convince you that in the holy scriptures you can
make no progress unless you have a guide to shew you the
way...Genesis ... Exodus ... Leviticus ... Numbers ...
Deuteronomy ... Job ... Jesus the son of Nave ... Judges ...
Ruth ... Samuel ... The third and fourth books of Kings ...
The twelve prophets whose writings are compressed within
the narrow limits of a single volume: Hosea ... Joel ... Amos
... Obadiah ... Jonah ... Micah ... Nahum ... Habakkuk ...
Zephaniah ... Haggai ... Zechariah ... Malachi ... Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel ... Jeremiah also goes four
times through the alphabet in different metres
(Lamentations)... David...sings of Christ to his lyre; and on
a psaltry with ten strings (Psalms) ... Solomon, a lover of
peace and of the Lord, corrects morals, teaches nature
(Proverbs and Ecclesiastes), unites Christ and the church,
and sings a sweet marriage song to celebrate that holy
bridal (Song of Songs) ... Esther ... Ezra and Nehemiah.
(Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post Nicene
Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953, Volume VI, St.
Jerome, Letter LIII.6-8, pp. 98-101).


the second list include;
As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of
Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical
Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom
of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the
people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church...I
say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of
Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of
Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables
of Bel and the Dragon...
(Ibid., Volume VI, Jerome, Prefaces
to Jerome's Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of
Songs; Daniel, pp. 492-493).

Jerome was against all apocryphal and advised they should not be read, but not so the deuterocanon, be states it edifies.




no dear, I didn't quote him off context, have you read Jerome Vulgate of Daniel? it is from the Greek and contains the dueterocanonical parts, if he considered is apocryphal and not to be read, why did he translate it? Jerome neither liked the theodoton version but he was happy to repeat that he was submitting to the judgement of the churches. that should tell u something

and he denied holding such opinions.
y
and the passage quoted by Stephen can't be found in the Hebrew text, the virgin birth can't be found there either nor certain text quoted in the book of Hebrew but they are all in the Septuagint.

of course Jerome hated the apocryphal, but he never classed the deuterocanon as apocryphal, he classed them as ecclesiastical, so the quote above is not about the deuterocanon but about works that came from Spain, the deuterocanon isn't from Spain.

I dont know where you got the understanding that Jerome posited that apocryphal should not be read. I think Rufinus did say that. Jerome from my understanding is saying you can read it, but not as an authority as we do to the inspired scriptures.

2. Jerome's letter to Laeta was on the education of her daughter. In other words, books to rely on for education of the child. That is not to say she was to carry all rose books and give to her when she is still a child for her to read. Don't misunderstand that point.

3. From what I read in your comment, it seems we come to some agreement. My point is that Jerome never viewed the writing in addition to the 22 as inspired and authoritative. The issue seem to be on the word "apocrypha". Well, if you agree that Jerome never viewed those books as inspired and authoritative as Genesis Exodus etc, am very much OK with that. That's my point irrespective of the word used.

1 Like

Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ubenedictus(m): 8:07pm On Jan 01
JMAN05:


I dont know where you got the understanding that Jerome posited that apocryphal should not be read. I think Rufinus did say that. Jerome from my understanding is saying you can read it, but not as an authority as we do to the inspired scriptures.

2. Jerome's letter to Laeta was on the education of her daughter. In other words, books to rely on for education of the child. That is not to say she was to carry all rose books and give to her when she is still a child for her to read. Don't misunderstand that point.

3. From what I read in your comment, it seems we come to some agreement. My point is that Jerome never viewed the writing in addition to the 22 as inspired and authoritative. The issue seem to be on the word "apocrypha". Well, if you agree that Jerome never viewed those books as inspired and authoritative as Genesis Exodus etc, am very much OK with that. That's my point irrespective of the word used.



1. That means you are ignorant of Jerome's attitude to the apocryphal, he taught that they shouldn't be read and brought great harm, I already quoted that but for the dueterocanon he says they are rightly read for edification.

2. As for your point 2 you have simply agreed with me, that is a list for the education of a child not an exhaustive treatment on the canon.


3. I have been clear that Jerome did call them scripture and thus inspired, I have also been clear that Jerome regarded them as having lesser authority than the protocanon, the same way jews classed the Torah above the prophets and writings.

I have also been happy to remind you that Jerome is one church father and that as usual the council overrides any single individual.
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ubenedictus(m): 12:33pm On Jan 03
Ihedinobi3:

'Locked up until they finished' is rather weird. The whole thing was also presented as some sort of possible reason why the Septuagint must have been so special to "the Church".



What's the alternative? The Bible just magically appears on all mantelpieces and shelves with an angel standing right next to it to make sure we all know it came from God?



It contradicts the idea that the Septuagint was as big an authority for the Church as you represented in your argument.



It certainly clarifies the issue. The Septuagint had problems and was no miracle. Chances are that those who cared then knew that the Septuagint was no miracle and therefore used it carefully. So, while the emerging monolithic Roman tradition at the time may have made an idol out of it contending with Jews too for their own reasons, that was not necessarily the story of the Christian Church.



I don't think you and I have enough history on this forum to warrant the thought. The reason I pointed it out is that small exaggerations and inflections and minor overstatements and understatements in an argument tend to add up to a very convincing but false argument. In this case, you are attacking the reliability of the Bible as the true Word of God and you did it so cleverly that an unprepared believer could be significantly damaged by your efforts.
just to put this long argument in perspective.

Do you deny that scripture quoted in the New Testament show a marked difference from what is presented in the masoretic text?

Do you deny that the same masoretic text shows a marked difference from the Vulgate which was translated from the hebrew and even the Greek text?


If you don't deny these then how do you account for the differences, subtraction, additions and editing?

1 Like 1 Share

Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ihedinobi3: 8:49am On Jan 06
Ubenedictus:
just to put this long argument in perspective.

Do you deny that scripture quoted in the New Testament show a marked difference from what is presented in the masoretic text?

Do you deny that the same masoretic text shows a marked difference from the Vulgate which was translated from the hebrew and even the Greek text?


If you don't deny these then how do you account for the differences, subtraction, additions and editing?
There are differences of different sorts between different manuscripts, copies and translations of the Bible. This is only proof that none of them is the original and therefore must not be treated as the original.

There is a perfect examplar of the Scripture to which every copy and translation should ideally seek to approximate. It is true that that exemplar is not easy to find but because the Bible is the very Word of God, it is spiritual. So when we humbly read different manuscripts and copies and translations, we are going to notice when things are straight and when they don't quite add up. This is how we can often tell which manuscripts are really good and which are really terrible.

The Masoretic is the best manuscript out there, as far as I know. But I don't believe that it is a perfect exemplar, that is, that it perfectly preserves the original writings of the original writers of Scripture. So, it will differ in some respects from other manuscripts out there. In some cases, some of those manuscripts will preserve the original writings better and in some worse. But all told, it is the best of them. This is also true of the Sinaiticus.

Happy New Year to you, Ubenedictus.
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ubenedictus(m): 11:26am On Jan 10
Ihedinobi3:

All right. It's probably a misunderstanding on my part.


Indeed. Was it not you who mentioned how some Jews think that some books are too holy to even be touched much less read? That is, they consider them inaccurate somehow. An example is the Book of Daniel. There is no escaping such arrogance once any individual or group of people makes such arrogant claims as you do.

1. I didn't talk about any book considered too holy, it seems you misunderstood what I wrote. I did speak about the jews deciding and arguing about the books that DEFILED the hands.

2. Not I single claim I have made thus far is arrogant, on the contrary it seems your position is largely ignorant.
The Bible did not fall from the sky, it was written by the community of God's people, first Israel and later the church, it was this community that had the responsibility of recognising which books were inspired and which weren't. Israel and later the church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit created the bible as we know it. That my dear is a truism.

Of course, you didn't create the Bible. You just like to think that you did because of the false sense of spiritual superiority you derive from such a lofty thought. What you did was do your best to corrupt the Bible and neutralize it with your traditions.
here comes the silly submissions I have come to expect from protestants. I personally did not create the Bible but the church most certainly did under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is not about a false sense of spiritual superiority it is just a fact that is easily proved. The old testament written and collected by jews the New Testament written by members of the church recognised as scripture by the church collated and added to the old by the same Church.

Unless of course you imagine that the Bible fell from heaven... At that point I will know you are joking.


One, your claim that the Church knew that it was the Septuagint that was referred to is completely unimpressive. If I ask you for proof, are you going to go much further than "the Roman Church says so"? When you say "the recipient seemed to be clear that scripture for them was the Greek canon...", what do you mean?
I don't even need to appeal to the church of Rome, I simply ask you to look at the new testament in your hands where the majority of old testament quotes come from the Septuagint and it gets better when you realize that the writer were jews who knew that what they were quoting wasn't exactly the same with the Hebrew and yet went on to use it anyway. Then just for the fun of it you can add the earliest Christian writings from the first and second centuries then it becomes crystal that the early church is pretty stuck in imitating the apostles and using the Septuagint as they did.

So dear, the church did know the scriptures it used both from the new testament and in the writings of the early Christians, it is the Septuagint. And instead of appealing to Rome I could very well appeal to protestant scholars who themselves will tell you that the Septuagint was the scriptures of the early church.

If that isn't convincing dear, then it is not the argument that is faulty, it is you who prefers to maintain your untrue opinion irrespective of the facts

Two, your claim that the Jews were arguing about the Canon until the 2nd Century is equally unimpressive. As I said, it matters nothing what was going on about what was Canon. If the writer and the readers were confused about the Canon, the term Scripture would have meant one thing for one and another for the other and that would require the writer to clarify what he meant. The absence of that clarification meant that both sides knew exactly what Scripture meant and needed no further clarification.

Then you make this very curious statement:

"That a person said " scripture " to another doesn't mean they necessarily had a set list of what was considered scripture."

What on earth do you mean? How can someone use a word for which they have no meaning in order to communicate to somebody else something that they hope that that person will understand? In what other way can the word "Scripture" be used beyond to mean "the sacred writings"? How would anyone Apostle use it without meaning some specific list of writings? Explain to me how this is not disingenuity on your part.
this only makes my point that you are ignorant of this topic.

Jews have been talking to each other about scriptures for centuries in that period even though one synagogue differed from another on what exactly that list consists of.

My argument about the Jew arguments on what is scripture still stands. If scripture had this identifying feature how come for centuries no one could see it and authoritatively say this is is, the elusive feature, and all will simply agree. Unless of course you revert and say this feature isn't that easily recognizable.

Yes, I do recognize those names. What I don't actually see to recognize is any reason to believe that "while Paul was still alive churches were reading his letters as scripture but his letters weren't the only ones been read that way". Where did you get this information? Not from the Vatican Archives, did you? I'm guessing, probably.
this is the second time you have insinuated something about Rome instead of actually making research, what is it about Rome that pains you so?

Since you seem ignorant of it maybe you can read up Eusebius historical work on the early church, he gives a lot of information about books accepted and where they were accepted.



Go on and list out the nonsense that I mixed up. I do you the same favor, don't I?

What does your second paragraph mean if the Bible is "one line of thought" and if it "tells one story"? What is the essential difference between saying that and saying that it is one book because all the books in there share one essence? As for the deuterocanon, that is your claim and I really don't credit it. If you want it to be part of the Scriptures for you, by all means, carry on. I don't accept them as such since the Spirit in the 66 books is lacking in them. As for the greeting, I accept your argument and reiterate that with or without the presence of such a claim (which I made quite clear wasn't necessary at all), the identifying feature of Scripture is that it is "God-breathed" or "God-inspired". That is, if you cannot detect the Breath of God in it, then it is not Scripture no matter whether it makes a claim to be or does not make a claim to be Scripture.
I can write 3 books on the fall of Rome, or my pals and I can do it, it will have one line of thought but it still isn't one book. They are 3 books.

How do you detect this "spirit " of the text, give me the criteria you used to determine the presence or absence of the spirit or you just sit and arbitrarily throw books in and out?

This God breathedness become more interesting when the church says James is God breathed and Martin Luther says it is an epistle of straws... How are they so wrong when this God breathedness is so easily recognizable?

Who decides the person that is rightly seeing this God breathedness or should everyone decide for himself what is God breathed and what isn't according to his recognition of the God breathedness (recipe for chaos)?

Again, where do you get the information you post here outside of the Vatican Archives? Not that it matters since Paul himself warned at least one church that he ministered to about letters purported to be from him or "the apostles" (2 Thess 2:2,15). There may have been others so warned. If some of those churches didn't heed his warnings, then, of course, they had a confusion in their collection of writings.
so they too couldn't recognize the easily recognizable God breathedness? Tell me again, how recognisable is the God breathedness?



How do you say that you never appealed to popularity and right in the same sentence say this:

"how come the entire church recognized the Septuagint with it deuterocanon as scripture"?

And then start the very next sentence with this:

"So the entire church weren't good enough to see the feature wasn't in the deuterocanonical books..."?

Do you not understand what an appeal to popularity is?
you claim there is a feature that is easily recognizable that determines that a writing is scripture, of a great majority can't recognize the easily recognizable feature, then how easily recognizable is that feature? Truth doesn't have to be popular, but if you claim it is easily recognizable then you better have an explanation for why it clearly isn't.

Perhaps if you try a little harder you could get me to talk about Luther. I am not interested in your history lessons, Ubenedictus. My argument is that the Scripture says that it is God-inspired. That means that if you can detect the Spirit of God or the Breath of God in a writing, then you have Scripture on your hands. It says nothing about Luther or your Roman Church. This is why I will continue to dismiss them as red herrings. Perhaps you can now admit that you don't believe the Bible or care what it says. Maybe that could get me to talk about Luther?
of course you can't talk about Luther, he puts a dent on your easily recognizable strain of argument.

As I earlier said I do believe the scriptures are inspired, but if you tell me that the current books of the Bible make that claim for themselves individually and collectively I'll certainly disagree, if you say that every human being is able to see this feature then I'll have to ask you why you believe that for centuries you think the church didn't really see the feature.

There. That was my point. We all decide individually. You decide what you want to believe and others do too for reasons each prefers. This is why your church and yourself may scream it till you're blue in the face but I will still not accept the Apocrypha as Scripture. Same way no amount of atheistic noise and bluster would ever make me believe that there is no God.
so Christianity is a religion where each individual decides for himself what is truth? That is pretty relativistic.... If each man is the determiner of truth creating a chaos of opinion then what is the use of a pillar and bulwark of truth ? What is the use of the church besides fellowship? What does Act 15 teach us?



But wasn't that obvious from before you joined? My argument from the beginning was that the Bible identifies itself to the inquirer. No one can identify the Bible to anyone else. If you cannot believe the Bible's own testimony about itself, whatever else you choose to believe is going to be false. So, why are you here debating with me? Did I at any time indicate a need to be advised what is and what is not Scripture?
if it is the bible that identifies itself then why then do you hold that so many got it wrong or do you mean the Bible identifies itself to the protestant confirming what he had already been taught.



Try a little harder. You might get it this time.
This is not an counter argument. maybe you could try again.


You would love to believe that, wouldn't you? That would give you Romans the excellent loophole to sell whatever you want God to be saying. Unfortunately, you are not the only ones who can claim that God gave them the right to speak for Him in the world. That is why there are so many "Bibles" and "holy writings". It's a travesty, really. Again, Paul says:

2 Timothy 3:16
[16]All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness

That is, Scripture (unless you have some reason for questioning that 2 Tim 3:16 is Scripture - not that I would care though, but still) says that "all Scripture is inspired or breathed by God". So, yeah, the Bible does say that the Bible is God's Word.
actually that same passage clarifies that it is referring to books Timothy knew from childhood I.e the old testament, at best in context it says the old testament is inspiring and profitable. It wasn't talking about the bible as we have it since there was no bible then much of those books hadn't been written.

As for your claim about what and what is part of the true Bible, again, "all Scripture is breathed by God". If it wasn't breathed by God, it isn't Scripture. I couldn't care less if the whole world swore that it is. So, continuing to throw your claims about the Roman Church in my face is wasting time and energy.
how do you recognize the God breathedness?

LOL. So, instead of so many Bible creators, let's just have any old one that can blackmail and bully its way into the top spot? No, Ubenedictus, Scripture identifies itself. Those who fail to discern it are those who don't want to discern it for themselves. This is where exactly the Roman Church belongs: among those who don't want the Bible to be the Very Word of God, just as you have so vociferously and unequivocally insisted that it does not claim to be.
another ignorant claim, where did you hear the Catholic Church doesn't believe the bible is God's word, the issue here is that you have presented a nondescript discernment by each individual while I believe God gave us the church endowed with his spirit and the promises of divine preservation to save us from the chaos of relativistic individualism that today plagues protestant Christian with their varieties of contradictory teaching.

BTW, your church claims the authority to tell everyone what God says and is it itself devoid of this chaos you speak of?
yes dear, with councils and bishops teaching and explaining scriptures, we always know where we stand whether in orthodoxy or heresy. That chaos is largely absent.

Then again, the books are in contention and yet there are plenty enough people who are not confused about what is Scripture and what isn't. There is always chaos on the battlefield but not so much that at least a few soldiers don't know what side they are on and what they are fighting against.
it is itself a scandal that there is confusion as to what is scripture. What you noted above simply tells me that each group simply follows the decisions they were taught


BTW, bonus point: Tobit 12 is a completely different attitude toward educating us about angels than anything you will find in the 66 books commonly accepted by Protestants.
on the contrary Tobit is pretty on point about angels, God's messages sent to serve us and inform us of God's will and interceed. Nothing strange there.

1 Like 1 Share

Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ubenedictus(m): 1:32pm On Jan 10
Ihedinobi3:

There are differences of different sorts between different manuscripts, copies and translations of the Bible. This is only proof that none of them is the original and therefore must not be treated as the original.

There is a perfect examplar of the Scripture to which every copy and translation should ideally seek to approximate. It is true that that exemplar is not easy to find but because the Bible is the very Word of God, it is spiritual. So when we humbly read different manuscripts and copies and translations, we are going to notice when things are straight and when they don't quite add up. This is how we can often tell which manuscripts are really good and which are really terrible.

The Masoretic is the best manuscript out there, as far as I know. But I don't believe that it is a perfect exemplar, that is, that it perfectly preserves the original writings of the original writers of Scripture. So, it will differ in some respects from other manuscripts out there. In some cases, some of those manuscripts will preserve the original writings better and in some worse. But all told, it is the best of them. This is also true of the Sinaiticus.

Happy New Year to you, Ubenedictus.
so I guess it is simply a stroke of luck that the masoretic text deletes and edited a great deal of the prophesies that talk of Jesus Christ even though the Hebrew Texts Jerome used have them?

The text edited from manuscripts and Jewish tradition from the 4th till the 10th century deleting prophesies about Jesus is the best text according to you while those translated before at most by the 5th century are troublesome abi?
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ubenedictus(m): 10:21am On Jan 11
Ihedinobi3:

There are differences of different sorts between different manuscripts, copies and translations of the Bible. This is only proof that none of them is the original and therefore must not be treated as the original.

There is a perfect examplar of the Scripture to which every copy and translation should ideally seek to approximate. It is true that that exemplar is not easy to find but because the Bible is the very Word of God, it is spiritual. So when we humbly read different manuscripts and copies and translations, we are going to notice when things are straight and when they don't quite add up. This is how we can often tell which manuscripts are really good and which are really terrible.

The Masoretic is the best manuscript out there, as far as I know. But I don't believe that it is a perfect exemplar, that is, that it perfectly preserves the original writings of the original writers of Scripture. So, it will differ in some respects from other manuscripts out there. In some cases, some of those manuscripts will preserve the original writings better and in some worse. But all told, it is the best of them. This is also true of the Sinaiticus.

Happy New Year to you, Ubenedictus.

www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/07/heres-something-about-the-bible-of-the-first-christians-i-bet-many-of-you-didnt-know-youre-welcome/amp/


There is a little post with a book relevant to the discussion.


Wish you the best for the new year
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO: 3:31pm On Jan 11
Ubenedictus:


www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/07/heres-something-about-the-bible-of-the-first-christians-i-bet-many-of-you-didnt-know-youre-welcome/amp/


There is a little post with a book relevant to the discussion.


Wish you the best for the new year

Thanks so much for this great link. Some passages of interest from it are:

Before there was a New Testament, the Bible of the first Christians (the writers of the New Testament and the early Church) was a Greek translation of the Old Testament. The general term used to designate that translation is “Septuagint.”

Think about that: the Old Testament of the New Testament writers and of the early Church was a translation–and an imperfect one at that.

....

Any translation of the Bible is much more than a mirror copy (just think of how English translations differ from each other). In many places in the Septuagint, yes, one is reading word for word the same text found in the Hebrew. In many other places, however, the translation yields different theological emphases than those found in the Hebrew Bible; the translation has created new meanings.

.....


Careful study reveals that the Septuagint version is definitely the earlier form of the story–the Septuagint didn’t just “leave things out” by mistake. It was translated from an earlier version of the Hebrew Bible where these details were absent. The version of the story we know is a later, expanded, version.

I don't know why this point has to be argued from so many different angles. I repeat the point I keep making over and over again that the sheer fact that the Death of Moses is mentioned in the Pentateuch means that Moses couldn't have written it in the form we have it now. If Moses wrote it then it has been redacted by later editors.

One thing we do not need to wait any longer to say is this: the existence of multiple forms of scripture (Greek and Hebrew) in antiquity, both before, during, and after the time of Christ, did not bother early Christians. The search for an “original text” on which to ground one’s faith is a distinctively modern worry. Even when Christians began recognizing divergences between the Jewish Scriptures and their own, many saw it as an opportunity to discover more than one way to understand divine communication.

I would say that the clamour for the 'original text' is political. It is nothing but an attempt to wrest authority away from the Church. And further, if the 'original text' can be said to be mystical wishy washy whereby we can't actually go and reference it then that leaves even more room for the likes of Ihedinobi to twist and turn.
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ubenedictus(m): 6:18pm On Jan 11
PastorAIO:


Thanks so much for this great link. Some passages of interest from it are:





I don't know why this point has to be argued from so many different angles. I repeat the point I keep making over and over again that the sheer fact that the Death of Moses is mentioned in the Pentateuch means that Moses couldn't have written it in the form we have it now. If Moses wrote it then it has been redacted by later editors.



I would say that the clamour for the 'original text' is political. It is nothing but an attempt to wrest authority away from the Church. And further, if the 'original text' can be said to be mystical wishy washy whereby we can't actually go and reference it then that leaves even more room for the likes of Ihedinobi to twist and turn.
I'll wait for ihedinobi to react.
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ubenedictus(m): 6:23pm On Jan 11
PaChukwudi44:

how exactly did you get tis ridiculous conclusion bro?
It is truly ridiculous because the apostle were happy to use the greek even when it differed considerable from the hebrew! In fact they used those differences to emphasize christian theology

1 Like

Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by budaatum: 2:58am On Jan 12
Ubenedictus:


www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/07/heres-something-about-the-bible-of-the-first-christians-i-bet-many-of-you-didnt-know-youre-welcome/amp/


There is a little post with a book relevant to the discussion.


Wish you the best for the new year
You guys just about blow my mind with this thread!
Cc Martinez19
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ubenedictus(m): 3:01pm On Jan 12
budaatum:

You guys just about blow my mind with this thread!
Cc Martinez19
nothing particularly special here oga. It is old news that the bible we are holding today developed over several centuries.

1 Like

Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by budaatum: 6:59pm On Jan 12
Ubenedictus:
nothing particularly special here oga. It is old news that the bible we are holding today developed over several centuries.
Yes it's old news, especially for those who bother to read a book or two. But do you realise there's very many who its new news to because they got to read it on here?

Don't sell yourself short please. Not everyone knows what you all have managed to show here!
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ihedinobi3: 12:00am On Jan 16
Ubenedictus:

1. I didn't talk about any book considered too holy, it seems you misunderstood what I wrote. I did speak about the jews deciding and arguing about the books that DEFILED the hands.
I was phrasing it the way Jews say it, sorry about the confusion. The Jews use the word "holy" in that sense as well. But the point made in my comment was that they too act with arrogance toward the Bible pretending to decide what is accurate in it and what isn't, that is, what is to be received as authentic and true and what is not to be.


Ubenedictus:
2. Not I single claim I have made thus far is arrogant, on the contrary it seems your position is largely ignorant.
The Bible did not fall from the sky, it was written by the community of God's people, first Israel and later the church, it was this community that had the responsibility of recognising which books were inspired and which weren't. Israel and later the church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit created the bible as we know it. That my dear is a truism.
I wouldn't expect you to agree with me on this and I don't believe there is any actual discussion possible in this matter. I am confident that no human community has ever had any responsibility of any sort to decide (I'm sure that that was the word you should have used) which books are inspired and which are not. I am only to take your word for it that there has ever been any such community. And I don't trust you that much.


Ubenedictus:
here comes the silly submissions I have come to expect from protestants. I personally did not create the Bible but the church most certainly did under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is not about a false sense of spiritual superiority it is just a fact that is easily proved. The old testament written and collected by jews the New Testament written by members of the church recognised as scripture by the church collated and added to the old by the same Church.

Unless of course you imagine that the Bible fell from heaven... At that point I will know you are joking.
The Bible was written by inspired men, all of whom were incidentally Jewish. I have no doubt of that. What I will not accept because I have no real reason to accept it is that the Roman Church had any authority or power to "recognize" the Scripture.


Ubenedictus:
I don't even need to appeal to the church of Rome, I simply ask you to look at the new testament in your hands where the majority of old testament quotes come from the Septuagint and it gets better when you realize that the writer were jews who knew that what they were quoting wasn't exactly the same with the Hebrew and yet went on to use it anyway. Then just for the fun of it you can add the earliest Christian writings from the first and second centuries then it becomes crystal that the early church is pretty stuck in imitating the apostles and using the Septuagint as they did.

So dear, the church did know the scriptures it used both from the new testament and in the writings of the early Christians, it is the Septuagint. And instead of appealing to Rome I could very well appeal to protestant scholars who themselves will tell you that the Septuagint was the scriptures of the early church.

If that isn't convincing dear, then it is not the argument that is faulty, it is you who prefers to maintain your untrue opinion irrespective of the facts
What's with all this "dear"? Do you have a problem typing my name or using a more formal epithet? Please, cease addressing me in that manner.

As for your argument here, Paul often quoted pagan poets and philosophers. Should we enshrine those works as inspired Scripture too and put them in a Canon? I told you that this line of reasoning is unimpressive. It still is.


Ubenedictus:
this only makes my point that you are ignorant of this topic.

Jews have been talking to each other about scriptures for centuries in that period even though one synagogue differed from another on what exactly that list consists of.

My argument about the Jew arguments on what is scripture still stands. If scripture had this identifying feature how come for centuries no one could see it and authoritatively say this is is, the elusive feature, and all will simply agree. Unless of course you revert and say this feature isn't that easily recognizable.
I won't even bother to explain again how this is a ridiculous argument.


Ubenedictus:
this is the second time you have insinuated something about Rome instead of actually making research, what is it about Rome that pains you so?

Since you seem ignorant of it maybe you can read up Eusebius historical work on the early church, he gives a lot of information about books accepted and where they were accepted.
A church claims to have the authority to tell everyone just what is the Word of God and what isn't and you ask me what about it that pains me so? Very funny.

As for your response, I guessed right after all, didn't I? Anyway, I take all my information about church history from the Bible. Every other source is treated very delicately. Therefore, I can't credit your claims here either.


Ubenedictus:
I can write 3 books on the fall of Rome, or my pals and I can do it, it will have one line of thought but it still isn't one book. They are 3 books.

How do you detect this "spirit " of the text, give me the criteria you used to determine the presence or absence of the spirit or you just sit and arbitrarily throw books in and out?

This God breathedness become more interesting when the church says James is God breathed and Martin Luther says it is an epistle of straws... How are they so wrong when this God breathedness is so easily recognizable?

Who decides the person that is rightly seeing this God breathedness or should everyone decide for himself what is God breathed and what isn't according to his recognition of the God breathedness (recipe for chaos)?
I think that you know that your argument here is ridiculous. For all intents and purposes, if there is just one theme running through multiple writings, they are one subject. It is not always practicable to put one work in a single volume so we may have them in several but they are still considered of one unit. The Bible is one unit so its multiple books will all fit with each other to produce a consistent narrative.

As for the inspiration of Scriptures, I have little interest in responding to deliberate obtuseness. I have already explained on this thread that just as you can tell whether a given bit of literature was written by someone is to look at them or things they have done for clues into their nature, you can look at Creation which itself demonstrates the Nature of God. If anyone accepts the witness of Creation as to what God is like, they will be able to discern His Character in His Writings.


Ubenedictus:
so they too couldn't recognize the easily recognizable God breathedness? Tell me again, how recognisable is the God breathedness?
This life is all about free will.


Ubenedictus:
you claim there is a feature that is easily recognizable that determines that a writing is scripture, of a great majority can't recognize the easily recognizable feature, then how easily recognizable is that feature? Truth doesn't have to be popular, but if you claim it is easily recognizable then you better have an explanation for why it clearly isn't.
Free will is the explanation you want.


Ubenedictus:
of course you can't talk about Luther, he puts a dent on your easily recognizable strain of argument.
LOL. The thing your opponent does not want to address is always the thing with which you win. What's new about that? I don't want to discuss history, Ubenedictus, because it misses the point.


Ubenedictus:
As I earlier said I do believe the scriptures are inspired, but if you tell me that the current books of the Bible make that claim for themselves individually and collectively I'll certainly disagree, if you say that every human being is able to see this feature then I'll have to ask you why you believe that for centuries you think the church didn't really see the feature.
You're welcome to disagree all you want. The Bible says what it says. And if your belief that it is inspired does not derive from its own claim to be, it is that much less surprising that you think any human being has any right to decide what God says and what He doesn't.


Ubenedictus:
so Christianity is a religion where each individual decides for himself what is truth? That is pretty relativistic.... If each man is the determiner of truth creating a chaos of opinion then what is the use of a pillar and bulwark of truth ? What is the use of the church besides fellowship? What does Act 15 teach us?
You are the one saying that each man is the determiner of truth. That only comes from your insistence that it is men who decide what is true and what isn't. You only prefer to have more people making the decision than less. I hold no such sentiments.

I believe rather that the Bible is the Truth independent of any human notions about it. And I hold that each human being is able to tell for themselves whether or not this is so. That is why we each have a free will and why we each have the senses and brains that we have. I have never much liked "faith by committee" too.


Ubenedictus:
if it is the bible that identifies itself then why then do you hold that so many got it wrong or do you mean the Bible identifies itself to the protestant confirming what he had already been taught.
Like I said, free will.


Ubenedictus:
This is not an counter argument. maybe you could try again.
Did that merit a counter argument?


Ubenedictus:
actually that same passage clarifies that it is referring to books Timothy knew from childhood I.e the old testament, at best in context it says the old testament is inspiring and profitable. It wasn't talking about the bible as we have it since there was no bible then much of those books hadn't been written.
LOL

Ubenedictus:
how do you recognize the God breathedness?
Asked and answered.


Ubenedictus:
another ignorant claim, where did you hear the Catholic Church doesn't believe the bible is God's word, the issue here is that you have presented a nondescript discernment by each individual while I believe God gave us the church endowed with his spirit and the promises of divine preservation to save us from the chaos of relativistic individualism that today plagues protestant Christian with their varieties of contradictory teaching.
You're welcome to your belief however wrong it may be.


Ubenedictus:
yes dear, with councils and bishops teaching and explaining scriptures, we always know where we stand whether in orthodoxy or heresy. That chaos is largely absent.
Unity in error is not much better than chaos. Even so, any study in Roman Catholic history will uncover enough reversals in interpretation as to leave one spinning. So, no, even if you are all standing together, you are not necessarily all agreed.


Ubenedictus:
it is itself a scandal that there is confusion as to what is scripture. What you noted above simply tells me that each group simply follows the decisions they were taught
I don't see it the same way you do.


Ubenedictus:
on the contrary Tobit is pretty on point about angels, God's messages sent to serve us and inform us of God's will and interceed. Nothing strange there.
If Tobit is, none of the 66 books that Protestants accept is. Go figure.
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ihedinobi3: 12:07am On Jan 16
Ubenedictus:
so I guess it is simply a stroke of luck that the masoretic text deletes and edited a great deal of the prophesies that talk of Jesus Christ even though the Hebrew Texts Jerome used have them?

The text edited from manuscripts and Jewish tradition from the 4th till the 10th century deleting prophesies about Jesus is the best text according to you while those translated before at most by the 5th century are troublesome abi?
Maybe one day I'll trust you enough to believe every single thing you say without question. But today is not that day.
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ubenedictus(m): 9:10am On Jan 16
Ihedinobi3:

Maybe one day I'll trust you enough to believe every single thing you say without question. But today is not that day.
I never asked you to believe everything I said, but I am happy to challenge you to make research on each point I have made so far. Both on the masoretic text and the development of the bible.

I could provide the material myself but u clearly said you don't want that. So what we have here is simple, you dont agree, you are not willing to look at anything that shows you've gat it wrong.
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ihedinobi3: 5:12pm On Jan 16
Ubenedictus:
I never asked you to believe everything I said, but I am happy to challenge you to make research on each point I have made so far. Both on the masoretic text and the development of the bible.

I could provide the material myself but u clearly said you don't want that. So what we have here is simple, you dont agree, you are not willing to look at anything that shows you've gat it wrong.

I think you are still failing to appreciate my position.

I don't believe your historical arguments because they are false. I know enough history to know that they are. But I fully understand that when people have a vested interest in a certain point of view, they will twist everything to serve it. That is why I don't care much for your references and sources.

Just to demonstrate to you that I am not inept with such things: my approach to attacking what I consider as false ideas is to research the point of view of those who hold it and then expose the weaknesses from within. That is why I actually know quite a bit about Roman Catholic history. I used to attack it. You should remember. I do. From 2012/2013. One of my sources then was "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" by Bokenkotter, a Roman Catholic Priest. You and italo, I believe, attacked the authenticity and reliability of that source and tried to invalidate the authority of the author. I am not sure now if Syncan was part of that discussion or not. But I think Pa Chukwudi 44 was also there then.

I am not afraid at all of your "material". If something is untrue, it caves in time under pressure. I just don't really care to attack Roman beliefs anymore. You will also notice that I don't attack atheism anymore either. I just defend against it. That is what I have been doing here too. When you joined PastorAIO, then I had to defend against Roman beliefs as well.

So, in short, I know the material here about as well as any average person needs to since I am not a historian. But that is really beside the point. The point is just that I know that it is obviously ludicrous that any group of humans can have the authority to decide what comes from God and what doesn't when God Himself created each human being with the ability to discern not only His Existence but His Nature. Just thinking about it is enough to show its ridiculousness. But then the Bible itself makes it clear that it is inspired by God and that the Existence and attributes of God are manifest to all so that anyone who reads the Bible with an honest heart will admit that they are reading the Very Mind of God.

But why would a group hankering after power over all human beings ever admit anything that threatens that power?
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ihedinobi3: 11:06pm On Jan 16
PastorAIO:
I don't know why this point has to be argued from so many different angles. I repeat the point I keep making over and over again that the sheer fact that the Death of Moses is mentioned in the Pentateuch means that Moses couldn't have written it in the form we have it now. If Moses wrote it then it has been redacted by later editors.
Joshua wrote a book of the Bible. He was handpicked to succeed Moses who was a type of the Lord Jesus Himself. Joshua was not just a contemporary of Moses's; he was also his closest associate and assistant, a sort of second-in-command. Why does it not occur to you that this man would have completed Deuteronomy?


PastorAIO:
I would say that the clamour for the 'original text' is political. It is nothing but an attempt to wrest authority away from the Church. And further, if the 'original text' can be said to be mystical wishy washy whereby we can't actually go and reference it then that leaves even more room for the likes of Ihedinobi to twist and turn.

Why you like namedropping me I can't tell.
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO: 12:00pm On Jan 17
Ihedinobi3:

Joshua wrote a book of the Bible. He was handpicked to succeed Moses who was a type of the Lord Jesus Himself. Joshua was not just a contemporary of Moses's; he was also his closest associate and assistant, a sort of second-in-command. Why does it not occur to you that this man would have completed Deuteronomy?



Why you like namedropping me I can't tell.

I have no interest in any further discussions with anybody that has declared and demonstrated that he is not willing to discuss truthfully with me.

I mentioned your name in context of a conversation I was having with someone else in which your character served as a perfect example of what I was talking about. I was not addressing you. I would appreciate it if you kindly ceased to address me too.

Abeg, in the name of God and whatever demon you are worshiping, just carry your Personality Disorder commot from my side.

I thank you in advance.

1 Like

Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO: 12:04pm On Jan 17
Ubenedictus:
I never asked you to believe everything I said, but I am happy to challenge you to make research on each point I have made so far. Both on the masoretic text and the development of the bible.

I could provide the material myself but u clearly said you don't want that. So what we have here is simple, you dont agree, you are not willing to look at anything that shows you've gat it wrong.


Ihedinobi3:

The Bible expressly told me not to offer the Truth to people who don't want it. So I try not to.

Without a doubt you would fall into the category of 'those who don't want it', Uben, so you can safely assume that he has been nothing but untruthful since he took you for such.
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PaChukwudi44: 1:25pm On Jan 17
From 2012/2013. One of my sources then was "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" by Bokenkotter, a Roman Catholic Priest. You and italo, I believe, attacked the authenticity and reliability of that source and tried to invalidate the authority of the author. I am not sure now if Syncan was part of that discussion or not. But I think Pa Chukwudi 44 was also there then

Bokenkotter did not live during the patristic age and thus does not have the locus standi to write about events that happened then.That is common sense bro
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ihedinobi3: 1:48pm On Jan 17
PastorAIO:


I have no interest in any further discussions with anybody that has declared and demonstrated that he is not willing to discuss truthfully with me.

I mentioned your name in context of a conversation I was having with someone else in which your character served as a perfect example of what I was talking about. I was not addressing you. I would appreciate it if you kindly ceased to address me too.

Abeg, in the name of God and whatever demon you are worshiping, just carry your Personality Disorder commot from my side.

I thank you in advance.
You are incredibly dishonest, PastorAIO.

Regardless, I answered your post because you mentioned me in it. Typically, I would ignore it. But I was pleased to this time. I am the offended party, not you. I don't make a practice of abusing those whom I discuss with like you do when they take positions that oppose me. That's you. Therefore I discuss with you if I am willing to tolerate such behavior.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Reply)

A Taboo: Watch D Pic / Loneliness And Singleness Are Different Things! / Femi Aribisala And His War Against Apostle Paul - Christians ONLY

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2019 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 647
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.