Bishops, Elders & Deacons

[Guest]

Hi CatholicSteve-

sorry for the late reply- i was out for a few days.

I think you may have misunderstood my prior post; my wife was raised in the RC church, catholic school and all. so i think she has a good understanding of what the mass is all about. it certainly doesnt give her the creeps. in fact, she gets a little testy when i critique RC. however, i stand by my prior statement that her life was not transformed until she came out of the RC church. the same is true of other former RCs that attend my church (including my pastor). and like i said, the RC mass only gave me the creeps the 1st couple of times i attended, but i got over it. i kind of like it now, in a curious sort of way- especially when they tinkle those little bells. i am sure that if i attended a protestant church where people are handling snakes and drinking poison, it would give me the creeps as well.

and i must admit that you are right; i really dont have a lot of interest in reading or listening to dr hahn, simply because i have no interest in RC apologetics. this is because the chance of me "going over" to the RC church is essentiallty nil. I will, however, check out his website; hopefully there is stuff there that i can read or listen to.

my bigger interest is in trying to get some of the traditionalism out of the protestant church i attend, which is a lot less traditional than many protestant churches. i certainly dont think that the "average" protestant church is the "ideal." i simply think that the average RC church is less so. based upon what I know of Jesus, gleaned from scripture, i just get the feeling that He would find all the trappings and formalism of the RC church somewhat distasteful.

go ahead, you can yell at me. i can take it!

TK

[Guest]

Hi, Sean,

Also, I would love to have the Greek OT in my bible instead of the Hebrew!

Whatcha thinkin' here?


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

I wouldn't mind having a parallel OT in my bible, but it might make it thicker than I want. The NT writers often quote the Sept rather than the Heb. and it would be nice to compare the texts.

[Guest]

Hi, Christopher,

I wouldn't mind having a parallel OT in my bible, but it might make it thicker than I want. The NT writers often quote the Sept rather than the Heb. and it would be nice to compare the texts.

The LXX is essential for critical study of NT materials. But as you might agree, most laypeople are not prepared to responsibly engage that kind of interpretive work. Comparing an English translation of a Hebrew text with an English translation of a Greek text, with little knowledge of textual analysis or of period literature and hermeneutics, seems like a recipe for misunderstanding.

Also, my experience with the LXX has led me not to place too much trust in Brenton's English translation. There has been work on an Eastern Orthodox translation in recent years, and perhaps it will turn out to be more literal / less dynamic.


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

The Catholic Christian OT Bible has a dimension of 20,000 cubits vs the Jewish 10,000 cubits.

Which Catholic Bible is that, Catholic Steve?

The Catholic Douay Bible has 10,000.

How does one determine which Catholic Bible is the infallible one?

[Guest]

Hi, Sean,

Also, I would love to have the Greek OT in my bible instead of the Hebrew!

Whatcha thinkin' here?


Shlamaa,
Emmet

The NT writers quote from the LXX, so it must be the best! 8)

[Guest]

Keep focused, guys. Everyone lambasted me for asking/taking on too many threads, so again your investigation about 10K cubits vs 20 K cubits is great. I will check into that, but that is a deflection of the initial question/post.

Is anyone going to answer the question....is the Protestant Bible truly and wholly 100% truth? Is it God Breathed scripture? If yes, than then there are no other God Breathed scripture, correct?

If you say, no...that the Protestant Bible is not truly and wholly 100% truth, God breathed scripture, than what is?

Your replies have been interesting, ie, "...wouldn't mind having a parallel OT in my bible, but it might make it thicker than I want.", "LXX is essential for critical study of NT materials (whoa!!)..etc, but unfortunately they literally go against your very Protestant Bible. Why does the Protestant [Church] claim to use the Hebrew text because it is unadulterated, yet they actually use sections/concepts of the Greek?

It appears that some of you feel that with hybridization of Hebrew and Greek is OK, but is it out of mere convenience because it is hard to explain? Virgin birth case in point, Virgin vs Young Woman because Christians (Greek Text) validate the virgin birth, yet the Jews deny a virgin birth therefore they say it was a Young Woman (Hebrew Text).

Sean you state "The NT writers quote from the LXX, so it must be the best!" Well, if the NT writers find it the best why aren't you using it as your "best" truth? Would I be correct, Sean, that you know very little about the Protestant and Catholic OT differences? There is no malice meant, but your statement blows me away (others, especially Protestants?) because it is soooo un-Protestant, yet you cite sources as it being the "best"


Peace out, Catholic Steve


Dear TK,

Can we stay focused also with your claim that [you have never seen the Mass in the NT]? I don't want to go down another thread but stay focused on your claim. I am giving you an opportunity to see/read/hear the Mass throughout the NT. I am doing so in a very generous way using audio tape/CD so there is minimal/no effort here for you.

Now, either you are afraid to even listen to the argument, prejudiced against any Catholic Christian argument or possibly afraid that your wife may hear it and say "Wow" (maybe you too, but I doubt it). I had/have a very strong feeling that you would decline my very kind offer. Per your posts you appear not even close to accepting a discussion on your statement but now merely give me some song & dance to deflect the offer to discuss your comment/position. You appear to like to make the statements, but not wish to have any give-take discussion on it. Since that is the case, maybe next time keep your comments closer to your vest unless you wish to discuss a topic rather than making some fool-hardy comment. In all walks of life (especially Christian 1 Peter 3:15), you are way off base by taking your Protestant "apologetic" shotgun out and blasting away and then "walking away". Your comment and then walking away reminds me of the disciples that walked away from Jesus when He said to eat and drink His body & blood .... no way, as they scurry away because now they have to put up or shut up.

Christ's Peace, Catholic Steve

[Guest]

CS-

rather than me having to listen to a CD that explains where the RC mass was done in the NT, why dont you just tell me? or tell me where to look, and i will check it out. recall that i also said that i dont see much of traditional protestant services going on in the NT either. so i wasn't being specific to the RC mass.

i'll admit that i am pretty much arguing from the gut, and experience. As far as "walking away" from the argument, I dont consider this (what we are doing) to be an argument. I am certainly not trying to convince you of anything; i am simply making personal observations. this is a discussion forum; i dont see the need to footnote every comment i make with scholarly works on the subject. by the same token, you simply are not going to convince me that the RC way of doing things is the way to go, no matter how many scholarly works you cite. You can consider this closed-minded if you wish, because it is! but i didn't decide this just for the fun of it. it is simply based on personal conviction. there is enough wrong with the RC church (the encouragement of the idolatry of Mary, e.g.) that convinces me of its error. Yes, i realize this is a rather close-minded statement, and you will likely state that the RC church encourages no such thing. we simply disagree.

maybe some others here, who are much smarter than I, can explain why they dont participate in the RC mass. i feel something like a lone wolf, because as far as i know there arent any other RCs that participate regularly in this forum. By all means, if any of you regulars are considering going over the RC church, let me know why! and if you are not, let me know why!

You may have the idea that I am RC-phobic or something, or that i think all RCs are going to hell-- hardly. some (most?) of them are, but so are some (most?) protestants.

TK

[Guest]

Hello, Sean,

Thank you for answering!

The NT writers quote from the LXX, so it must be the best! 8)

I'm not sure how tongue-in-cheek this is, thanks to the cool shades .

Setting aside the issue of to what extent the example of the NT writers should be considered emulable in a modern context, the NT writers do not use a standard protocol for quoting OT sources. Oftentimes their citations fit the LXX, but sometimes they approximate the Hebrew MT, and sometimes they correlate to neither (e.g., sometimes there is a parallel to the Targums). Beyond this, in cases where NT citations appear to fit the LXX, it is not necessarily given that they are working from the Greek OT; Hebrew texts found amongst the Dead Sea Scroll materials on occasion agree with the form of the LXX over against the MT, so the NT writers may still be using a Hebrew text in some cases, and not the LXX.

For OT textual criticism, an eclectic approach is best. Hebrew sources from the MT and the Judean Desert must be considered, with the Samaritan Pentateuch, and also with the LXX and other ancient translations in Greek, and the Targums, and the Vulgate, etc. One dimension of this must include recognizing which versions are at least one translative step away from their source materials, and acknowledging the challenges inherent in trying to project beyond them to their antecedent line of textual tradition. In the end, the original articulation rests (in most cases, at least) in a Semitic language.


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hello, Steve,

Your replies have been interesting, ie, "...wouldn't mind having a parallel OT in my bible, but it might make it thicker than I want.", "LXX is essential for critical study of NT materials (whoa!!)..etc, but unfortunately they literally go against your very Protestant Bible. Why does the Protestant [Church] claim to use the Hebrew text because it is unadulterated, yet they actually use sections/concepts of the Greek?

The bolded quote is mine, and for what it is worth, I am neither Protestant nor biblicist, so you should not use my comments to flagellate the evangelical participants here.

A knowledgeable scholar (Protestant or otherwise) will be sensitive to the textual issues involved in OT study, and will not cling naively to a single text tradition - whether MT, LXX, or otherwise. The differing text traditions yield strands of evidence that must be weighed in concert with each other.


Shlamaa,
Emmet