|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on May 19, 2008 13:42:39 GMT -5
Ok, so when Jesus said "Upon this rock i will build my Church" What Church exactly is it? What faith by name?
And why is their not still JUST that same church?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 19, 2008 14:31:21 GMT -5
Oooo!
Oooo!
I know!
I know that one!
LOL!
...but I digress. 
|
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan on May 24, 2008 13:32:38 GMT -5
I think we all know the answer to that. THe most annoying thing is trying to explain the Church in heaven and the Church on earth.
|
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on May 24, 2008 13:57:18 GMT -5
Hi Sox----------
Been following your posts over on usa---stepping it up a notch I see.
much love-------------knuckle
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 24, 2008 20:33:17 GMT -5
I think we all know the answer to that. THe most annoying thing is trying to explain the Church in heaven and the Church on earth. Church in Heaven...Household of God. Church on earth...Christians waiting to go home to The Church in Heaven. |
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan on May 25, 2008 21:09:45 GMT -5
Hi Sox---------- Been following your posts over on usa---stepping it up a notch I see. much love-------------knuckle Heya Knuckles, It's more or less defending the Church, so I feel compelled to act. The exception being the thread that Cepha wanted me to start. I was actually interested in what people had to say about the deuterocannonicals beforehand anyways. I actually noticed some of my comments where deleted. I might be guilty of provoking every now and then especially in repsonse to something, but I was still a bit surprised by it. RSF77 |
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan on May 25, 2008 21:20:34 GMT -5
I think we all know the answer to that. THe most annoying thing is trying to explain the Church in heaven and the Church on earth. Church in Heaven...Household of God. Church on earth...Christians waiting to go home to The Church in Heaven. Thats a good way of putting it. Till you try to show that Jesus established the Catholic Church as "THE" Church. And then it hits the fan.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 25, 2008 21:49:12 GMT -5
Hi Sox---------- Been following your posts over on usa---stepping it up a notch I see. much love-------------knuckle Heya Knuckles, It's more or less defending the Church, so I feel compelled to act. The exception being the thread that Cepha wanted me to start. I was actually interested in what people had to say about the deuterocannonicals beforehand anyways. I actually noticed some of my comments where deleted. I might be guilty of provoking every now and then especially in repsonse to something, but I was still a bit surprised by it. RSF77 My (cough, cough)...uhum, excuse me, "your" comments were deleted?  I wonder why? LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 25, 2008 21:51:39 GMT -5
Church in Heaven...Household of God. Church on earth...Christians waiting to go home to The Church in Heaven. Thats a good way of putting it. Till you try to show that Jesus established the Catholic Church as "THE" Church. And then it hits the fan. Just break out the scriptures on them.  I lovvvvvvve to do that! I love to show them scripture. It's like their not allowed to read certain books (not including the Deuts). For example, some of the books you won't likely hear a Prot quote: James, Timothy, John, Peter (the Catholic Letters and sort). Wonder why? |
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan on May 27, 2008 11:19:48 GMT -5
Right now I am debating with KJB about the role Catholics had in the revolutionary army. Pretty much he seems that we would be enthusiastic to fight for KIng George. I asked him who Timothy Murphy was. He couldn't even respond to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 27, 2008 12:12:29 GMT -5
KJB, yeah, he lasted here about 3 days! LOL! Really want to get under their skin? Post this... "Which Church brought Christianity to the America?" Then ask them who named it!  |
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on May 27, 2008 17:01:57 GMT -5
Guys---------------
I love ya but the reason that most protestant bibles don't have the apocrypha and the catholic bibles do has much more to do with the Jews than with either of the churches.
much love----------------knuckle
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 27, 2008 18:10:27 GMT -5
It's clear that they chose The Pharisees' version.
The Early Church (Christians prior to The Canonization of The Christian Bible) used The Septuagint which is what constitutes the 73 book canon of The Holy Bible.
All Christian Bibles had 73 books until the 16th Century.
|
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on May 27, 2008 20:51:06 GMT -5
Cepha-----------------
the jews at Alexandria were Pharisees too,Bro blindness was put upon them had Christ went to them then he would have been crucified in Egypt as surely as he was in Palestine.Regardless of which OT the people had the event was set in stone,the people would still reject Him so your emphasis on a Pharisee text is kind of moot.
And to be frank,with the exception of Paul there is no evidence the others had the LXX as they were simple men who had lived their lives in and around Galilee and would have been much more likely to have grown up with Aramaic Targums --- I am not knocking the LXX but your insistence that John or Peter were walking around quoting Greek scripture from a book that wasn't popular in the area the grew up in is a stretch of immense proportions.
Much love and respect Bro-----------------------knuckle
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 27, 2008 21:42:54 GMT -5
Cepha----------------- the jews at Alexandria were Pharisees too,Bro blindness was put upon them had Christ went to them then he would have been crucified in Egypt as surely as he was in Palestine.Regardless of which OT the people had the event was set in stone,the people would still reject Him so your emphasis on a Pharisee text is kind of moot. And to be frank,with the exception of Paul there is no evidence the others had the LXX as they were simple men who had lived their lives in and around Galilee and would have been much more likely to have grown up with Aramaic Targums --- I am not knocking the LXX but your insistence that John or Peter were walking around quoting Greek scripture from a book that wasn't popular in the area the grew up in is a stretch of immense proportions. Much love and respect Bro-----------------------knuckle 2/3's of New Testament references come from the LXX. Besides that, it's common knowledge in history that The Church has always used The LXX since the beginning of Christianity. Even Jesus used them as did The Apostles and The Church Fathers and Christianity up until today. You need to understand that The Pharisees Canon didn't exist when Jesus was around and wouldn't be created for another 1/2 a Century afterwards. There was only one version they used...The Septuagint: Christian use The early Christian Church continued to use the Greek texts since Greek was a lingua franca of the Roman Empire at the time, since Greek was the language of the Church, and since the Church Fathers tended to accept Philo's account of the LXX's miraculous and inspired origin. Furthermore, Christ and his Apostles in the New Testament quoted from the Old Greek. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeptuagintThe Septuagint (IPA: /ˈsɛptuədʒɪnt/), or simply "LXX", is the Koine Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, translated in stages between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC in Alexandria.[1] The Septuagint also includes some books not found in the Hebrew Bible. It is the oldest of several ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean since Alexander the Great (356-323 BC). The word septuaginta[2] means "seventy" in Latin and derives from a tradition that seventy (or seventy-two) Jewish scholars translated the Pentateuch (Torah) from Hebrew into Greek for Ptolemy II Philadelphus, 285–246 BC.[3][4] Many Protestant Bibles follow the Jewish canon and exclude the additional books. The Septuagint was held with great respect in ancient times; Philo and Josephus ascribed divine inspiration to its authors.[4] Of significance for all Christians and for Bible scholars, the LXX is quoted by the Christian New Testament and by the Apostolic Fathers. Some of the Dead Sea scrolls attest to Hebrew texts other than those on which the Masoretic Text was based; in many cases, these newly found texts accord with the LXX version. The oldest surviving codices of LXX (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) date to the fourth century AD.[4] |
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on May 28, 2008 5:55:05 GMT -5
Brother,what you are calling the 'Pharisees canon" in the Palestine Torah which had been used for hundreds of years in Jerusalem before Jesus was born.
My point is this----The LXX was written in Alexandria Egypt for dispersed Jews there in Egypt,but the book doesn't set the heart of the people--- those extra books in no way opened Jewish eyes to who Christ was.
to say "the Pharisees bible" in a negative connotation like the absence of the LXX made the Pharisees who they were is misdirection ---- they were Pharisees because God blinded them to the truth.
is what I am saying making sense to you?
much love---------------knuckle
|
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on May 28, 2008 6:07:25 GMT -5
Brother-----------
did the LXX cause thousands of gentiles to convert to Judaism(it is a "Jewish "bible though written in Greek)? No,it didn't.
see what I am saying?
much love---------------knuckle
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 28, 2008 7:00:15 GMT -5
There was no Palestinian "canon". There were several collections based on region, but not one canon for the entire faith. That didn't exist until The Pharisees "canonized" The Jewish Old Testament (or made it the official bible for them) in 90AD. Up until that point, there was no official bible and the versions were not authoritative as they had works that would later not be considered as inspired by God. I'm not a Jew so I haven't really focused my study on their religion...I've focused it on Christianity and again, historically speaking, the majority of Christians used The LXX (including Jesus and The Apostles). Well, we're talking about usage here, not effect. Right? A book scroll doesn't reveal Jesus to one. It has always been God The Father who brings one to Christ (not writings on parchment). One wouldn't come to Christ unless The Father brings them "to" Christ. Jesus was a Pharisee too so it wasn't their Phariseeism that blinded them to anything. There were many who were Jesus' disciples who weren't Pharisees who were also blinded even after they first began to believe. No religion decides for a man what to believe...the man submits his will to the religion. He allows or disallows what he is taught. Ultimately, it's not what goes "into" a man that is corrupted, but what comes from within that man. As your personal belief, yes. I can't disagree with you. But the facts remain...The LXX was The OT collection used by Jesus, The Apostles and by Christianity and that included all of the books approved by The Church in the 4th Century. It is, always was and always will be what Jesus used. I don't follow those who condemned Christ and who rejected Him...I follow those who follow Him. Again: "The early Christian Church used the Septuagint, the oldest Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, as its religious text until at least the mid-fourth century." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 28, 2008 7:02:59 GMT -5
Brother----------- did the LXX cause thousands of gentiles to convert to Judaism(it is a "Jewish "bible though written in Greek)? No,it didn't. see what I am saying? much love---------------knuckle I don't know much about Judaism. I can't answer. As for Christianity, no inanmate object brings a person to Christ. Only God does that. John 6:44 " No man can come to me,
except the Father which hath sent me draw him:
and I will raise him up at the last day." |
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on May 28, 2008 14:20:43 GMT -5
The LXX wasn't in Jerusalem Bro,they had the scrolls there at the temple-- the Palestinian cannon---the common man could not read them as Hebrew was a dying language so unless you were a student in temple you used a targum(Aramaic copy that the Pishitta is based on) that is why Jesus astounded them so at the age of 12 in the temple---He could read Hebrew.The council of Jamnia wasn't about picking a cannon, they already had it-----It was about how to preserve it now that the Temple which housed all those scrolls was destroyed.
this is as much secular history as it is church history and there are plenty of sources out there.I am not arguing that one cannon is better or that the other is incomplete I am just giving you an honest historical perspective that prior to the Hebrew bible or the LXX being written there were already two different cannons one at Alexandria and one in Jerusalem and that they were both selected by Jews and not the church.
One could argue that The library at Alexandria was the seat of all knowledge at the time therefore the LXX is better or one could also argue that because the Palestinian cannon was accepted by the Sanhedrin and kept at the temple that it is the most faithful to the Jewish faith and that discussion would be academic (though some what dry and boring)
But You present your case like those evil Pharisees rejected these sacred books but truth is they were not accepted in Jerusalem to start with,at least not as scripture.
much love to ya Cepha-----------------knuckle
|
|
