|
Dear Mark 13:13 & Catholics
|
My question is a simple one.
How can you justify using "the" LXX and the Latin Vulgate as "inspired scripture"???? (PS in this context the LXX means Codex Vaticanus minus the NT). Good luck in your quest for justification. 
And how about the whole bible while you're at it?
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence." -- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).  (December 31, 2012 at 10:22 pm)Aractus Wrote: My question is a simple one. Same way you justify using the bible I suppose. ![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif) If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Try and post on-topic guys.
What's your reasoning for what should be considered "scripture" and what shouldn't?
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
Like most protestants, I don't believe any translation, no matter what language, no matter how old, to be scripture. The Bible was written in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, not in Latin, etc.
(January 1, 2013 at 4:13 am)Aractus Wrote: Like most protestants, I don't believe any translation, no matter what language, no matter how old, to be scripture. The Bible was written in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, not in Latin, etc. Right, but in terms of what document is in or not...? "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
The 22 scrolls are the entire OT canon (39 "books"), and were so at the time of Christ. As the NT "books" (scrolls) were written, they became associated as scripture by the early Xian church in the first century, and the early second century. These of course were determined by early church leaders, but as time went on "heathen" books began appearing. They were weeded out. So the full answer to your question "in terms of what documents is not in it" is that once canonized, they aren't removed. In terms of the question "what document is in it", that was determined by the early Church.
(January 1, 2013 at 4:30 am)Aractus Wrote: The 22 scrolls are the entire OT canon (39 "books"), and were so at the time of Christ. Sure. Quote:As the NT "books" (scrolls) were written, they became associated as scripture by the early Xian church in the first century, and the early second century. These of course were determined by early church leaders, but as time went on "heathen" books began appearing. They were weeded out. So the full answer to your question "in terms of what documents is not in it" is that once canonized, they aren't removed. In terms of the question "what document is in it", that was determined by the early Church. So would it be safe to say that in your opinion, it was a fully human process, which evidently involved cherry picking those documents that focused on Jesus' "humanity" the most? "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
RE: Dear Mark 13:13 & Catholics
January 1, 2013 at 6:04 am
(This post was last modified: January 1, 2013 at 6:06 am by Tea Earl Grey Hot.)
(January 1, 2013 at 4:13 am)Aractus Wrote: Like most protestants, I don't believe any translation, no matter what language, no matter how old, to be scripture. The Bible was written in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, not in Latin, etc. God is so lazy. After he finished the greek and hebrew copies, confronted with the other 6000+ languages he just said "fuck it."
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence." -- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103). |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
