Another Catholic question (sorry guys!)

We have too many discussions going on at the same time. That is one of the problems.
Concerning the Peshitta, I state that the date of it is ca. 150. Here is my source:

It is from Armitage's book, "A History of the Baptists." However, in reference to the Peshitta, notice that much of his information comes from Eusebius.



Another problem is your insistence on extant source material. Of course the quote above is historical. But it is a source. Let's use another example. The Book of Jude was authored by Jude ca. 70 A.D. James was much earlier ca. 50 A.D., one of the earliest books of the NT. Now, we don't have any of the originals. In fact the closest copy to books like these is no doubt written more than a century later than these books. So do you accept these dates? Why or why not, and if not, what dates would you accept, and why? If you only accept that which is extant it poses many problems to our NT, especially in the area of prophecy.

Thus one must find a way to date books of the NT without simply having extant copies.


The same is true with the Peshitta, the Syriac, the Septuagint.

One of your sources readily admits that the oldest MS extant Hebrew text from which the Septuagint would be translated is 1000 A.D., but we know it was translated far earlier than that.

http://www.theopedia.com/Septuagint

 

Oh, dear, so now the HS is limited as to which language He's allowed to speak?! This is a weird kind of KJVO-variant I haven't encountered before. I guess the HS didn't get your memo at Pentecost....

 

Well lets not leave out a critical review of it -

 

Matt, it has nothing to do with the KJV. Every reliable translation today (KJV, or any of the modern translations) are translated from the Greek NT and the Hebrew OT. God inspired the apostles: Peter, John, Paul, etc. to pen his words in Greek. God inspired the prophets: Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, etc. to pen his words in Hebrew (with just a very few sections in Aramaic). He did not use other languages. Our NT autographs are written in Greek. The originals (which we don't have today) were written in Greek.

If you want to put it the way you did: YES, the Holy Spirit DID limit himself to one language in the NT and that was Greek. That is the only language in which our NT writers received God's inspiration. Lest I be ambiguous let me emphasize that it is the documents that they wrote, that is the Scriptures that are inspired, not the authors of the Scripture. The apostles were used of God to write the words of God. It is the words of God that are inspired.

 

So if Matthew had written his gospel in Hebrew, then you are saying that writing wasn't inspired. However, the Greek translation from the original Hebrew manuscript would have been inspired. I know you won't concede that Matthew was written in Hebrew, and you might be right, but what if it had been? Are you really saying the Hebrew manuscript was not inspired but the Greek copy would have been? That is really fantastic. (fantastic: based on fantasy).

 

Yes, as amazing as that may sound to our human reasoning, that is what would have happened (if hypothetically it did). God inspired these men's writings in the Greek language. So even if they did write in English or Hebrew or whatever the language could have been, God inspired the Greek MSS, and those are ones that are the inspired words of God.

 

I'm sorry DHK this is the same reasoning that the KJO people use. Theoretically then the autographs aren't important nor do they need to be inspired as long as the translators are. That doesn't even sound right.

 

No you have it wrong. It is not the translators that are inspired. It is the Scriptures that they wrote. The Scriptures, the original autographs or MSS are inspired. Look at Scripture itself.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
--It is the Scripture that is inspired, not the author of the Scripture.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
--However, not just any man could by his own will write Scripture.
Holy men of God (the prophets and the apostles), were chosen by God, and moved by the Holy Spirit to write the words that God wanted them to write. They "were moved by the Holy Spirit." But it was the Scripture itself that was inspired. In the OT many times you read the words: "Thus saith the Lord," the exact words of God being spoken through the prophets. It is God speaking through the prophets, and likewise God speaking through the Apostles.

 

I agree with what you have just writen but that's not what you said when responding to Zenas here

Then you said

 

As a Lutheran who will soon be starting adult cathechism, I affirm that "Real Presence" is what we hear in our Sunday School classes and in our literature.

From what I understand, we dont like to say "spiritual presense"

We prefer the terms "in, with and under"

We say that it is the true body and true blood.

Lori is correct.

 

******

It is very uncommon, mostly because Lutherans these days are afraid of being "too catholic". They are starting to look more and more like baptists everyday actually.

Very traditional Lutheran churches however will sometimes use this term. I have a friend who attends a very conservative, pre-tridentine mass Lutheran church, and she will sometimes refer to her Pastor as "Father". They also use the term "mass" and "eucharist" and other Catholicky terms, but it is very rare.

I attend a very conservative Lutheran church (where I discovered that Lutherans really DO love Jesus!!! They werent all just religious hypocrites!) but we just use the terms Pastor and Holy Communion and liturgy.

 

Lutherans do believe in the real prescence!

From what I understand, Catholics believe that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood. Lutherans believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood-but not literally. There's no bleeding eucharists or molecular differences.

I like that Lutherans dont try to explain how.

 

I agree, Emily, I wish we all could just use the term 'Real Presence' and not get so caught up in trying to explain it.

 

You said to Lori:
"Lutherans these days are afraid of being "too catholic"."

That is true, and probably the reason why they rejected the term "consubstantiation" some time ago.
Consubstantiation and transubstantiation are very similar. Consubstantiation is "very catholic." At the same time when you avow that within the elements of the Communion Service "is the true body and true blood," (your very words), then how do you differ from a Catholic? That is what transubstantiation is.

 

They either say this 'is the true body and true blood' or they say this 'is the very body and very blood of our Lord Jesus Christ' (LCMS) which in either case makes it clear that Christ is truly present in the bread and wine. Lutheran belief is not radically different than the Catholic belief IMHO.