Religion II

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Greek was the "universal" language of the ANE that was spoken, read and written. Paul was a very educated man and probably wrote his own epistles or most of them epistles. Luke was a Gentile physician and historian, and no doubt knew the Greek language well. The other apostles probably got others to write for them. Hellenistic Jews abounded everywhere. Moreover, as Gentiles were converted and brought into the Church, they would have assisted the apostles as well.

I don't know if you speak a foreign language, but if you've ever watched a movie with subtitles, you'll notice a number of places where you might think, that's not exactly what the speaker said. I looked at some books printed in both Spanish and English and there are plenty of parts where the dialogue is interpretive. I guarantee that anyone who translates a book from one language to another has to have a superior way of expressing a thought in a different language.

You look at the USA and there are hundreds if not thousands of dialects and accents. Sometimes I'll wonder what someone is saying because the idiosyncrasies.

Intellectually, most of us realize that translating a translation can result in slightly different details from the same events.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I don't know if you speak a foreign language, but if you've ever watched a movie with subtitles, you'll notice a number of places where you might think, that's not exactly what the speaker said. I looked at some books printed in both Spanish and English and there are plenty of parts where the dialogue is interpretive. I guarantee that anyone who translates a book from one language to another has to have a superior way of expressing a thought in a different language.

You look at the USA and there are hundreds if not thousands of dialects and accents. Sometimes I'll wonder what someone is saying because the idiosyncrasies.

Intellectually, most of us realize that translating a translation can result in slightly different details from the same events.

The people who don't read Greek only THINK that they've read the bible.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I don't know if you speak a foreign language, but if you've ever watched a movie with subtitles, you'll notice a number of places where you might think, that's not exactly what the speaker said. I looked at some books printed in both Spanish and English and there are plenty of parts where the dialogue is interpretive. I guarantee that anyone who translates a book from one language to another has to have a superior way of expressing a thought in a different language.

You look at the USA and there are hundreds if not thousands of dialects and accents. Sometimes I'll wonder what someone is saying because the idiosyncrasies.

Intellectually, most of us realize that translating a translation can result in slightly different details from the same events.

I'd say the bible translators, generally, (and this is operative word) did a very good job of translating the scriptures from the original languages). Obviously, there are some translations that are better than others -- but overall, the language scholars have done a great job.

Secondly, there is a heremeneutic principle adopted from a principle out of the Law of Moses that basically says that every fact must be confirmed by two or more witnesses. God used this principle when inspiring his writers; for every major doctrine is expressed more than once and more often than not in different ways. In matters pertaining to doctrine or a rule of life, I have found all scripture to be in complete harmony.

Thirdly, all serious students of God's Word are well aware of the problems that attend to translating one language into another, which is why we use multiple translations when a passage is in question. This is why I have bible translations that are based on the standards of Formal Equivalency and Dynamic Equivalency. The former standard is more literal while the latter's intention is to capture the essence of the idea.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The people who don't read Greek only THINK that they've read the bible.

What a simple-minded insult to language scholars.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Prior to 70 A.D.? Documentation? Or maybe Time travel????

I guess my ancestors the early Jews, used used this to travel back some 70 years to be first hand eye witnesses.

Jews were smart and ahead of their time even then.

Off your meds again? Back to more psychobabble? What are you trying to say?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Off your meds again? Back to more psychobabble? What are you trying to say?

I disproved your contention that the Christian covenant was compilers before 70 AD, implying there were fiorst hand eye witnesses to Christ. My post #10365 at the bottom:

Marcion of Sinope was the first Christian leader in recorded history (though later considered heretical) to propose and delineate a uniquely Christian canon[24] (c. AD 140). This included 10 epistles from St. Paul, as well as a version of the Gospel of Luke, which today is known as the Gospel of Marcion. By doing this, he established a particular way of looking at religious texts that persists in Christian thought today.[25]

[boxcar]

The Book of Hebrews is, among other things, an inspired commentary on the OT -- or even more specifically of the Old Covenant, i.e. the Covenant Law of Moses. The central purpose behind book is to show that Jesus Christ is superior not only to Moses, but as the High Priest directly appointed by God, is also superior to the Levitical priesthood, and as the sacrificial Lamb of God is superior to all blood the sacrifices required under the Law of Moses. And moreover, as Jesus is the Mediator of the New Covenant, this covenant is also superior to the Old Covenant! And this last thought brings me to the point of this post.

After Jesus instituted at the Last Supper the New Covenant in his blood, and then shortly afterward ratified the New Covenant by shedding his blood on the Cross, a remarkable thing happened in the Holy of Holies in the Temple. The thick curtain that separated the Holy of Holies (the room in which only the High Priest was allowed to enter once a year to make atonement for his sins and the sins of the Jewish people) from the Holy Place (the room in which other priests offered daily sacrifices) was rent in two from top to bottom (Mat 27:51). This was a very significant sign to the Jews signifying that this was the beginning of the end of the Covenant Law of Moses because now all people who believed in the Messiah were welcome to enter directly into the Holy of Holies (into Christ, the Holy One of Israel) because Christ was now their High Priest forever. In fact, if we really want to get down to the spiritual nitty gritty, the people of God in this New Covenant age are God's temple into which the Spirit of Christ comes to dwell. And in the eternal, visible Kingdom to come, God and The Son of God will be the Temple for all the saints for all eternity (Rev 21:22).

Bear with me for another moment before we get to an important text in Hebrews. In Matthew 24 and other places in Luke's and Mark's Gospel, we have Jesus' Mt. Olivet Discourse recorded for us. This discourse was given very shortly before the Cross. In it Jesus was giving his disciples a big heads up that the Jewish way of life, to which they were all accustomed, would soon come crashing down on them because the beautiful and magnificent Temple complex they were beholding from their high vantage point on the mountain would be utterly destroyed! And all the things He said that would befall their beloved Jerusalem and Temple would occur within their generation (v.34). And a "generation" to a Jew's mind would have been understood to mean to be about 40 years. So, within 40 years or so of Jesus' words the Jews would be driven out of the land again, and the Temple would be completely destroyed. And this means Old Covenant Judaism would be finally and irrevocably destroyed with it!. Understand this: The various versions of post-70.A.D. Judaism we have today should never be mistaken for the Judaism under the Covenant Law of Moses! This is so because the Law of Moses mandates blood sacrifices for the atonement of sins; for without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins (Lev 4:20, 26, 35; 17:11; Heb 9:22, etc.)!

Now, we come to the text in mind:

Heb 8:13
13 When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
NASB

Hebrews was written to Jewish believers in the Messiah -- in other words, to Messianic Jews. And we can tell from various places in Hebrews that these Jewish believers were being persecuted. Very likely there were being persecuted by Nero during the period of 64 to 68 A.D. And I say this for three reasons: The historical persecution of Christians by Nero; again, no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in this epistle, and also because of the above text itself.

The writer is telling his Jewish audience in very plain language that God had made the Old Covenant obsolete. God did this at the Cross of Christ when Jesus uttered his final words, "It is finished"! And again, this was signified by the torn curtain in the Temple. But we can also see that in practical and temporal terms, that Old Covenant Judaism was still alive and well and in practice up until...up until...up until...when? If someone has said 70 A.D., then move to the head of the class because you have been paying attention. The divinely torn curtain in the temple signified the beginning of the end of the Covenant of Law, but 70 A.D. signified the end!

The writer of this epistle obviously had good knowledge of Jesus' Mt. Olivet Discourse and knew the end was near for the Temple and Jerusalem. This is why he could say that what is [currently] becoming obsolete is about ready to disappear. The writer understood the profound implications to the fall of Jerusalem. When the temple fell, Old Covenant Judaism would fall with it. The Covenant of Law would disappear forever! All the religious, ritualistic, ceremonial practices required under the Law of Moses would also disappear forever.

So, just as there were people in Jesus' day who were vigilante and looking for the first coming of the Messiah due to OT prophecy, likewise there were post-resurrection Jews who were looking to the fulfilling of Jesus' prophecy on the Mount of Olives. Since the destruction of Jerusalem and her Temple were on many Jewish believers' minds prior to the event occurring, how can there not be a single mention of such a monumental, historical event after the fact since we have all these numerous NT manuscripts that allegedly were written well after 70 A.D.? The probability for this kind of silence among all the NT writers has to be .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000001.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I disproved your contention that the Christian covenant was compilers before 70 AD, implying there were fiorst hand eye witnesses to Christ. My post #10365 at the bottom:

The formation of the canon has nothing to do with the actual dating of the various books that comprise the canon. Canons weren't a glean in anyone's eye until well after the various books were written.

You not only can't read, but you can't connect dots too swell either.

[LemonSoupKid]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The people who don't read Greek only THINK that they've read the bible.

And the even further irony is that if you know modern greek, for example, you still need to be educated and rightly guided to understand the Bible, as its "Greek" is also different, as are even the liturgical services of the Church.

With the Church's understanding, as in the liturgies, there is a context behind the entirety of its tradition, which includes the "bible" itself.

It's amusing to me in general when people act like a book just fell out of the sky and one can understand it and interpret it correctly, even though it's speaking in a different language, with different idioms, about people living in a different culture over 2000 years ago. Who have a unique history of their own.

These same people usually aren't very well versed in history itself, or even where they came from.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcsr

The writer of this epistle obviously had good knowledge of Jesus' Mt. Olivet Discourse and knew the end was near for the Temple and Jerusalem. This is why he could say that what is [currently] becoming obsolete is about ready to disappear. The writer understood the profound implications to the fall of Jerusalem. When the temple fell, Old Covenant Judaism would fall with it. The Covenant of Law would disappear forever! All the religious, ritualistic, ceremonial practices required under the Law of Moses would also disappear forever.

We do not know the writer or if he was a first hand eye witness. It simply could have been passed down by unreliable oral tradition to later compilers of Hebrews, as the other oral traditions of all the other books could have as well. Reliable oral tradition may be verified by those who practiced it at the time, as in testimony in a current trial,but all we have now is hearsay. When we try to substantiate facts in a criminal(or civil) case, the longer the elapsed time from the case to the trial afterwards increases unreliability

Unless we have archeological evidence and/or artifacts of actual transcriptions, we cannot conclude if and when they were transcribed by first hand eye-witness to Christ sermons or teachings.

I am not necessarily doubting oral tradition, it is a very important feature of many religions. But it lacks precision without some sort of archeological evidence. Which is why literal understandings of scripture are so limited. The inner teachings of Christ are stand alone, and do not need witnesses.

The use of tabernacle terminology in Hebrews has been used to date the epistle before the destruction of the temple, the idea being that knowing about the destruction of both Jerusalem and the temple would have influenced the development of the author's overall argument. Therefore, the most probable date for its composition is the second half of the year 63 or the beginning of 64, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia.[18]

However, there is no way to prove the actual dating of this writing, even from within the internal structure of the writing. Throughout the writing, all mentions of the priestly acts of worship are connected to the tabernacle in Sinai, as built by Moses, with no mention of the temple in Jerusalem. An argument for a later date of the Hebrew text can be assumed due to the absence of any mention of the temple in Jerusalem. If the Hebrew writer composed this message after the first century it would be entirely possible that the destruction of the Jerusalem temple and that of the city of Jerusalem would not be relevant to the writer. Thus, some academic scholars hold to a much later date of composition to the Hebrew writing

Regardless of the actual date , how can we verify an actual first hand eye-witnewss account to Christ and his teachings?

So far the evidence for the Bib Bang is leading verification-wise.

[hcap]

Actually there is archaeological evidence of Hebrews.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrews_2

The original collection of Papyri. Note all dated way past 60 AD

List of all registered New Testament papyri

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...stament_papyri

Ask and you shall receive

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Doesn't matter, since theistic creationism does not violate any laws of logic. So, that puts Supernaturalism a gazillion light years ahead of Atheistic Naturalism (any version!) coming right out of the chute.

So your premise is that anything that does not violate any laws of logic must be true. So if I want to move to swampland I could walk into your current residence and declare myself to be the rightful owner and throw you out. I could do all that because my claim to be the rightful owner does not violate any laws of logic.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

We do not know the writer or if he was a first hand eye witness. It simply could have been passed down by unreliable oral tradition to later compilers of Hebrews, as the other oral traditions of all the other books could have as well. Reliable oral tradition may be verified by those who practiced it at the time, as in testimony in a current trial,but all we have now is hearsay. When we try to substantiate facts in a criminal(or civil) case, the longer the elapsed time from the case to the trial afterwards increases unreliability

Doesn't matter. We have numerous manuscripts which are in nearly perfect agreement. The Jews were meticulous in this respect.

Secondly, with respect to the Book of Hebrews, specifically, the writer certainly was no Gentile. He was very likely a Jewish believer with excellent knowledge of the OT, since numerous OT passages are weaved into his epistle.

Thirdly, nothing in Hebrews contradicts the rest of the counsel of God. This is all "precision" I need.

Fourthly, the writer himself attests to the fact that he was NOT an eyewitness to Christ (Heb 2:3). The writer obviously collaborated with eyewitnesses to Christ. How could he have done that if he wrote epistle hundreds of years after Christ's resurrection?

So far the evidence for the Bib Bang is leading verification-wise.

Fantasize much?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

So your premise is that anything that does not violate any laws of logic must be true. So if I want to move to swampland I could walk into your current residence and declare myself to be the rightful owner and throw you out. I could do all that because my claim to be the rightful owner does not violate any laws of logic.

I never said or implied your dumb premise. But how 'bout this premise: Anything that DOES violate any laws of logic cannot be true? Stuff that in your hash pipe and puff on it for while.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Actually there is archaeological evidence of Hebrews.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrews_2

The original collection of Papyri. Note all dated way past 60 AD

List of all registered New Testament papyri

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...stament_papyri

Ask and you shall receive

You should do yourself two huge favors. Steer clear of Wiki when it comes to bible. The vast majority of contributors are clueless.

Secondly, learn to think for yourself instead of looking for pablum online to satisfy your carnal presuppositions. First of all, what is meant by "original collection" when all scholars have today are manuscript COPIES. No one has any original autograph of any book in the bible. So, how can dates of copies prove the dates of originals?