What do you make of it?

[MennoSota]

God-Speed, my friend and my brother...


Arsenios

What is God's speed?
"With God a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day."
It seems that God's speed is quite variable...kinda like a baseball pitcher with a bunch of different off-speed pitches.

 

[Pedrito]

...Continued

==============================================================================================

This continues the presentation of MoreCoffee’s thoughts on “the biases that whittled it [the Bible] down to 66 books” (which he offered as a subset of thoughts that could have been presented), with some added comments of mine.

==============================================================================================

II. rejection of the LXX as ancient beyond the Masoretic text and maybe closer to the "original" than the Masoretic text

See the conclusion in Section I in Post #28. The apocryphal portions of the Septuagint (Greek translation of the original Hebrew) were shown to be additions.

III. acceptance of the post destruction of Jerusalem Jewish tradition about what books are holy scripture and what are not

I suspect that that “Jewish tradition” has greater credence than for instance, the “unwritten and written Apostolic Tradition” mentioned in Section VI below.

And is the labelling of historic Jewish understanding as “post destruction of Jerusalem Jewish tradition”, accurate? I think not.

IV. rejection of the holy books present in the LXX unless they also happen to be in the Masoretic text

Why is that a problem? Either the apocryphal sections were additions to the original Hebrew, or they were originally in the Hebrew, but then excised. Internal consistency within the Apocrypha-less version, points to addition as being the more obvious scenario.

Besides, the existence of conflicting 66+ book versions, points to additions to a smaller version, rather than subtraction from a definable larger version.

V. translational biases drawing from theological traditions developed during and following the 16th century "reformation" among Protestant denominations

How could the decision to acknowledge the Hebrew (original language) Scriptures, rather than the added-to Greek version, have anything to do with “translational biases”?

VI. rejection of unwritten and written Apostolic Tradition unless it happens to be in the 66 books of a typical Protestant bible

Anything that conflicts with the internally consistent teaching of the 66-book Bible, automatically disqualifies itself from serious consideration. Philosophical (Theological) deliberations, whether or not labelled “Apostolic Tradition”, are not immune from that touchstone test.

==============================================================================================

The 66-book Bible therefore stands (so far).

==============================================================================================

 

[Pedrito]

...Continued

==============================================================================================

MoreCoffee (Post #3), with respect to 1 Corinthians 15:29:
Tell me: what are these people doing, who are baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead cannot be raised, why do they want to be baptized for the dead?:

The absence of "baptism for the dead" in Christian Tradition and in written records from the churches is testimony that whatever the practise was it was not essential to Christian living and teaching. It did not endure because it was not worth retaining.

Or, the absence is testimony that that part of original Apostolic teaching and practice was one of the first to be buried, because it conflicted so directly with the influx of pagan religious ways.

We know from general history that those believers who chose to obey Jesus’ command of Luke 22:19-20 were officially persecuted out of existence, but not until the late fourth or early fifth centuries. They were able to resist the dominant paganism for that long.

A pertinent question therefore is: How much did those believers and that specific command of Jesus (with its original meaning) appear in the works referred to by MoreCoffee in the “Christian Tradition and in written records from the churches”?

Absence of mention is not proof of, nor even evidence of, a general lack of existence nor a general lack of applicability.

==============================================================================================

What Paul refers to as being “baptized on behalf of the dead” was obviously a commonplace and well understood practice, that did not conflict with the Gospel he was proclaiming.

So what did it mean? And why was the practice and its potentially significant implications (for us), buried so thoroughly?

==============================================================================================

 

[MoreCoffee]

...Continued

==============================================================================================

MoreCoffee (Post #3), with respect to 1 Corinthians 15:29:
Tell me: what are these people doing, who are baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead cannot be raised, why do they want to be baptized for the dead?:

The absence of "baptism for the dead" in Christian Tradition and in written records from the churches is testimony that whatever the practise was it was not essential to Christian living and teaching. It did not endure because it was not worth retaining.

Or, the absence is testimony that that part of original Apostolic teaching and practice was one of the first to be buried, because it conflicted so directly with the influx of pagan religious ways.

We know from general history that those believers who chose to obey Jesus’ command of Luke 22:19-20 were officially persecuted out of existence, but not until the late fourth or early fifth centuries. They were able to resist the dominant paganism for that long.

You think that there was an "influx of pagan religious ways" some time "in the late fourth or early fifth century" AD.

Will you be specific about who brought in pagan religious traditions and when and who resisted it until the late fourth or early fifth century AD?

A pertinent question therefore is: How much did those believers and that specific command of Jesus (with its original meaning) appear in the works referred to by MoreCoffee in the “Christian Tradition and in written records from the churches”?

Absence of mention is not proof of, nor even evidence of, a general lack of existence nor a general lack of applicability.

Christian commentators in the early fourth century and some in the middle to late third century too commented on saint Paul's mention of "baptisms for the dead". Have you researched this? If not I will see what I can find for you.

==============================================================================================

What Paul refers to as being “baptized on behalf of the dead” was obviously a commonplace and well understood practice, that did not conflict with the Gospel he was proclaiming.

So what did it mean? And why was the practice and its potentially significant implications (for us), buried so thoroughly?

==============================================================================================