Bishops, Elders & Deacons

[Guest]

Hello, Steve,

Thank you for your reply.

The information regarding the Falashian Jews comes from the State of Israel that stated in 1975 they were official Jews of the Diaspora.

The Israeli state followed the opinion of the Chief Sephardi rabbi (who nevertheless required a pro forma conversion of Ethiopian Jewish immigrants). Jewish opinion is not always monolithic, however, and in some rabbinic jurisdictions, marrying an Ethiopian Jew involves the mikveh and token bloodletting (for pre-circumcised males) required of Gentile converts.

Given the fundamental role of the state of Israel as a refuge for Jewish people(s), it is understandable that the Israeli government should reach its wing to shelter the present-day Ethiopian Jews. But its decision should not be seen as a conclusive resolution to the historical questions surrounding the origins of the Ethiopian Jewish community.

Now you make the assertion that these diaspora Jews had a murky background in a heathen flood... a biblical transmogrified text in an alien tongue. Are you talking about the Hebrew text also since it also has a murky background, suffering the wages of being captives in foreign lands, with foreign religions, foreign tongues....and also have a transmogrified Bible?

We must acknowledge the challenges besetting the Hebrew text as well, both in its formation and its transmission. I did allude to problems and promiscuities in the post-exilic Palestinian Jewish arena, from which we find (at least) the formation of the latter OT.

Yet when we come to diaspora Judaism, we field not only basic difficulties inherent to the original text itself, but potentially a further dividend of alienation and transmogrification. Each margin of distance and exotic influence complicates the task of correctly engaging the text. Thus, the propriety of increased caution when engaging diasporic sources.

The canon guidelines of Jewish Hebrew text is that it is to be 1) in Hebrew, 2) follow the Torah, 3) be before Ezra (400BC) and written from within Palestine. Daniel is partly in Aramaic and some of Daniel is after Ezra. It appears that even the Pharisaical Jews can not stay within their own scripture canon guidelines but because Daniel is so "Jewish" it has to be included in its entirety.

Pardon my asking - where did you obtain this list of "canon guidelines"?

As for the Essenes, I guess your sources are in deep contrast to mine because they are described as very pious religious Jews who set themselves apart from the politics of the Pharisees and the Sadducees in Jerusalem.

It is not a given that the folks responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls were Essenes, although that is a popular theory. From the content of the Scrolls, we may gather that the people responsible for them had deep religious interest, and we may imagine that their religious thought and behavior correlated to some extent with those documents that we find several copies of amongst their literary remains.

I acknowledged, of course, that they "may have been 'very religious.'" What I questioned was calling them "very orthodox." Although we cannot assume that they agreed fully with the content of every document found amongst the Scrolls, their literary remains appear suggestive of some idiosyncratic character.

Heck, lets just say you are 100% correct on your statements.

You know how to make me happy .

The problem is what you (others?) have ignored is that if your above points are a valid reason [shady Jewish history ?] not equate their Jewish OT texts as sacred, then place those same standards on your Hebrew Texts (that you expound as 100% truth God Breathed).

I have already posted that 'I do not use any bible as "God-breathed, 100% truth.'" Textual evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint and even the Ge'ez bible is quite welcome, though each must be handled sensitively - like all textual evidence, including the manuscripts that yield the Masoretic Text.

But referencing the Dead Sea Scrolls is not altogether helpful to your argument. The mere presence of a document amongst these literary remains does not demonstrate that the people responsible for the Scrolls considered the document to be canonical, and one cannot claim based upon the Dead Sea manuscripts that their text-type is sheerly Septuagintal (q.v., The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, linked here).

I have pressed the issue forward over and over about the numerous contradictions in historical judgement of the Hebrew Jews codified OT scripture (completely non-Christian) .... I have demonstrated the very obvious discrepancies in the Protestant OT with hybridized uses of Hebrew and Greek texts simply to support a Protestant stance ...... I bring up Jewish traditions (ie, prayers for the dead), and you question their validity.... yet in the same breath you will gleefully accept the tongue of a Pharisee when Scripture directly warns you to avoid.

(aleph) I don't accept the canonical tradition of either mainstream Judaism or the sundry Christianities. (beth) I don't recall commenting on prayer for the dead. (gymel) As for the tongues of Pharisees, I'll gleefully accept those on a case-by-case basis.

You are getting into a very interesting area that forces you to extract historical documents as proof of Protestant positions.

Why should I be concerned about proving Protestant positions? For the third time, "I am neither Protestant nor biblicist."

I would love to see what you find about Flavius Josephus and Martin Luther.

I have heard of these men, but I don't have Tiger Beat posters of either hanging on my wall.

Why don't Protestants stand with their Hebrew Jewish brother's Hebrew text as God Breathed truth and accept the Hebrew concept that Mary was not a Virgin when she gave birth to Immanuel "God is with us"?

The Hebrew text does not make any claim about Mary's sexual experience, one way or the other. Both Protestants and Catholics are welcome to recognize that.

Then again, Protestants and Catholics are welcome to consider that the Greek parthenos might not always imply its subject's virginity (q.v., conveniently linked: Pindar's Pythian Odes 3.34; Sophocles' Trachiniae 1219; Genesis 34:3 in the LXX). Perhaps there is no necessary conflict between the LXX and the Masoretic 'almah.

You can moan and groan why I use a Greek OT text in my Catholic Christian Bible, but at least I can rely on a council of Christians who loved and adored Jesus Christ as their Savior asking the Holy Spirit to guide them, rather than a council of pharisaical Jews that hated Jesus Christ.

(aleph) You can rely upon a council of Christians who treated a man as if he were God, and I can moan and groan that consonance with Christian theology is irrelevant to matters of textual criticism.

(beth) Jerome used Hebrew for the Vulgate; the Douay translated the Vulgate, while conferring with Hebrew; the New Jerusalem Bible, the New American Bible, and the Christian Community Bible all used Hebrew. So far as I am aware, the Catholic Church is neither dead-set against the Hebrew text, nor especially infatuated with the Greek text.


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Dear Emmet

Regardless of how you see or perceive the Jews of the Diaspora and any of my positions how they influence what the OT should appear to be in the Bible, you are missing a basic point. More aptly, you are perfecting my argument that there were many positions of how God is to worshiped, studied and evangelized.

Protestants hold to Scripture Alone. Catholics hold to Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Teaching Authority of the Church. Just so none of the readers go off on another thread let me very quickly explain the three .... Scripture = God breathed written Word of God (2 Tim 3:16), Apostolic Tradition = passing down of God's Word , that part of God's revealed word not revealed in Scripture (Acts 20:23, 2 Thess 2:25, 3:7 &14, 1 Tim 3:1-5, 2 Tim 1:13-14, 1 Tim 1:3, 1 Cor 11:23, 15:34, Jn 20:30, 2 Jn 12, 3 Jn 13 ), Teaching Authority = Succession of Church leadership (ex: Acts 15, Matt 18:15). Remember, God's Word is unlimited, but a text is limited. This a thread for another time, so lets do each other a favor and not go there yet.

Emmet, you state ""I am neither Protestant nor biblicist." . Then I assume that you are and "Emmettist", also known as "the Word according to Emmet". You are the tip of the ever-changing Christian movement that is not Catholic Christianity. How's that for not calling you a Protestant or a Biblicist? I am not sure what to say. I guess my argument has always been Protestant vs Catholic theology since I have been both and it was Catholic Christian theology that made more sense, scripturally, historically and reasonably. Since you are neither, then I have no position to discuss with you. I would assume that maybe Homer, Sean, Chris, TK, et al would have more to object with you than I. I would assume that they hold to a disciplined Scripture Alone theology which is the basic Protestant stance.

This was a basic statement of faith of a Protestant Church I used to attend .... "We believe the Bible, consisting of both the Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety, is the only divinely inspired, inerrant, objectively true and authoritative written Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice". There's not a whole lot of Protestants that will argue with that statement, but it appears that you would.

So my friend, what do you stand for? You will not stand with the Bible/Scripture Alone, you will not "protest" as a Protestant so for the sake of this forum, what do you stand for?

In law we "pray" [request] the court to take certain actions. In Christian worship a prayer is like a request or petition or simply a praise. Do you say prayers for the dead? Catholics do. I guess it must come from Jewish tradition and some scriptural inferences about praying for the dead. I know the Falashians Jews do (did?) with the "TAZKAR" which is the 7th Day Remembrance meal for the Dead, a duty of the heirs or considered grave sin.

Or how about the Jewish Yizkor prayer which is for the souls that can not do good deeds after death but it can gain merit through charity and good deeds of the living. This age-old custom of remembering the souls of the departed and contributing to charity in their memory is embedded in the fundamental Jewish belief in the everlastingness of the soul. The Yizkor service is said on Yom Kippur. The custom is also to recite it on the three Jewish holidays, Passover, Shavout, and Succot. When a person passes on to the next world, the soul can no longer do good deeds to attain merit. But despite the apparent finality of the closing of their book of deeds, when we give charity, do good deeds, or say a prayer this indeed can achieve spiritual elevations, and open the ledger for a rectification of merits for the deceased. Similarly, the Yizkor service can reopen the book of deeds and bring merit and elevation to your loved ones. God treats our prayer and our charity as if the deceased gave it. For if not for them the noble act would not have taken place.

The Prayers of "Yizkor," "May He Remember," we ask Hashem to "remember" the souls of our loved ones who have passed away. These include primarily family members: husbands and wives, parents and grandparents, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, and children, G-d Forbid.
But of course, as far as remembering is concerned, we know that Hashem never forgets, as we say on Rosh HaShanah, in the Prayer of "Zichronot," Remembrances, "Atah Zocher Maaseh Olam," You remember everything that has ever happened." So Yizkor is really an opportunity for us to bring to mind intensely, to re-create, if only for a few brief moments, connections that once existed between ourselves and loved ones, who have passed away.

It is also an opportunity to secure additional merit for those beloved ones by performing the act of "Tzedakah," Charity. This would be in accordance with the verse, "U'Tzedakah Tatzil MiMavet," "Charity Protects from Death," in the sense that the act of kindness involved in one's assisting the poor accrues not only to one's own merit, but also to the Eternal merit of one's parents and loved ones, whose standing in "Olam HaBa," the World of the Spirit, is enhanced by the acts of goodness done by those who remember them.

This is especially significant in connection with the Yizkor of Yom Kippur, when the living and the dead are visited by the Judge of All Worlds, and Atonement is sought by the living for themselves as well as for departed generations.

Or how about if we recite the "Yizkor" for Martyrs ..... "May the Lord remember the souls of the holy and pure ones who were killed, murdered, slaughtered, burned, drowned, and strangled for the sanctification of the Name, because, without making a vow, I shall give to charity on their behalf. As reward for this, may their souls be bound in the Bond of Life, together with the souls of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah; and together with the other righteous men and women in the Garden of Eden. Now let us respond: Amen"

Heck, since we're on to a small discussion about Jewish prayers for the dead, then why not the El Malei Rahamim: Jewish Memorial Prayer ..... "God Who Is full of Mercy". This prayer is recited by the "chazan," or prayer leader, in behalf of all the deceased, for whom the Yizkor Service was said, for each grouping mentioned above. Or maybe the "El Malei Rachamim" for Martyrs..... "O God, full of mercy, Who dwells on high, grant proper rest on the wings of the Divine Presence -in the lofty levels of the holy and the pure ones, who shine like the glow of the firmament - for the souls of the holy and pure ones who were killed, murdered, slaughtered, burned, drowned, and strangled for the Sanctification of the Name, because, without making a vow, I will contribute to charity in remembrance of their souls. May their resting place be in the Garden of Eden - therefore may the Master of Mercy shelter them in the shelter of His wings for Eternity; and may He bind their souls in the Bond of Life. Hashem is their heritage, and may they repose in peace on their resting place. Now let us respond: Amen."

Heck lets not forget the Jewish Av HaRachamim "Merciful Father". This prayer has undergone an Evolution. Originally, it was recited only in the weeks preceding Shavuot and Tisha B'Av, because those times were associated with historical massacres and catastrophes which befell the Jewish People. Now, on days when Tachanun (a daily memorial prayer) would not be said, for example Rosh Chodesh, Av HaRachamim is said by the entire congregation in behalf of all the martyred heroes of the Jewish People.

Wow, so Jewish people prayed for the dead .... coooool. Do you think that was what Peter was doing in Acts 9:40 when he prayed to the dead woman "Tabitha" by calling out her name as if she was alive when in fact she was dead . He requested that she get up from being dead when he said "Tabitha, rise up". Peter did not say "In the name of Jesus....". He didn't call all the Christians into the room for a fellowship circle to pray to Jesus for intercession .... he kicked everyone out and stayed in the room by himself and a dead woman and talked to her. Guess what? She got up! Well, maybe it worked because there was still some Old Testament times Jewish traditions still running around.

But I am remiss talking about such things when you are not a Protestant because Protestants do not believe in prayers for the dead. Maybe you already pray for the dead since you are neither a Protestant or a biblicist? Then again since you are a "Emmettist" you may have your own traditions. I do not say this to mock you but to rather point out to the forum that this is why we have over 30,000 non-Catholic Christian doctrinal churches/belief systems.....everyone thinks that "they" have the correct interpretation when in fact it states it is the Church that is the foundation of truth (please do not say "Yes, Catholic Steve, we are the ‘Church', the body of Christ with the truth", because this would mean that there are billions of interpretations of truth. When Paul said this to Timothy he gave him advice where to come back to just as Paul did in Acts 15).

Anyone out there other than Emmet that can defend a hybridized Protestant Bible as 100% true, God breathed, God inspired scripture that has neither a Hebrew or Greek OT text?

Sleep tight all and don't forget to say some prayers for your family and friends that have died in His grace (come on give it a try, they will be smiling from heaven). Catholic Steve

[Guest]

Hello, Steve,

Thank you for your reply.

More aptly, you are perfecting my argument that there were many positions of how God is to worshiped, studied and evangelized.

Certainly there were many positions. Have I claimed otherwise? Not all were/are equally credible.

Emmet, you state ""I am neither Protestant nor biblicist." . Then I assume that you are and "Emmettist", also known as "the Word according to Emmet". You are the tip of the ever-changing Christian movement that is not Catholic Christianity. How's that for not calling you a Protestant or a Biblicist?

Well, it's an improvement, I suppose - but still rather miscast. Not everyone who posts here is a Christian, Steve.

This was a basic statement of faith of a Protestant Church I used to attend .... "We believe the Bible, consisting of both the Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety, is the only divinely inspired, inerrant, objectively true and authoritative written Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice". There's not a whole lot of Protestants that will argue with that statement, but it appears that you would.

There may be more Protestants who disagree with that statement than you imagine. There is such a thing as liberal Christianity.

So my friend, what do you stand for? You will not stand with the Bible/Scripture Alone, you will not "protest" as a Protestant so for the sake of this forum, what do you stand for?

Is that the point of this thread? But if you are curious, I have a backlog of 400+ posts here, and you can browse them freely.

Wow, so Jewish people prayed for the dead .... coooool.

As with Christianity, a survey of Jewish faith and practice over the centuries will turn up many ideas and behaviors. Not all are commendable.

Maybe you already pray for the dead since you are neither a Protestant or a biblicist? Then again since you are a "Emmettist" you may have your own traditions. I do not say this to mock you but to rather point out to the forum that this is why we have over 30,000 non-Catholic Christian doctrinal churches/belief systems.....everyone thinks that "they" have the correct interpretation when in fact it states it is the Church that is the foundation of truth....

(aleph) I do not pray for the dead. Should I imagine that my love for them is greater than God's, and should I imagine that his justice will miscarry without my input?

(beth) I have and I form my own traditions. Such is my prerogative, and my responsibility.

(gymel) I hardly agree that "the Church ... is the foundation of truth."

Sleep tight all and don't forget to say some prayers for your family and friends that have died in His grace (come on give it a try, they will be smiling from heaven).

Grinning in their graves is more like it - if they are not already dust.


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

CatholicSteve, you may want to read some of Emmet's posts before engaging him in this way. Perhaps you could start with the thread bearing his name on this sub-forum. The one you've mistakenly regarded as a fringe Christian is actually a Jewish man. Do you classify Jews as Protestants as well?