Isaiah 22

[Buzzard]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=321918&postcount=59
Post #59

Maccabees:

Hey try renting the Passion of the Christ some time

.

You base your theology on a Made in Holloywod Movie ???

OH Well;

 

[Maccabees]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=321918&postcount=59
Post #59

You base your theology on a Made in Holloywod Movie ???

OH Well;

No I wasn’t presenting the movie as any sort of theology but since you can’t interpret the Bible, archaeology, or history without mucking it up I figured you could watch the movie to get the realism of the aramaic language and the fact that Jesus did call Peter Kepha a large massive rock and the fact that Jesus used aramaic verbatim, his cry from the cross was the same in the Bible as in the movie. “ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?”
But you can’t even take that adivse and use it and learn something without mucking it up. Gee can you ever just be quiet and learn something without retorting to say something stupid and out of context.
I was not arguing theology of the movie or the accurateness of particular scenes some are of pious meditation and not scripture.
What I am dealing with here is the language that Jesus used and not if Veronica wiped Jesus face at Via del la Rosa. That is not the point here. But you have to make a snide remark to sidestep the obvious implication that no protestant denom or minister that is not of the lunatic fringe attatcked the film for using Aramaic. It is the common opinion of all scholars this was the language of first century Jews that is the point I am making and not the Passion as theology that is different matter that has already been beaten to death. Besides your misinterpretation and out of context accusations of my post. (Gee why am I not suprised you do this to scripture and everything else) You have no counter evidence to my claims. You are a straw man with straw thoughts and straw arguments. Build your house on the ROCK of PETER and perhaps you won’t be so full of straw.

 

[Kurt_G]

To Maccabees - I think you did quite well is restraining your frustration over the Aramaic/Greek/Hebrew language issue. Your response was lengthy, but very relevant. Thanks.

Also, A Buzzard Quote from 22 Nov.–
"Peter was not the Leader; nor did he make any such decision
alto he did “speak” and give “his opinion”

Actually, Peter appears to give more than an opinion. I think the Greek verb used in Acts 15:14 is the same verb used by John’s Gospel 1:18 “The only Son, God, who is at the Father’s side, has REVEALED (some say Declared) Him to us”.

Most translations of Acts 15 use a word for Peter’s speech like “related to us” or “described to us”.

“Declared” or “Revealed” sounds too strong, unless you’re Catholic. But those of you who live this Greek stuff, please offer an opinion.

Also, Buzzard, did you find a direct answer for us on “Cephas” used numerous times in NT Greek? I may have missed a post,
if I did, I’m sorry.

Thanks,

 

[Fiat]

Hey Buzz:

You’re interpretation of Isa 51:1-2 is becoming increasingly more bizarre with each post. I’m truly at a loss with what you’re saying and would appreciate your clarification. You now insist that whenever the word “pit” is used symbolically or metaphorically it means: something dead, place of the dead, grave, without hope, perversion, falsehood, wickedness, pit, wells without water, dry cistern.

Is it your contention, then, that the prophet Isaiah is telling us that we should look to Sarah precisely because she is all of those things? Why on earth would the Isaiah want us to do that?

You seem to be hung up on the Isaiah passage only because you wish you could assert that if a metaphor is used in one place in scripture, then it necessarily must be used in exactly the same way in every other place in scripture. Based on your logic, then, how do you overcome the fact that Jesus is referred to as the Shepherd and He is also referred to as Light. If a metaphor must have a standard interpretation with each of its referrents, then shouldn’t you be asking yourself, “how can Jesus be both a Shepherd and a Light?”

If you don’t wish to accept the fact that Jesus built His Church on Peter and that by consequence the Holy Catholic Church has no rightful claim to apostolic succession, then what is your view of Christianity? How do you find truth? Do you just wait for that “burning in the bosom?” Do you just trust the fact that the Holy Spirit is guiding you personally and leading you personally to the fullness of truth while we as Catholics are just too stupid and spiritually lifeless to find truth? What’s you’re view of salvation, exactly Buzz? What authoritative church leaders do you take your erring brother or sister in front of as Jesus commanded us to do?

I am thankful that you are searching for truth, and I am also thankful the Holy Spirit has brought you here. I recommend you check out the tracts posted on cathlic.com. And, rest assured, I will continue to pray for your conversion.

Your brother in Christ,
Fiat

 

[Carl]

Mind if I get off on another tangent?

I’m no Biblical scholar. Recently I was reading a commentary on Isaiah by a protestant scholar who claims that several different people wrote Isaiah over several centuries. This scholar maintains that this has become the universal point of view, whereas at one time the Catholic Church opposed it and held to the idea of one Isaiah prophet.

My question:

Have Catholic scholars adopted the view of two or more Isaiahs??

 

[asquared]

I really admire the scripture scholars on this forum who can read one of Buzzards isolated scripture quotes, ascertain what his implied (never directly stated) question or interpretation is, and proceed to interpret the scripture accurately in line with the Church. you deserve a lot of credit for figuring out how his mind works, because he sure leaves me in the dark.