I asked you earlier for a source that is more authoritative from your claim, “scholars suggest that …” Is this your only source? The word you used to oppose my information was “scholar(s)” - plural. Where or who are they?
Wait – you’re dissing me because I only posted one source (which has attributions), when you’ve only posted one source, which itself is notoriously devoid of attribution?!? Umm… ok…
In any case, if you look back at the thread, you’ll see that my “scholars suggest that…” claim is in the context of placing one’s hand on the sacrifice, not of aural confession. So, you’re attempting to use my words in a context different than that in which they were offered. Nevertheless, I’d suggest that you read the footnotes in the NAB at Lev 1:4 and 16:21. Yes… “Scholars suggest that, by laying one hand on the animal’s head, the person was identifying that the sacrifice to be made of the animal was on his behalf. Not a transference of sins, but just a sign that ‘this sacrifice is from me.’”
I also provided another encyclopedia source from the Catholic website in addition to the Jewish
Right – the 1906 Catholic Encyclopedia. I’m giving slightly more up-to-date sources.
Incidentally, have you read the source that it cites? It’s freely available on Google Books, and it’s a very interesting read. It would seem to help my case more than yours, but there’s a quite intriguing phrase in the quote. There are two problems with your assertion: first, that source states, “Idem dicit Maymon quamvis ambas intelligat”. Clearly, they’re using Maymonides as a source, which might mean that you’re really not providing
another argument, but rather, simply the same argument, rehashed (and still unattributed). Be that as it may, the confession itself is very interesting:
“Deinde illis positis confitebatur sua peccata quae vel contra affirmativa vel negative praecepta commiserat, si scilicet sacrificium eius holocaustum effe debebat. Confessio talis erat, peccavi, perverse egi, rebellis fui et hoc et illud commisi; sed poenitens ad te convertor, sit hoc mea expiatio.”
Now, here’s the question: “hoc et illud” – that is, “this and that” – is part of the confession. The issue, though, is exactly what function ‘& hoc & illud’ serves here. Is it the author’s intent that this phrase
be replaced by a recitation of the sins? Or rather, is it simply a phrase that’s used to indicate, in a generic way, that there are items that meet the description, to which the speaker is referring but upon which is not explicitly elaborating?
I realize that you want to assert that it’s the former, not the latter; yet, it’s not a foregone conclusion. Let’s look at a quote from Augustine’s
De Trinitatae:
“Quid plura et plura? Bonum hoc et bonum illud; tolle hoc et illud, et vide ipsum bonum, si potes” (“But why go on? This is good and that is good: take away this and that and look upon the Good itself, if you can.”)
So, it seems reasonable to assert that the phrase “et hoc et illud” isn’t meant only as some sort of
algebraic variable, intended to be replaced by the particular sins of the penitent, but rather, only as part of a general confession of sinfulness. The article in the 1906 Catholic Encyclopedia, I would assert, doesn’t provide any clarity on this matter.
This source is unreliable, too, in your opinion?
Not unreliable – just out-of-date and inconclusive.
And my reference to scripture is not valid? (See also Numbers 5:5-8)
Certainly not. Yet, given that Numbers 5:5-8 clarifies a specific instance of the general case given in Lev 5:14-26, and that general case does not require a literal confession of distinct sins, then must we conclude that the phrase means what you say it means? I think not. Looking at the Greek, we have, “ἐξαγορεύσει τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἣν ἐποίησεν” – at
New Advent, this is translated simply as “confession must be made of it”; that is, if a wrong is done, one must admit the wrong. In other words, the general case in Leviticus doesn’t prescribe a listing of offenses, and Numbers 5 may be interpreted as only asserting that one must admit only that he has “commit[ed] any of those wrongs mankind is prone to commit, and incurs guilt by neglecting the Lord’s commandment” (Num 5:6).
I am of the opinion from following your other posts on the forum that you are loathe to lose an argument
This is true; I certainly like to debate.
You made a strong case and then failed to back it up with reliable source(s) - plural - that you assert you have read.
And you have misused my assertions and refused to provide the sources that
you claim you have. Perhaps we should call it even. Oh, wait – I
have provided my sources, and you haven’t offered any contradiction to mine. Oops…!
Perhaps it is critical for you to believe confession of sin was not important in God’s eyes, and that He just wanted His people to use a generic formula of “sinfulness”, without a solemn profession of their actual sins. If this was His will in antiquity, then I believe it would also be His will today - that there should be no necessity for the actual mention of specific sins.
Perhaps it is critical for you to believe that solemn profession of actual sin, in antiquity, was important in God’s eyes. Your assertion that “as it is now, so must it have been then” is hardly convincing; one need only understand the distinction between “foreshadowing” and “actual event” to see that this is not the case. However, if you have any sources that support your claim that Scriptural foreshadowing requires that the foreshadowing be identical to the event that it anticipates, I’d love to see them!
anyway, he said that Paul is talking about teaching being tested on earth and the fire is representative of false teacher’s teachings not standing the test of the Bible. Obviously this doesn’t explain it. He’s a rhetoric teacher and was very persuasive! But I still have to think this is talking about purgatory.
