[ingliz]

Salvation comes through the Word

Not necessarily.

And the Lord said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole.

Numbers 21:8-9

And

the children of Israel burned incense to it, and called it Nehushtan.

2 Kings 18:4

For he that turned himself toward it was not saved by the thing that he saw, but by thee, that art the Saviour of all.

Wisdom of Solomon 16:7

papist innovations in the area of religion.

Jesus tells Nicodemus,

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life."

John 3:14-15

[Hindsite]

Not necessarily.

And the Lord said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole.

Numbers 21:8-9

And

the children of Israel burned incense to it, and called it Nehushtan.

2 Kings 18:4

For he that turned himself toward it was not saved by the thing that he saw, but by thee, that art the Saviour of all.

Wisdom of Solomon 16:7

Jesus tells Nicodemus,

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life."

John 3:14-15

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
(John 1:14 KJV)

There is an image of Christ not made by hands of man, but by God that is on what is called the Shroud of Turin.

[Suntzu]

The Shroud of Turin is a fake . . .

. . . and so is Jesus.

[Hindsite]

The Shroud of Turin is a fake . . .

. . . and so is Jesus.

That is your opinion, but it is not a fact. The fact is that the image on the shroud is of supernatural origin and it testifies of the existence and resurrection of Christ Jesus.

[Victoribus Spolia]

As long as we agree that the logic is sound. Now, if we add certain ethical parameters, this would mean that anyone limiting access to contraception would be an accessory to the crime of slavery.

If pregnancy is slavery, the logic is sound yes, but such would also only be immoral if slavery is definitely immoral. All of which must be proven.

Sorry to say but that is a Word Salad with no discernible point.

The point was that the etymology of the word "logos" in hellenistic greek was not merely "logic" as you implied, but was quite broad. Secondly, the context of John 1 was to use Logos to mean both "the creative Word uttered that comes forth from God" which is personified as "the Second person of the Trinity."

My point is that your understanding of the etymology of Logos was too narrow, and that the use of "Word" in John 1 is specific.

You did not answer the simple question:

What is the difference between an image painted with words and an image painted with colours, stone or film not just in the Bible but in general? Can you name a single difference between any of them? The issue here is that you are confused because you are not reading from the original.

Actually, i am reading from the original and am formally trained in Hellenistic Greek and Classical Hebrew per my seminary education. I also know a little bit of Latin from elective study, and tiny bits of Slovakian, Spanish, and German (but only enough to find a hotel room and pick up groceries).

That being said, your presumption of what texts I can read and have access to is quite presumptuous; however, as to your point, I don't know what argument you are making. The text distinguished between "Word" and "Idol" in the New Testament, as opposed to the more specific language of "physical text" (lexis) and "icon." Whats your point and how does it further your case?

What is the difference? The Word of God is the means appointed by God as the conduit of Grace from which the power of both the preaching of the Gospel and the sacraments originates. Images are illustrations, they can be helpful teaching aids, but they cannot be elevated to the Grace of God, which is what the Word basically is.

Salvation comes from the Truth, and to reach to the truth you need to think with Logic because if salvation came from worshipping a script rather than the meaning of the script, then that would be ridiculous, as ridiculous as people praying to a piece of paper or a tablet or a phablet instead of the pure form of God/Good.

1. Lets be clear, Lutherans and Confessional Evangelicals do not "worship" the written text. This is a straw-man, We reverence the Word which is the Power of God made manifest (by which He created the world according to John 1) and worship The Word made flesh who is God (Jesus Christ).

The Scriptures are the Word of God in that they are both the power of God for salvation inscripturated, and the means by which the salvation of Jesus Christ is given to man (as The Word is the power of God in preaching and is what makes baptism and the Eucharist efficacious).

2. Your bifurcation of Word/Truth is false. Logos and Aletheia are equivalent in Scripture:

They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them by the truth; Your word is truth. (ὁ λόγος ὁ σὸς ἀλήθειά ἐστιν.) John 17:16-17

The Word of God is the truth by which men are sanctified and by which salvation comes:

Consequently, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I ask, did they not hear? Indeed they did: “Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.” Romans 10:17-18

St. Paul here quotes from Psalm 19:4 which is in reference to the Word of God spoken through His general revelation in nature.

Indeed, we have a simple set of truths here:

I. The power by which God created the world and providentially sustains it is: The Word of God.

II. The Word proclaimed (The Gospel and The Written Text) is the Power of God unto Salvation, The manifestation of God's unconditional Grace that leads to Faith. (Romans 10)

III. It is The Word proclaimed in the declaration over the Sacrament of Holy Baptism and The Words of Institution proclaimed in the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist that makes them the what they are as opposed to mere empty signs. The Word does this. The Word makes such outward things the means of salvation. (images cannot do this).

IV. God's Word is the Truth. (John 17)

V. God's Word is all that is needed for the man of righteousness to be fully equipped as a servant of Christ (2 Timothy 3:16).

VI. Christ is The Word of God and Therefore God in the Flesh. (John 1)

VII. We Worship the Word which is Truth By Which We Are Saved (Jesus Christ), By The Means of the Preaching of the Gospel and Administration of the Sacraments Which Are Powerful To Save By The Spoken (And Therefore Written) Word of God.

Conclusion: Any Other Means, Of Which Images Are Included, That Are Not Specifically Commanded By The Word, Are Idols.

Do you actually believe that God cares on whether he is approached through written or illustrated art? Both ephemeral human mediums. You are elevating text into God's place at this moment like those who put a tablet at an altar. Worship is for God only, text and images are merely aids in our communication, the Church has realised that aeons ago and if a text can be annotated, commented, and translated it can also be illustrated, but neither the illustration nor the text are for worship. If a Bible can be placed in a church to aid in one's communication with God, then that Bible can also be illustrated for those who cannot hear or read letters. But neither the Bible nor its illustrations are there for worship, even if some people become emotional about them which is natural and it comes either through reading or watching.

1. It is not an image that makes the Eucharist the Eucharist.

2. It is not an image that makes Baptism, Baptism.

3. Its not the presentation of images that converts the elect that are hidden in the masses of humanity.

It is the Word of God that does these things and the Word of God alone, which is the Power of God unto salvation.

Also: commentaries, annotations, etc., are not the Word of God and neither are images, and both have a place and a use in the church. I am not an Iconoclast in the sense that I am not opposed to the use images and illustrations as mere aids for the believer, but to elevate images to being mediums that ought to be reverenced as if they were means of Grace or the Power of God unto salvation, is idolatry. The Word, by its own testament, is both the power unto salvation and the means by which men are redeemed. It is the utterance of God Himself, its His Word and comes from Him. Images come from man, so unless God commands them to be made as objects of worship, their use as a means of approaching Him and receiving Grace is sin and idolatry.

None of those syllogisms follow from the text you quoted. First of all, what he calls "the original" is not the Masoretic text which came into existence 6 centuries later. By "original" he means the Hebrew text that was used to translate the Septuagint.

I am not insinuating that it was the Masoretic text specifically that St. Jerome is referring to, but that the Hebrew Tongue alone as it existed in the manuscripts that were even available to him, are the touchstone in verifying and confirming the Septuagint and not the other way around.

Your criticism here also assumes that the Masoretic text just came into existence in a vacuum, this is not true.

The Masoretic text originated from older Hebrew readings by the admission of the compilers themselves, through a transmission of scribal work from the Hebraic textual tradition that St. Jerome himself is referring. The point is that the Hebrew textual tradition is the standard, the Septuagint is a translation. The Hebrew text is the ecclesiastical text because God's Word as it was revealed to the Hebrews was revealed in their own tongue.

If you claim that the Septuagint is the Word of God and not the Hebrew, you are forced to the claim that prior to the commission of that Greek translation, there was no Word of God given to man. Thus, until the time of Alexander the Great, the words of Moses were not truly scripture. This is an absurd claim. The Word of God has existed since it was penned by God's chosen, in the Hebrew tongue. This Word was preserved by God through the ages, and re-compiled into a single unified text in the Masoretic texts which was merely recognized for what it was by the True Church.

The Septuagint is a translation, and no matter its merits (which I will study further), to claim it as the ecclesial text that is authoritative as the Word of God alone, and to be used in translation into other languages, is a ridiculous claim that was not the consensus of the early church, was rejected by St. Jerome, and has serious theological implications that are patently absurd.

You can read the whole analysis on the link above and you can see some of the corruptions of the Masoretic text in the image in my previous post. You should read that link because it is very interesting and well-written.

Will do.

Not necessarily.

And the Lord said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole.

Numbers 21:8-9

And

the children of Israel burned incense to it, and called it Nehushtan.

2 Kings 18:4

These were commanded by the Word specifically, so I allow for these exceptions, but only such. If the Word does not command them, they cannot be used as the object and means of worship, nor can they be a means of Grace. To use that which originates in the mind of man for such is idolatry.

For he that turned himself toward it was not saved by the thing that he saw, but by thee, that art the Saviour of all.

Wisdom of Solomon 16:7

I do not accept as authoritative the Wisdom of Solomon as Canon, but I don't think this text supports your point anyway.

Jesus tells Nicodemus,

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life."

John 3:14-15

This also does not support your point.

[Pants-of-dog]

If pregnancy is slavery, the logic is sound yes, but such would also only be immoral if slavery is definitely immoral. All of which must be proven.

I am defining pregnancy as slavery. Just as you redefined “potential people”to mean “actual people” and redefined “preventing” as “destroying”.

[noemon]

The point was that the etymology of the word "logos" in hellenistic greek was not merely "logic" as you implied, but was quite broad. Secondly, the context of John 1 was to use Logos to mean both "the creative Word uttered that comes forth from God" which is personified as "the Second person of the Trinity."

My point is that your understanding of the etymology of Logos was too narrow, and that the use of "Word" in John 1 is specific.

Actually, i am reading from the original and am formally trained in Hellenistic Greek and Classical Hebrew per my seminary education. I also know a little bit of Latin from elective study, and tiny bits of Slovakian, Spanish, and German (but only enough to find a hotel room and pick up groceries).

That being said, your presumption of what texts I can read and have access to is quite presumptuous; however, as to your point, I don't know what argument you are making. The text distinguished between "Word" and "Idol" in the New Testament, as opposed to the more specific language of "physical text" (lexis) and "icon." Whats your point and how does it further your case?

What is the difference? The Word of God is the means appointed by God as the conduit of Grace from which the power of both the preaching of the Gospel and the sacraments originates. Images are illustrations, they can be helpful teaching aids, but they cannot be elevated to the Grace of God, which is what the Word basically is.

I used 4 different terms to make the point of what Logos is, and that is Meaning, Truth, Logic and the bottom line. That is not narrow, in contrast your erroneous interpretation of Logos as “written text” alone is what is ridiculously narrow and wrong as well. I can only attribute your error to an ignorance of the Greek language which is quite apparent to a native speaker, as you fail to interpret both Logos and Idol.

2. Your bifurcation of Word/Truth is false. Logos and Aletheia are equivalent in Scripture:

The Word of God is the truth by which men are sanctified and by which salvation comes:

Which absolutely confirms my point as opposed to yours that word merely means text and not the meaning, truth and logic of the word.

Conclusion: Any Other Means, Of Which Images Are Included, That Are Not Specifically Commanded By The Word, Are Idols.

Explain how a script is qualitatively different illustrated and written?

1. It is not an image that makes the Eucharist the Eucharist.

2. It is not an image that makes Baptism, Baptism.

3. Its not the presentation of images that converts the elect that are hidden in the masses of humanity.

It is neither a textual image that does those things either. Revisit... truth, meaning et al.

I am not insinuating that it was the Masoretic text specifically that St. Jerome is referring to, but that the Hebrew Tongue alone as it existed in the manuscripts that were even available to him, are the touchstone in verifying and confirming the Septuagint and not the other way around.

Your criticism here also assumes that the Masoretic text just came into existence in a vacuum, this is not true.

The Masoretic text originated from older Hebrew readings by the admission of the compilers themselves, through a transmission of scribal work from the Hebraic textual tradition that St. Jerome himself is referring. The point is that the Hebrew textual tradition is the standard, the Septuagint is a translation. The Hebrew text is the ecclesiastical text because God's Word as it was revealed to the Hebrews was revealed in their own tongue.

And the fact is that the Septuagint is closer to the original Hebrew than the Masoretic text as proven by the Dead Sea Scrolls and the obvious tampering with prophesies. The assumption is not that it was made in a vacuum but in an anti-christian fashion.

[Hindsite]

Which absolutely confirms my point as opposed to yours that word merely means text and not the meaning, truth and logic of the word.

And the fact that this Word (Logos) became flesh and dwelt among men shows that this Word is not merely written text.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I am defining pregnancy as slavery. Just as you redefined “potential people”to mean “actual people” and redefined “preventing” as “destroying”.

So if all pregnancy is slavery, and not using contraception is to promote and cause slavery (which interestingly melds well with your equality argument for abortion); than, if that is the case, wouldn't all human sexual reproduction be ipso facto immoral and wouldn't you be guilty on enslaving your own wife when you impregnanted her?

Would you say man is obligated to go extinct in order to prevent slavery?

That is not narrow, in contrast your erroneous interpretation of Logos as “written text” alone is what is ridiculously narrow and wrong as well.

I never made that argument, but that the text of scripture is comprehended in the word logos is clear from its usage in John 17, I myself argued for Logos in relation to the incarnation in John 1, so I don't know where you are getting that. It seems you that will stoop to misrepresentation and presumption rather than deal with the main point, which is this: The Word of God in Scripture is comprehended in Logos, The Word of God is truth according to scripture and is the power of God for salvation. The Scriptures are therefore seen as originating from God Himself.

Images used either as the direct objects of worship, as a means of worship, or as a means of grace, are ALL idols, for they themselves, even if representative of what is in scripture, are still man-derived. Their status is the same as commentary or annotations, they may have a use, but they are neither a means of Grace, nor are they to be worshiped or seen as a means of approaching God Himself. Hellenistic Greek is not the same as modern Greek or even Byzantine Greek: that is true irrespective of the natural advantages I am willing to concede to you for being a speaker of modern Greek. You are free to demonstrate where I have not applied or interpreted the originals correctly.

Which absolutely confirms my point as opposed to yours that word merely means text and not the meaning, truth and logic of the word.

You are critiquing my position that scripture is meant to have preeminence over-and-against iconography. You are arguing this on the basis that there is no REAL epistemic and aesthetic difference between scripture and scripture-based illustrations (icons). You are wrong to presume that there is not difference.

The distinction is quite clear. Scripture is comprehended in logos because scripture is truth and the scriptures originate from God Himself. This is not true of illustrations, because they originate from men in order to represent something in scripture.

This puts them in the same category as commentaries and annotations and therefore are limited by the same measure.

Biblical illustrations are useful, but not as a means of Grace unto salvation, nor as a means or object of worship. Contrarily, Scripture is a means of Grace and is the means by which we worship and have a relationship with God. No one is advocating against all images here, nor is anyone here advocating that we worship a book with paper-pages as if it were God Himself.

My position has been clear from the start on this matter, and the Scriptures support that position.

Explain how a script is qualitatively different illustrated and written?

1. Epistemologically, text is symbiotic with speech, it is a visual instantiation of the audible, both are verbal, but only script is visual. Illustrations by contrast are not, and cannot be, instantiations of the audible, but only representative of that which is described by the verbal whether in audible or visual (script) form.

2. Theologically, The Scriptures are the Word of God and come directly from Him, images and illustrations, even if Scripturally based, are only man-made representations, they are not God-originated in the same sense as Scripture. Such images only become idols where they are assumed to have the place of Scripture or of God Himself.

It is neither a textual image that does those things either. Revisit... truth, meaning et al.

I am not advocating for a "textual image" (whatever that means), I am responding to the objection that the reverence ascribed to scripture by the reformers somehow falls under the same criticism these same Reformers made of the papists and the eastern church in their elevation of icons. Which is a false-equivalency (besides being tu-quoque).

My point; however, was this:

It is The Verbal Word of God that confers the power and authority of the Gospel Ministry and the Holy Sacraments. Not Icons. This is because the Scriptures and Icons are different and to elevate the latter to the status of the former is idolatry.

And the fact is that the Septuagint is closer to the original Hebrew than the Masoretic text as proven by the Dead Sea Scrolls and the obvious tampering with prophesies. The assumption is not that it was made in a vacuum but in an anti-christian fashion.

1. My main objections to the Septuagint have nothong to do with the question of comparison to the Dead Sea Scrolls, but to the various theological implications such a presumption creates, which you have not addressed.

2. That you assume the Dead Sea scrolls to be the de facto standard of Hebrew accuracy is an error in textual criticism, a single codex, even if the oldest in possession, does not have the authority to be regarded as the touchstone for the accuracy of the ecclesiastical texts, whether they be the Septuagint or the Masoretic text. That is, your claims prove too much.

3. The position of the Latin church, which is the correct position on the matter, is that the inspiration of Holy Writ, and therefore the apographic tradition of scriptural transmission (the ecclesiastical text), lies within the Hebrew Tongue. Thus, the hebraic textual tradition alone can be the base on which disputes of translation can be resolved (as attested by St. Jerome). The Masoretic text was recognized by the Latin church because it was a sufficient composition of the original Hebrew source material into a single tradition which contains within it the Word of God in all its authority. The Septuagint, like any translation, is only the Word of God inasmuch as it represents the Hebrew texts.

This is true whether or not one accepts the Dead Sea Scrolls as "the closest thing we have to the original Hebew," which as I stated, is highly speculative. Even The Septuagint has disagreements with the Dead Sea Scrolls in places, so is the Eastern church going to "revise" sections of the Septuagint? Of course not! We cannot verify that the Dead Sea Scrolls are the "prime article."

This is no different than the discovering of the Codex Sinaiticus, or The Western Text in Spain, the Alexandrian Text, or Codex Vaticanus. These New Testament texts were argued to be the oldest (just like the Dead Sea Scrolls) and many churches jumped on the bandwagon to argue the error of English translations based on the long-standing Byzantine textual tradition, but now we are finding Byzantine readings in the minority texts and indeed, to say that the Byzantine text was not the abiding Word of God would be a great theological error anyway (I actually agree with the Eastern church on this, even if disagreeing on their devotion to the LXX). This is no different than with the DSS, we should be cautious in making a single text-group, no matter how old it is claimed to be, the standard for all others, especially those that have been the church's authoritative text, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, for 1500 years.

4. Further, to argue that the Masoretic texts are corrupted by the Jews is slander that must be demonstrated and proven. Indeed, just because a textual reading "appears" to be less Christological does not necessarily mean it was not the original reading. That begs the question.

[noemon]

I never made that argument, but that the text of scripture is comprehended in the word logos is clear from its usage in John 17, I myself argued for Logos in relation to the incarnation in John 1, so I don't know where you are getting that. It seems you that will stoop to misrepresentation and presumption rather than deal with the main point, which is this: The Word of God in Scripture is comprehended in Logos, The Word of God is truth according to scripture and is the power of God for salvation. The Scriptures are therefore seen as originating from God Himself.

Is this a joke? are you denying that you have been arguing that "Word/Logos" means "written text/script" as opposed to idol which for you is an "illustration" of the very same text. You have been arguing that logos means the scriptural text while idol means the illustration of the very same text in this very post once again...

Images used either as the direct objects of worship, as a means of worship, or as a means of grace, are ALL idols, for they themselves, even if representative of what is in scripture, are still man-derived. Their status is the same as commentary or annotations, they may have a use, but they are neither a means of Grace, nor are they to be worshiped or seen as a means of approaching God Himself. Hellenistic Greek is not the same as modern Greek or even Byzantine Greek: that is true irrespective of the natural advantages I am willing to concede to you for being a speaker of modern Greek. You are free to demonstrate where I have not applied or interpreted the originals correctly.

I have aptly demonstrated the difference between Logos and Idol, you have not offered a single counter-argument yet here you are utterly oblivious to all kinds of Greek pretending to know the difference between Koine Greek and Modern Greek which is comical as if their minor grammatical differences bear any weight to these 2 Greek concepts which are absolutely identical in all historical epochs of the Greek language something of course you would know if you had sufficient knowledge of Greek. If you want to know the differences between Koine and Modern Greek you can ask me as I am a proficient user of both, but you should be told that those differences do not include those 2 words and their meaning.

Let us make this clear once again: "Idol" includes all kinds of representations those written in script, mentally imagined in your head, illustrated in film, cast in iron and stone or whatever. Idol-worship is when someone worships scriptural images, mental images, illustrated images, iron-form images or whatever images that are not the pure abstract form of God which is infinite and beyond comprehension capable of human representation in any form written or otherwise, even the book is the word of God, not God.

Logos is the medium to approach that abstract form of God through the Son, through the Word(written or spoken or drawn, or sung), through Logic and Truth and Integrity. It is not the letters you are looking at as opposed to the illustrations of those letters as you keep on arguing. It is the meaning of those words and the meaning can be communicated through letters and through illustration or pictograms or whatever medium is available.

The distinction is quite clear. Scripture is comprehended in logos because scripture is truth and the scriptures originate from God Himself. This is not true of illustrations, because they originate from men in order to represent something in scripture.

Letters are man-made too, there is no such distinction. This conversation we are having debating letters is further proof of the point. You are entangled in a grammatical error due to a lack of knowledge of those very letters further demonstrating that the medium is irrelevant to your comprehension when there is no logic applied to it but merely personal confirmation bias. Human letter form has no preeminence over human drawings or pictograms. In fact drawings predate alphabets by many aeons.

My position has been clear from the start on this matter, and the Scriptures support that position.

Your position that logos means letters while idol means a drawing of those letters is wrong. You should try to comprehend that and advance your knowledge because of it.

1. Epistemologically, text is symbiotic with speech, it is a visual instantiation of the audible, both are verbal, but only script is visual. Illustrations by contrast are not, and cannot be, instantiations of the audible, but only representative of that which is described by the verbal whether in audible or visual (script) form.

False, you do not need letters to go from a mental image to an illustrated image.

I am not advocating for a "textual image" (whatever that means), I am responding to the objection that the reverence ascribed to scripture by the reformers somehow falls under the same criticism these same Reformers made of the papists and the eastern church in their elevation of icons. Which is a false-equivalency (besides being tu-quoque).

Of course you are, you are saying that the letters of the bible are somehow more important than the illustrations of those letters of the bible because you erroneously believe that Logos refers to script written with an alphabet while Idol refers to using another medium to write the very same script which is absolutely false as demonstrated by the very definition and etymology of these words. Logos does not refer to an alphabetical script and Idol does not refer to an illustrated script. These concepts are far more important than the difference between ephemeral mediums and they both include all the mediums, written, pictorial, illustrated, whatever. Truth and Falsehood exist in ALL mediums of communication.

It is The Verbal Word of God that confers the power and authority of the Gospel Ministry and the Holy Sacraments. Not Icons. This is because the Scriptures and Icons are different and to elevate the latter to the status of the former is idolatry.

Idolatry is to elevate your misapprehension of text in the place of truth and that remains idolatry whether you write it, say it, draw it or sing it.

1. My main objections to the Septuagint have nothong to do with the question of comparison to the Dead Sea Scrolls, but to the various theological implications such a presumption creates, which you have not addressed.

2. That you assume the Dead Sea scrolls to be the de facto standard of Hebrew accuracy is an error in textual criticism, a single codex, even if the oldest in possession, does not have the authority to be regarded as the touchstone for the accuracy of the ecclesiastical texts, whether they be the Septuagint or the Masoretic text. That is, your claims prove too much.

3. The position of the Latin church, which is the correct position on the matter, is that the inspiration of Holy Writ, and therefore the apographic tradition of scriptural transmission (the ecclesiastical text), lies within the Hebrew Tongue. Thus, the hebraic textual tradition alone can be the base on which disputes of translation can be resolved (as attested by St. Jerome). The Masoretic text was recognized by the Latin church because it was a sufficient composition of the original Hebrew source material into a single tradition which contains within it the Word of God in all its authority. The Septuagint, like any translation, is only the Word of God inasmuch as it represents the Hebrew texts.

This is true whether or not one accepts the Dead Sea Scrolls as "the closest thing we have to the original Hebew," which as I stated, is highly speculative. Even The Septuagint has disagreements with the Dead Sea Scrolls in places, so is the Eastern church going to "revise" sections of the Septuagint? Of course not! We cannot verify that the Dead Sea Scrolls are the "prime article."

This is no different than the discovering of the Codex Sinaiticus, or The Western Text in Spain, the Alexandrian Text, or Codex Vaticanus. These New Testament texts were argued to be the oldest (just like the Dead Sea Scrolls) and many churches jumped on the bandwagon to argue the error of English translations based on the long-standing Byzantine textual tradition, but now we are finding Byzantine readings in the minority texts and indeed, to say that the Byzantine text was not the abiding Word of God would be a great theological error anyway (I actually agree with the Eastern church on this, even if disagreeing on their devotion to the LXX). This is no different than with the DSS, we should be cautious in making a single text-group, no matter how old it is claimed to be, the standard for all others, especially those that have been the church's authoritative text, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, for 1500 years.

4. Further, to argue that the Masoretic texts are corrupted by the Jews is slander that must be demonstrated and proven. Indeed, just because a textual reading "appears" to be less Christological does not necessarily mean it was not the original reading. That begs the question.

The Septuagint is closer to the original Hebrew than the Masoretic text because it has been proven to be so as they have both been compared to the oldest Hebrew text in existence and the Septuagint is truer than the Masoretic one and that text predates the animosity between Christians and Jews which means that it predates the motive of scribes to alter texts in support of their arguments. Differences exist among all texts since letters are merely an ephemeral medium subject to the calligrapher, but what people should care about are the main points and the bottom line in the important bits. And in the important bits which confirm the prophecy of the coming of Christ, the Septuagint and the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls confirm each other while the Masoretic text written in the middle-ages during a time of great animosity between Christians and Jews omits words that confirm that coming of Christ.

Your argument that any kind of contemporary Hebrew is superior is a) quite ridiculous and b) not a position of the Catholic Church as you erroneously posit. It implies that if a Hebrew scholar today changes the order of the non-existent vowels and makes an OT that is utterly incomprehensible, somehow this will be the ultimate OT even if it is in evident disagreement with the oldest Hebrew OT as the Masoretic text already is with the Dead Sea Scrolls. So if the oldest Hebrew text don't matter and if the obvious alterations in Christological prophesies and theology don't matter either, then what matters exactly? Your feelings?

And slander? Hilarious, especially in light of your comments here in which you quote Apostle Paul while neglecting that Apostle Paul quoted and referenced directly from the Septuagint that the original New Testament is full of references to the Septuagint and that it was proclaimed by ancient Jews such as Philo and Josephus as equal to the original. In contrast, the translation of the Masoretic text has been used authoritatively only by Protestants since the 18th century AD, I do not even know what you refer to by "1500 years" since not even the Jews have been using it for so long as it exists since the 9th AD.

[Pants-of-dog]

So if all pregnancy is slavery, and not using contraception is to promote and cause slavery (which interestingly melds well with your equality argument for abortion); than, if that is the case, wouldn't all human sexual reproduction be ipso facto immoral and wouldn't you be guilty on enslaving your own wife when you impregnanted her?

No. I did not say all pregnancy is slavery. If the woman consents, then how could it be?

Would you say man is obligated to go extinct in order to prevent slavery?

Are we discussing the ethical implications of our positions?

Noemon Edit: Redacted. User Warned for Impersonating a mod and threatening another user with a ban.

[Victoribus Spolia]

No. I did not say all pregnancy is slavery

Actually, you did not qualify either way, you only said that pregnancy is slavery. Besides, one can consent to slavery, people have voluntarily sold themselves into slavery as a legal status.

If all your saying is that pregnancy not resulting from the intention to get pregnant results in one being "enslaved" to the consequent circumstance that they did not desire from the start, you are not saying anything uncontroversial; however, that seems like an odd definition of slavery, has little to do with anything we have been discussing, and will not impress pro-lifers on the abortion issue anyway as they view engaging in any explicitly consensual sex as implicitly consenting to pregnancy as well since such is an assumed potential outcome of human sexuality, even if using contraception.

Are we discussing the ethical implications of our positions?

Noemon Edit: Redacted. User Warned for Impersonating a mod and threatening another user with a ban.

Tisk...Tisk....

[Pants-of-dog]

Actually, you did not qualify either way, you only said that pregnancy is slavery. Besides, one can consent to slavery, people have voluntarily sold themselves into slavery as a legal status.

Sure. As long as we agree that some pregnancy is slavery.

If all your saying is that pregnancy not resulting from the intention to get pregnant results in one being "enslaved" to the consequent circumstance that they did not desire from the start, you are not saying anything uncontroversial; however, that seems like an odd definition of slavery, has little to do with anything we have been discussing, and will not impress pro-lifers on the abortion issue anyway as they view engaging in any explicitly consensual sex as implicitly consenting to pregnancy as well since such is an assumed potential outcome of human sexuality, even if using contraception.

How is it odd to define it as slavery if it is against the consent of the woman?

Tisk...Tisk....

Getting back to your argument, would it be murder if a woan chose not to marry?

[Victoribus Spolia]

How is it odd to define it as slavery if it is against the consent of the woman?

Because slavery is not defined as a non-consented status, or at best, not merely so.

As long as we agree that some pregnancy is slavery.

Would you define slavery as any life-status that did not result from your own consent?

Getting back to your argument, would it be murder if a woan chose not to marry?

Oh boy, are sure you can handle discussing my views without getting in trouble with the pofo gods?

[Pants-of-dog]

Because slavery is not defined as a non-consented status, or at best, not merely so.

Would you define slavery as any life-status that did not result from your own consent?

Slavery is any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jure form of property.[1] A slave is unable to withdraw unilaterally from such an arrangement and works without remuneration. Many scholars now use the term chattel slavery to refer to this specific sense of legalised, de jure slavery. In a broader sense, however, the word slavery may also refer to any situation in which an individual is de facto forced to work against their own will. Scholars also use the more generic terms such as unfree labour or forced labour to refer to such situations.[2] However, and especially under slavery in broader senses of the word, slaves may have some rights and protections according to laws or customs.

While the fetus cannot buy or sell the mother, it fits this definition in every other way.

Oh boy, are sure you can handle discussing my views without getting in trouble with the pofo gods?

So, yes? An unwed woman is guilty of murder?

[Victoribus Spolia]

While the fetus cannot buy or sell the mother, it fits this definition in every other way.

it seems forced labor by one directly involved party over the other is clearly the nature of the definition, just as the slave is an agent, so is the task-master or owner. A fetus does not own the mother, nor has the fetus consented to the arrangement either.....

You are basically saying a fetus would be morally culpable of crime as the slave-owner of its own mother because a rubber-broke when she was voluntarily fucking her husband.....did I get that right?

So, yes? An unwed woman is guilty of murder?

It would depend on a host of factors. So if you are asking the question simply, as stated, the answer is no because simply being unmarried does not imply one is engaged in intentionally anti-procreative sexuality or is working to eliminate potential persons through such means....

[Pants-of-dog]

it seems forced labor by one directly involved party over the other is clearly the nature of the definition, just as the slave is an agent, so is the task-master or owner. A fetus does not own the mother, nor has the fetus consented to the arrangement either.....

The consent of the owner is immaterial. No one asks babies if they consent to their inheritance.

It would depend on a host of factors. So if you are asking the question simply, as stated, the answer is no because simply being unmarried does not imply one is engaged in intentionally anti-procreative sexuality or is working to eliminate potential persons through such means....

Okay

[Victoribus Spolia]

The consent of the owner is immaterial. No one asks babies if they consent to their inheritance.

No, but the maintaining of that property when one is legally responsible (consenting) is not immaterial. You, as a fetus could have inherited slaves, does that mean you should have been aborted preemptively, before you could consent, because you were to be regarded as guilty of a crime (having slaves)?

This is why inheritance is held in trust until the minor can consent to its possession and allocation/use. In the same measure, a fetus should not be regarded guilty of a crime in your example of merely being conceived, because in reality, they have not and cannot consent to their own conception which can be said to have come about more due to the actions and consent of the parents than of the fetus itself (obviously).

Likewise, a fetus that does not consent to the arrangement of the pregnancy could itself be regarded as a type of slave under these terms you have proposed, for it can more realistically be said to exist at the dependence of the mother's will and be her possession, irrespective of the fetus's consent.

Saying that a fetus is guilty of enslaving its own mother solely by the fact that it was conceived unintentionally by its parents, is patently absurd.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, but the maintaining of that property when one is legally responsible (consenting) is not immaterial. You, as a fetus could have inherited slaves, does that mean you should have been aborted preemptively, before you could consent, because you were to be regarded as guilty of a crime (having slaves)?

I fail to see how this question has anything to do with my claim.

This is why inheritance is held in trust until the minor can consent to its possession and allocation/use. In the same measure, a fetus should not be regarded guilty of a crime in your example of merely being conceived, because in reality, they have not and cannot consent to their own conception which can be said to have come about more due to the actions and consent of the parents than of the fetus itself (obviously).

Slavery is still slavery even if there is no consent on the part of the slaveowner. It’s not like slaves are freed when the baby is still unable to give consent.

Also, it is not the fetus who is guilty of slavery, since the fetus did not impose these conditions on the mother. The fetus simply benefits from it.

It is a slave master relationship because slavery has been imposed on the mother by the law.

Likewise, a fetus that does not consent to the arrangement of the pregnancy could itself be regarded as a type of slave under these terms you have proposed, for it can more realistically be said to exist at the dependence of the mother's will and be her possession, irrespective of the fetus's consent.

Not if abortion is illegal. In which case, the fetus exists at the dependence of the government’s ability to coerce the mother into a positikn of slavery.

Saying that a fetus is guilty of enslaving its own mother solely by the fact that it was conceived unintentionally by its parents, is patently absurd.

Well, saying that potential people are actually actual people, and saying that preventing something is the same as killing it is also absurd.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I fail to see how this question has anything to do with my claim.

You rebutted my previous argument on the grounds that consent on the part of the one possessing the slave (as a type of property) is immaterial. My question is meant to demonstrate that your rebuttal is simplistic in that the attribution of a crime (which is your whole point) would not obtain because consent in the possession of property is not entirely immaterial, for property is held in trust until a person can consent to its use or allocation for a reason.

Thus, if a fetus is guilty of being a slave owner on the basis of merely being conceived, then the fetus would only be liable to a crime when consenting to the possession of that property (the mother) at a later age. Therefore, when a child was, lets say, 16 or something, he would be asked if he "consents to having been conceived by his mother who got pregnant by accident"....at which point he would be arrested if he did not admit that "had he any say in the matter he would have abstained from existing in the first place."

Slavery is still slavery even if there is no consent on the part of the slaveowner. It’s not like slaves are freed when the baby is still unable to give consent.

I don't understand what you are saying here. If a child inherits slaves, he is not legally culpable for the crime of slavery until he can consent of the inheritance which is legally held in trust until the he/she reaches such an age.

If you are three years old, and your drug king-pin dad wills you narcotics, you are not going to be thrown in prison at age 3 and if upon reaching the age to consent to that inheritance's allocation, you decide to turn it in to the federal authorities, you would likely be guilty of no crime.

Not if abortion is illegal. In which case, the fetus exists at the dependence of the government’s ability to coerce the mother into a positikn of slavery.

But it is legal.

Well, saying that potential people are actually actual people, and saying that preventing something is the same as killing it is also absurd.

Saying that the elimination of all existing caterpillars will result in the elimination of all future butterflies because caterpillars are potential-butterflies is perfectly rational. People just don't feel comfortable applying that same unassailable logic to their sex lives and discussing its moral implications......because of their "feelings." This is not absurd at all.

However,

Saying that a fetus is somehow criminally liable for its own unintended conception because such is an enslavement of a woman, even when the pregnancy occurred after a bout of consensual sex by the parents, is indeed absurd.

Also, it is not the fetus who is guilty of slavery, since the fetus did not impose these conditions on the mother. The fetus simply benefits from it.

It is a slave master relationship because slavery has been imposed on the mother by the law.

You say this, but the fetus still does not consent to that which it benefits from and is still the one that incurs penalty for the alleged crime, even though it is not the slave-master or the one culpable. Which also seems odd, if not absurd.

Essentially, you are saying, that if a mother who has consensual sex has a condom break in bed, and gets knocked up, but is not allowed to abort.....she becomes the victim of slavery to the criminal of the state, wherein, the non-consenting benefactor (the fetus) is to be punished for a crime it neither committed and the benefits of which it did not consent to receive. All of which, according to you, is nullified by the fact that it is only slavery if the state outlaws abortion (which it doesn't). Is that about right?

What the fuck are you trying to argue? Do you even know?