Lula posts: 665

Leauki posts:

Yes, I should have...I was in a rush to do errands and quickly posted that just to get it on the board and under consideration.



Evidently you aren't too impressed!



What interested me most is that the words, cari and caru are described throughout.....and must somehow figure into the meaning....I note they end with the vowels "i" and "u" was wondering what you make of them?

Leauki posts:



For me it's simple..I don't worry about it....I own 6 different Bibles and compare all to the Douay Rheims Version which I believe is the most accurate translation of St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate (405AD) which in turn is an accurate word-for-word translation of the original languages. St.Jerome was a linguistic genius...He spoke Greek from birth, was fluent in Latin and Hebrew and had many manuscripts to work from being 1600 years closer to the writings of the NT than today's scholars.

Lula posts: 650

NIGHTSHADES POSTS:

Bingo....

Let's start by going to the beginning when Saul of Tarsus was out and about persecuting Christians...and take it from there.


Acts 6:5-6 is about the Apostles establishing the 7 deacons in their office or ministry through prayer and the "laying on of hands", of which Stephen described as "a man full of faith of the Holy Spirit" was one.

It's very important to understand what happens spiritually during the rite of the laying on of hands. We know it's from the Old Testament rite of ordination of Levites Numbers 8:10 and it was the way holy power and wisdom was conferred on Joshua, Moses' successor as leader of Israel. 27:20; Deut. 13:9.

Catholics have retained this rite of ordination of laying on the hands (although now called the Sacrament of Holy Orders). It's seen throughout Acts. And just like holy power and wisdom was conferred in the OLd Covenant, the same is conferred by the Apostles through Christ directly at first and after He ascended into Heaven, through the Holy Spirit whom Christ promised He would send and did send on the First Pentecost, when the Chruch was officially begun in 33AD. Sometimes the holy power is manifested in curing Acts. 9:12; 17, 28:8 in line with the example Our Lord Jesus in St.Luke 4:40. It's also a simple rite of blessing as when St.Paul and Barnabas are sent out on their first apostolic journey 13:3 and it's most often used as a Baptismal rite for bringing down the Holy Spirit 8:17; 19:5.

Here's the passage: 5 "And what they said pleased the whole multitude and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith of the Holy Spirit, ....6 These they set before the Apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands upon them."


This is the 1st instance of sacred ordination of ministers of the Church reported by Acts. also 1Tim.4:14; 5:22; 2Tim 5:22. The hand of the man is laid upon the person, but the whole work is of God and it is His hand which touches the head of the one ordained. The prayers are said to God asking Him to send the Holy Spirit to the one being ordained.

V.7 interestingly enough mentions as the word of God increased so did the spread of the Infant Church and a great many priests were obedient to the faith. These priests would have come from the lower ranks of the Jewish priesthood like Zacharais. Some say they came from the Qumran sect. Don't know on that!

The next section of Acts describes Stephen after he has been ordained a deacon in Christ's Infant Church. V. 8, "And Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people."

Stephen preached mainly among Hellenistic Jews and while they were amazed at his wisdom and countenance, they accused him of blasphemy and brought him before the council. Chapter 7 is Stephen's address to the Sanhedrin. Stephen answers his accusers with a Christian vision of salvation history in which the Temple and the Law are already fulfilled in their purpose. It amounts to a summary of the history of Israel, divided into 3 periods...1-16 of the Patriarchs...17-43 of Moses and 44-50 of the building of the Temple.

Verses 54-60 explain how the Sanhedrin became enraged and even though they were unable to formally sentence him becasue that was the job of the civil arm of the Romans, they nonetheless saw the mob get unruly and tacitly approved their stoning Stephen to death.

Christians, certainly Catholics regard Stephen as the first martyr an example of fortitude and suffering for love of Christ. As they were stoning him he called out and forgave them.

v. 56-59, "And they (the mob) crying out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and with one accord ran violently upon him. And casting him forth out of the city, they stoned him; and the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man, whose name was Saul. And as they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, "Lord Jesus receive my spirit." And he knelt down and cried with a loud voice, Lord do not hold this sin against them. And when he said this he fell asleep in the Lord. The Douay Rheims version has this last line: And Saul was consenting to his death."

Even without it, it doesn't change the next events.....


Just like Christ, Stephen dies commending his soul to God and praying for his persecutors. And v. 58 tells that Saul is a part of his persecutors who cooperates by watching the executioner's clothes.

Saul will soon experience the benefit of Stephen's intercession. Saint Augustine in one of his sermons on this passage wrote, "If Stephen had not prayed to God, the Chruch would not have had Paul."

Didn't know that AD. So you're saying Christian Jewish circles perhaps? Or would it be just Jewish circles?

KFC POSTS:

Yes, thank you KFC for mentioning this...everyone is really quite amazing.

Saul is not one of the those that stoned Stephen. Although he may have condoned it and was witness to it, he did not commit the act. Stephen forgave those that committed the act. It is not known whether or not Stephen even knew who Saul was. In spite of that it is not said that Saul was forgiven by the others that he persecuted in addition to Stephen. Acts chapter 8 verse 58 - 60 states about his death "But they cried out with a loud voice ansd stopped their ears, and rushed upon him all together. And they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. And while they were stoning Stephen he prayed and said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." And falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Lord, do not lay this sin against them." And with these words he fell asleep. And Saul approved of his death."

Stephen did ask that this sin not be layed against them, but he wasn't refering to Saul who was simply holding the witnesses clothes. Saul himself did not do the stoning, although he approved of it. Nor was he (Saul) forgiven by, nor did he ask, of the many others that he persecuted and gave over to torture and death, of them their forgiveness.

St John chapter 16 verses5 -15

The Role of the Advocate

"And now I am going to him who sent me, and no one of you asks me, "Where art thou going?" But because I have spoken to you these things, sorrow has filled your heart. But I speak the truth to you; it is expedient for you that I depart. For if I do not go, the advocate will not come to you. And when he has come he will convict the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgement: of sin, because they do not believe in me; of justice, because I go to the Father, and judgement, because the prince of this world has already been judged. Many things yet I have to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, has come he will teach you all the truth. For he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he will hear he will speak, and the things that are to come he will declare to you. He will glorify me, because he will receive of what is mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are mine. That is why I have said that he will receive of what is mine, and will declare it to you. a little while and you shall see me no longer; and again in a little while and you shall see me, because I go to the Father."

No where in Jesus' explanation of the Advocate does he state that that this is the Holy Spirit, but that "he is the Spirit of Truth". Nor does he tell the apostles that the advocate could be transfered to another by the laying on of the hands, even though the Holy Spirit can be transfered so. Even when he opens their minds to understand the Scriptures, which is the Old Testament, it doesn't say that he laid hands on them either. The Advocate is one that will explain to the apostles the truth behind the inner teachings, and the truth behind the parables that Jesus taught to them.

As you said in Acts chapter 6 verse 2 - 5 The Deacons

"So the twelve called together the multitude of the disciples and said, "It is not desirable that we should forsake the word of God and serve at tables. Therefore, brethern, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, that we may put them in charge of this work. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word." And the plan met the approval of the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit." Further you state, "Now Stephen, full of grace and power, was working great wonders and signs among the people."

Being able to work natural law in order to do these works of great wonders and signs, is not the role of the advocate, it is the role of the Holy Spirit. Anyone can call on this power that the Holy Spirit bestows. As I said before Apolonius a Roman could do the same works, as did Bruno Giordano. And even the disciples complained to Jesus that there was a man "not of them" that was working miracles in Jesus' name. Nor did the Advocate come to Stephen, he could recite Jesus words and work great wonders and signs, he could even "see", and he could also recite Old Testament history, but he was not able to do what the Advocate does, explain the truth behind Jesus' inner teachings and words to the apostles.



He is ordained a deacon, but nothing is mentioned about a church, infant church or otherwise. Only that the number of the disciples was growing larger. That is not an indication of the church. The twelve stated that "It is not desirable that we should forsake the word of God and serve at tables." In other words the daily ministrations (spreading to them of the word) to the widows of the Hellenists. Nothing of a church or starting a church there either, as spreading the word is not forming a new religion or church. It is simply a telling of what they had witnessed concerning Jesus, his life, and death, and resurrection.




This is not an indication of anything at all. St. Augustine did not know in fact that Stephens prayers had caused the church to have Paul. It is perhaps St. Augustines thoughts on the subject, but thoughts are not necessarily fact.

Read comment 674. I tried to explain it in detail, perhaps not good enough.

To summarise, the words do not look similar. One has three letters, one has four letters. The apostrophe in the English transliteration represents a Hebrew letter (Aleph).

The two words are more different from each other than English "bat" and "boot" and about as similar as English "bad" and "beard".

An interesting article in Haaretz about the son of a Hamas MP converting to Christianity:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1007097.html

From the article:

"A moment before beginning his supper, Masab, son of West Bank Hamas leader Sheikh Hassan Yousef, glances at the friend who has accompanied him to the restaurant where we met. They whisper a few words and then say grace, thanking God and Jesus for putting food on their plates."

The man, who calls himself "Joseph" now has this message for Israel:

"You Jews should be aware: You will never, but never have peace with Hamas. Islam, as the ideology that guides them, will not allow them to achieve a peace agreement with the Jews. They believe that tradition says that the Prophet Mohammed fought against the Jews and that therefore they must continue to fight them to the death."

He knows that he put his family in danger but misses his mother and sisters (who are, presumably, not as insane and hateful as his father). And he misses the tolerant people of Ramallah (which is in the West-Bank, not Gaza).

He likes Israel now.

Just thought I'd add some positive news to the thread.

Leauki,

I went back to my oldest commentaries and found this written in the 1500's by John Calvin on that Psalm 22:16 passage about the "piercd hands and feet." Seems like this argument goes way back. Now he uses the Hebrew markings and I can't do that here so I'll put dashes where he puts the lettering. This is what he said way back then:

"The original word which we have translated "they have pierced is ----- "caari" which literally rendered is "like a lion." As all the Hebrew Bibles at this day, without exception, have this reading, I would have had great hesitation in departing from a reading which they all support, were it not that the scope of the discourse compels me to do so, and were there not strong grounds for conjecturing that this passage has been fraudulently corrupted by the Jews. With respect to the Septuagint version there is no doubt that the translators had read in the Hebrew text ----"caaru" that is the letter -- "vau" where there is now the letter --"yod."

The Jews prate much about the literal sense being purposely and deliberately overthrown by our rendering the original word by "they have pireced" but for this allegation there is no color of truth whatever. What need was there to trifle so presumptously in a matter where it was altogether unnecessary? Very great suspicion of falsehood, however, attaches to them, seeing it is the uppermost desire of their hearts to despoil the crucified Jesus of his escutcheons, and to divest him of his character as the Messiah and Redeemer. If we receive this reading as they would have us to do, the sense will be enveloped in marvellous obscurity. In the first place, it will be a defective form of expression; and to complete it, they say it is necessary to supply the verb to "surround or to beset". But what do they mean by besetting the hands and the feet? Besetting belongs no more to thse parts of the human body than to the whole man. The absurdity of this argument being discovered, they have recourse to the most ridicoulous old wives' fables, according to their usual way, saying, that the lion, when he meets any man in his road, makes a circle with his tail before rushing upon his prey: from which it is abundantly evident that they are at a loss for arguments to support thier view.

Again, since David in the precceding verse has used the similude of a lion, the repetition of it in this verse would be superflous. I forbear insisting upon what some of our expositors have observed, namely, that this noun, when it has prefixed it to the letter ---"caph" which signifies, as, the word denoting similitude, has commonly other points than those which are employed in this passage. My object, however, is not here to labour to convince the Jews who in controversy are in the highest degree obstinate and opinionative. I only intend briefly to show how wickedly they endeavour to perplex Christians on account of the different reading which occurs in this place. When they object that by the appointment of the law no man was fastened with nails to a cross, they betray in their gross ignorance of history, since it is certain that the Romans introduced many of their own customs and manners into the provinces which they had conquered. If they object that David was never nailed to a cross, the answer is easy, namely, that in bewailing his condition, he has made use of a similutde, declaring that he was not less afflicted by his enemies than the man who is suspended on a cross having his hands and feet pierced through with nails."

Lula posts:

OK, thanks. At first glance and knowing nothing about Hebrew, I thought there might be a connection.

Lula posts:

LEAUKI POSTS:

Psalm 22:17-18 according to the New American Bible translation reads:

"Many dogs surround me, a pack of evil doers closes in on me. So wasted are my hands and feet 18 that I can count all my bones. They stare at me and gloat."



You seem to be figuring it out.

And again, whether it's translated as "pierced" or "dug" or something else, this one verse doesn't change the meaning or general tone or message of the David's sorrowful Psalm one iota.

Using anyone of those words, it still remains remarkably prophetic to Christ's Passion (suffering) leading to His death by crucifixion.

Leauki...this is the note that was attached to the above quote: Thought you might like to read this.

This word has created much discussion. In the Hebrew Bible, the "kethib" or "textual" reading is ---"caari, like a lion;" the "keri" or marginal reading is ---"caaru", "they "pierced" from ---"carah" "to cut, dig, or pierce." Both readings are supported by MSS. There is, however, no ground to doubt that the genuine reading is ,---"caaru." As the Septuagint here reads ----, "they pierced," the translators, doubtless, considered that the correct reading of the Hebrew text was --- "caaru."

The Vulgate, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic, give a similar rendering. All the Evangelists also quote and apply the passage to the crucifixion of Christ. Besides, the other reading ---, "caari, as a lion," renders the passage unintelligible. The Chaldee version has combined both the ideas of "pierced" and "as a lion," reading, "Biting, as a lion, my hands and my feet." Our author (Calvin) supposes that the text has been fraudelently corrupted by the Jews, who have intentionally changed ---, "caaru," into ---- "caari." But there is no necessity for supposing that there has been any fraud in this case. In the process of transcription, the change might have been made unintentionally, by the substitution of the letter -- "yod," for the letter --"vau" which i so nearly resembles. Walford observes "that the present reading ---"caari" is quite satisfactory, if it be taken as a participle plural in regim., and be translated, "wounders of my hands and my feet."

Geeeze, no wonder. Looking at the two letters yod and vau the dashes of the Hebrew lettering is so close. It's hardly distinguishable. No wonder there is so much controversy. I never knew the background of this controversy before all this.

KFC,



They make several mistakes I already pointed out.

1. K'RV does not mean "they dug", KRV does. Those are two different words. K'RV means nothing. That's what the text you quote calls "caaru". The word doesn't exist.

2. The word KRV does not mean "they pierced", it means "they dug". And Luther translated it as "dig".

3. Reading the word as "like a lion" does not render the passage unintelligible. (Did the author not even notice that he put that claim right next to a perfectly intelligible "Biting, as a lion, my hands and my feet."?)

And yes, Yud and Vav look similar. But it is really simpler to make a Yud into a Vav accidentally than a Vav into a Yud. Try it out! If you accidentally write a Yud instead of a Vav, you can correct it immediately.

But this part is what confuses me:



Why exactly is there no ground to doubt that the genuine reading is as a word that doesn't exist?