Priest calls translation of "pro multis" to "for many" a "heresy"!
#51
(12-02-2010, 04:46 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(12-01-2010, 10:45 PM)quotidianum Wrote: No, you're going down the wrong road with your erroneous speculations.  The people (Disciples) who heard the words in Aramaic or Syriac or whatever language it was, and who therefore knew exactly what Jesus was expressing in  the perfect context, and who later, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost Himself, recorded the works in Greek, did NOT write "for all"---they wrote "for many."  Even someone who is not guided by the Holy Ghost knows enough to translate the meanings of expression, like euphemisms or sayings, when a literal translation is contradictory or nonsensical.  There is a saying in Spanish that "hay gato encerrado...", which literally means "there's a cat locked up...."  But do you know what the even means if it is directly translated?  No, because probably the best way to translate that to English is "there's something fishy going on in here..."  Likewise, if you translates "there's something fishy going on here" literally to Spanish, they would have no clue what you were talking about. 

But nevermind all of that, because the authors of the Gospels were divinely inspired, and so what they recorded on the matter is accurate.  To say that Jesus "really said 'for all'" is to deny the words of the Gospel and to assume that the earliest Christians "didn't really know" that Jesus mean "for all," but you, who happen to know about the euphemisms used by Christ almost 2,000 years ago, do (somehow) know.   Surely, you must know that you are making statements, like declaring "for many was a euphemism in Aramaic at the time and it meant "for all"", that you cannot back up and which contradict the inspired words of the Disciples in recording what Jesus did that day.  Also, as this other person points out, he has studied Greek, and the original Greek record the words are "for many."  Not "for all."  I also like the other posters explanation of Jesus' suffering in the garden of olives.

Faulty argument.  As I mentioned earlier, when people spoke of a thousand years, they meant forever.  So, those writing in Greek didn't feel the need to write out forever, even though that is what was meant, because it was common knowledge at the time that when people said a thousand years, they were not speaking of a literal thousand years, but forever.  So, by your argument, the writers of the NT who wrote in Greek should have known what they were doing and used the Greek words for forever, rather than for a thousand years, since they meant, and the Church teaches they meant, forever.

Also, I never said Jesus really said for all.  I said, Jesus really said the words "for many."  What I'm saying is, contrary to what it sounds to me like you're arguing, is not that the early Christians didn't know what Jesus meant when he said "for many" but that they all understood what he meant, and all understood that "for many" was used in place of "for all" because their culture did so.  Just as they used "a thousand years" for 'forever' and 'Babylon' for 'Rome.'  So, understanding 'for many' to mean 'for all' does not contradict the inspired words of the disicples any more than understanding 'a thousand years' to mean 'forever' contradicts the inspired words of the disciples.  Swiss cheese argument.

You seem quite convinced that your opinion is more important than the teaching of the Church.  I cannot read what you are attempting to argue without noting, again in charity, that whatever your opinion is on what Jesus said, as a "euphemism" or not, your opinion is totally irrelevant.  Your opinion is not important.  You stated that you never said that Jesus said "for all," but then you did state, by some authority you claim of having to somehow know the Syriac euphemisms used at the time, that Jesus actually meant "for all."  You surely must see the amazing audacity of that statement.  You are choosing to believe some other source of interpretation of the words of our Lord over the interpretation delivered to us through His Church and Tradition.  You are not free to do that, because as Catholics, we look to Christ's Church for how to interpret Scriptures, not to ourselves, and not to Syriac linguistics and their speculations of possible euphemisms used at the time.  The early Christians you mentioned were part of this same Church, and they did not teach something different. 

You admit yourself that Jesus did not say "for all," but said "for many," and that the Evangelists recorded His words as "for many," and that the Church through the ages has interpreted this as "for many."  This should be enough.  Your own speculations and opinions are simply not germane.  It is neither a "faulty argument" nor a "Swiss cheese" argument to reiterate the continuous teaching of the Catholic Church, confirmed by the Councils again and again, including the Council of Trent which is even cited here for you to easily read; it is rather, exactly what a Catholic must do. 

Reply
#52
(12-03-2010, 05:46 PM)quotidianum Wrote: You seem quite convinced that your opinion is more important than the teaching of the Church.  I cannot read what you are attempting to argue without noting, again in charity, that whatever your opinion is on what Jesus said, as a "euphemism" or not, your opinion is totally irrelevant.  Your opinion is not important.  You stated that you never said that Jesus said "for all," but then you did state, by some authority you claim of having to somehow know the Syriac euphemisms used at the time, that Jesus actually meant "for all."  You surely must see the amazing audacity of that statement.  You are choosing to believe some other source of interpretation of the words of our Lord over the interpretation delivered to us through His Church and Tradition.  You are not free to do that, because as Catholics, we look to Christ's Church for how to interpret Scriptures, not to ourselves, and not to Syriac linguistics and their speculations of possible euphemisms used at the time.  The early Christians you mentioned were part of this same Church, and they did not teach something different. 

You admit yourself that Jesus did not say "for all," but said "for many," and that the Evangelists recorded His words as "for many," and that the Church through the ages has interpreted this as "for many."  This should be enough.  Your own speculations and opinions are simply not germane.  It is neither a "faulty argument" nor a "Swiss cheese" argument to reiterate the continuous teaching of the Catholic Church, confirmed by the Councils again and again, including the Council of Trent which is even cited here for you to easily read; it is rather, exactly what a Catholic must do. 

Indeed.  Melkite, don't you think perhaps you should decide whether or not you even believe in Christianity before you start trying to rewrite Christian dogma based on your hunches?

Christ's blood was shed potentially for all but in actually only for "many" - for the elect, exactly, and for no others - not for the reprobate.  There is no other possibility, not just based on Scripture & Tradition but theology as well.
Reply
#53
He said he was arguing only in principle, and not for universal salvation, guys.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)