Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Question for church-goin Christians...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    This completely ignores what I posted. You might try dealing with facts, not rank speculation.
    The books on quantum physics are filled with facts, but it still requires unpacking. Speculation is the first step to understanding, as the reader tries to absorb the data, throwing up one view after another, for inspection.
    Since when are Jewish leaders called "Reverend, Pastor, Bishop, [or] Minister"? I think your quotee is just making stuff up to support his preconceived notions.
    Teachers, scribes, lawyers, Sadducees, Pharisees, Rabbi?
    That's nuts. The women weren't wearing burkhas.
    Judas had to kiss Jesus to single Him out to the assassins sent by the Jewish leaders...
    Where are you getting this from?
    Anthropological studies?
    I think I've read enough of your views on women, thanks.
    The view raises the stature of women. Marriage was to be a model , a way to manifest the Gospel, to depict the relationship between Christ and His bride:


    Ephesians 5:25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30because we are members of His body. 31FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. 32This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.
    Last edited by footwasher; 03-12-2015, 04:30 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by footwasher View Post
      The books on quantum physics are filled with facts, but it still requires unpacking. Speculation is the first step to understanding, as the reader tries to absorb the data, throwing up one view after another, for inspection.
      The unpacking does not involve IGNORING the facts.
      Teachers, scribes, lawyers, Sadducees, Pharisees, Rabbi?
      Teacher (=Rabbi), yes. The rest, no; those weren't positions of leadership.
      Judas had to kiss Jesus to single Him out to the assassins sent by the Jewish leaders...
      No, he didn't - and no, they weren't 'assassins.' The kiss was just Judas twisting the knife of betrayal. The temple guards who came to arrest Jesus had seen him teaching in the Temple precincts all week - they just needed to know where to find him.
      Anthropological studies?
      Got any references? And what does it have to do with women prophesying, anyway?

      The view raises the stature of women. Marriage was to be a model , a way to manifest the Gospel, to depict the relationship between Christ and His bride:


      Ephesians 5:25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30because we are members of His body. 31FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. 32This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.
      That view's not unique, and unobjectionable; I'm just suspicious, based on your other posts here, that it's not complete, and that you're leaving out the more objectionable bits.
      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
      sigpic
      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

      Comment


      • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
        Teacher (=Rabbi), yes. The rest, no; those weren't positions of leadership.
        Pharisees, why not?

        No, he didn't . . . The kiss was just Judas twisting the knife of betrayal. The temple guards who came to arrest Jesus had seen him teaching in the Temple precincts all week - they just needed to know where to find him.
        Have you not forgotten Mark 14:44-45? John mentioned that the group setting forth to arrest Jesus bore torches and lanterns, but one has to be close to Jesus to be able to identify him anyway.
        The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

        [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

        Comment


        • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
          The unpacking does not involve IGNORING the facts.
          I am ignoring not facts, just the conventional view, which I believe is incoherent, a fact largely ignored, because of slothfulness of believers in profiting from the revelation each of us is given by God, to one a single revelation, to another five or more revelations. To bury the revelation in the ground is to waste, to not introspect, reflect on, persist in asking for justice from the magistrate for, to wrestle with God and men, till He gives up and allows us to bear fruit.
          Teacher (=Rabbi), yes. The rest, no; those weren't positions of leadership.
          Matthew 23:1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.
          No, he didn't - and no, they weren't 'assassins.' The kiss was just Judas twisting the knife of betrayal. The temple guards who came to arrest Jesus had seen him teaching in the Temple precincts all week - they just needed to know where to find him.
          The ministry of prophecy is dangerous. Another attempt to kill God’s messenger:

          Acts 23:12When it was day, the Jews formed a conspiracy and bound themselves under an oath, saying that they would neither eat nor drink until they had killed Paul.

          The ministry of prophecy involves laying down your life:

          Acts 14:21After they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch,22strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, “Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.

          Luke 16:16"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone (violent men) is forcing his way into it.

          Got any references? And what does it have to do with women prophesying, anyway?
          Even nature abhors long haired men:

          1 Corinthians 11:14Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.

          Read up anthropological studies of the universality of men in warring regions wearing their hair short. Only dominance in war and settled peace encouraged wearing of long hair. (Which can be a problem: Overconfidence in his strong position and belief in himself and his supporters led to Absalom’s fall.)
          That view's not unique, and unobjectionable; I'm just suspicious, based on your other posts here, that it's not complete, and that you're leaving out the more objectionable bits.
          I can answer indirectly. What is the role of women in the Kingdom of God?

          How are believers saved?

          By entering God’s rest:

          Hebrews 4:1Therefore, let us fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it. 2For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard.
          3For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said,
          “AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH,
          THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST,”
          although His works were finished from the foundation of the world.
          4For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: “AND GOD RESTED ON THESEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS”; 5and again in this passage, “THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST.” 6Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience,
          7He again fixes a certain day, “Today,” saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before,
          “TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE,
          DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS.”
          8For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that. 9So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. 10For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.11Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, throughfollowing the same example of disobedience.

          What are the rules that govern God’s Creation?

          Man is a noble spirit in an ignoble vessel. Therefore he cannot do what his spirit prompts him to do, act as he knows he must. Trapped in this situation by the Fall, man calls out to God for help. He has in this act, turned from acquiescing to his flesh, which he knows is wrong, and turned to God. In so doing he has become a follower of God and become justified, recognised. This is why the Pharisee is rejected and the Publican accepted. Why Elizabeth and Zacharias and many other people in Scripture were called righteous, were considered to be walking in God’s ways.

          To bring about this repentance early in a man’s life, so that he could be helped by God to live a righteous life, to bless the world, God raised a family:

          Genesis 28:13And behold, the LORD stood above it and said, “I am the LORD, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie, I will give it to you and to your descendants. 14“Your descendants will also be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south; and in you and in your descendants shall all the families of the earth be blessed. 15“Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land; for I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you.” 16Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, “Surely the LORD is in this place, and I did not know it.” 17He was afraid and said, “How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.”

          When the writers of Scripture put down their thoughts, they often used synechdochy, metonymy:

          http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/synecdocheterm.htm

          9/11 as Synecdoche

          "As a date, '9/11' is both singular and essentially repeatable. . . . Whenever the term '9/11' is used in this way a marker is put down referring us to this day, 9/11/2001, as if citation of this date (or its foreshortening as 9/11) is enough by the power of reference, and the power of its referent, to understand that day and to be affiliated with all that this day entails."

          (Martin McQuillan, Deconstruction After 9/11. Routledge, 2009)

          If they wrote “believed in the Lord”, it included all the circumstances that Abraham experienced: his dissatisfaction with the world, his calling to God for help, his response to God’s call to leave the world and follow God, his training in trusting God through "strange trials", and finally the implementation of that training when God tested Him and his loyalty was confirmed. Note who were those on the same team who also passed the test: Joshua and Caleb, Christ, the Apostles and many in the early church.


          By obeying God, Moses brought Israel out of Egypt. Apart from being delivered from captivity and slavery , this was also the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham that the world would be blessed through his descendants. Partially.

          Was not Rahab blessed by stirring to repentance through the story of God’s presence with Israel so that they died of old age and not from want or warfare, when even the sandals on their feet did not wear out, nor was any nation they encountered ever able to defeat them?

          By obeying God, Joshua brought Israel into the promised land. Apart from being delivered from homelessness and insecurity, this was also the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham that the world would be blessed through his descendants. Partially.

          Were not the Gibeonites blessed by stirring to repentance through the story of God’s presence with Israel so that no nation they encountered was ever able to defeat them?

          By obeying God, Solomon made Israel the greatest nation in the region. Apart from being delivered from insignificance and obscurity, this was also the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham that the world would be blessed through his descendants. Partially.

          Were not the nations of the South blessed by stirring to repentance through the story of God’s presence with Israel so that no nation could be compared with this nation, which had a God who answered them whenever they called?

          God’s presence with Israel, His dwelling amongst men, in the pillar of fire, in the Ark, in the Tabernacle, and finally in the Temple of Solomon, required separation from the world by those men, and turning to God. Sojourners who wished to remain in the land, which was the place where God dwelt among men needed to be circumcised. Not separating from the world led to dire consequences. When the King of Assyria transplanted the Samaritans to the Land to tend it and till it, God sent lions to kill them, until a Levite was also sent to teach them how to worship God. Israel knew she had to return to the Land, because she could not be a blessing to the world, live the substantive life, chayei olam, the life eternal, without being IN the Land. How could she sing the Lord’s song in a strange land?

          Of course the Land was a type of Christ, the final receptacle of the Spirit of God, which had left the Temple when Christ ascended to be with His Father.

          Now, now, those who “believed in the Lord could enter the full rest, the rest that remained, for if Joshua had brought Israel into the rest that brought the greatest glory, a glory greater than the Mosaic Covenant could give, the writer of Scripture would not have written that a rest remained to be entered into, an empowering that would bless men. Not partially, but effectively, perfectly, completely.

          To enter rest, those who “believed in the Lord” had to turn away from the world, turn to God, accept His training (drinking from the Rock), not shrink back from the test when they heard His voice. In doing so they would enter rest, be IN Christ, the new Land, the new humanity, the new Adam, and THROUGH Christ be a blessing to the world, becoming the righteousness of God, the fulfilment of the requirement ON God, BY the covenant, to honor His promise TO Abraham.

          Men would be saved by striving to know Christ and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, and being conformed to His death; by preaching the Gospel, by saying the words God prompted, by doing the works God commanded, foolish words, impossible works, by being insulted and persecuted at the hands of men and vindicated by God, by showing the marks of Christ in the raised body, and in doing so men would turn FROM the world and turn TO God. As Paul wrote of his (and of those who “believed in the Lord”) ambassadorship, genuine representation of Christ, being death at work IN us, but life FOR those he addressed.

          Women would be saved by child bearing, that is their ministry would be in bringing up God fearing children. Zipporah took on the responsibility of bringing her family into compliance with God’s requirements, and similarly children brought up in God fearing homes by faithful mothers are compliant, and will not be put to the test as the Israelites were put to the test in the wilderness. Their obstacles would not be giants but a quavering enemy which has already been psychologically defeated by the accounts of the nations that were overrun by Israel. The Orthodox Church teaches that the baptism of infants is a special baptism, giving them advantages that adult baptism does not.

          Moreover, men and women had an additional role to play. In their lives, they would enact the laying down of His Life by Christ FOR His Bride. Christ would suffer persecution, do the heavy lifting, so that God’s people, His Bride, did not have to (Israel was not the suffering Servant, Jesus was. God DID provide the Lamb, as Abraham prophesied). Again manifesting God's righteousness, showcasing the Gospel...
          Last edited by footwasher; 03-14-2015, 06:30 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by footwasher View Post
            I am ignoring not facts,
            Yes, you are. You are ignoring the fact that the first half of the Orthodox liturgy (the part not dealing with the Eucharist) appears to be modeled on the Jewish synagogue service - this despite a history of animosity between the two parties dating back to the time you allege the Christian service looked much different.
            just the conventional view, which I believe is incoherent, a fact largely ignored, because of slothfulness of believers in profiting from the revelation each of us is given by God, to one a single revelation, to another five or more revelations. To bury the revelation in the ground is to waste, to not introspect, reflect on, persist in asking for justice from the magistrate for, to wrestle with God and men, till He gives up and allows us to bear fruit.
            I believe this part of your post is incoherent - and I find your insistence on the need for continued revelation at every gathering of believers to be disparaging of 2,000 years of church writings (including the New Testament, which the believers Paul was writing to did not have for the most part).
            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
            sigpic
            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

            Comment


            • Mark 2:22"No one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins as well; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins."

              Quote
              One of the interesting things about the Christian faith, when you think about the Bible, is that it seems to be designed so that every generation needs to chew it through afresh. We can no-one of us live on what was done before because cultures change, that has always been true, the language too, the pressure points of people have always been changing and again and again, this is not just true of our generation but every generation.

              It's rather like the way the Israelites gathered manna. You just have to go out and get the fresh stuff every day.

              But the good thing is that it means we all have to grow up and that there can be no passengers. We've all got to think it through and that is really the Pauline principle of transformation by the renewal of the mind and the way that that happens is when we are faced with new situations and we have to think it through afresh what is it we are saying and what we mean by what we are saying... We've GOT to do that.


              N T Wright

              https://www.google.co.in/search?redir_esc=&client=ms-android-htc-rev&hl=en-IN&safe=images&oe=utf-8&q=what+is+the+gospel+tom+wright&source=android-browser-suggest&qsubts=1426397886380


              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
              Yes, you are. *You are ignoring the fact that the first half of the Orthodox liturgy (the part not dealing with the Eucharist) appears to be modeled on the Jewish synagogue service - this despite a history of animosity between the two parties dating back to the time you allege the Christian service looked much different. *

              Matthew 23:1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. 4“They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. 5“But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. 6“They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. 8“But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9“Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10“Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. 11“But the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12“Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.
              I believe this part of your post is incoherent - and I find your insistence on the need for continued revelation at every gathering of believers to be disparaging of 2,000 years of church writings (including the New Testament, which the believers Paul was writing to did not have for the most part).

              In the short story of the race horse, "Silver Blaze", Sherlock Holmes received a revelation, a tip. It seemed curious that when the horse was stolen, the dog did not bark. He rocked the boat, shook the tree (and probably became unpopular with the police, who already had a suspect with a motive and without an alibi in custody) until the answer spilled out.


              All the slaves received revelations, clues that made the conventional interpretation of God's word incoherent. One of them harassed the judge until he got the answer to the mystery (prayer to God). Another disturbed the peace , probably caused division, by insisting that his neighbor give him the answer (group study). A third put his clue into a bank and eventually received his answer (Bible and commentary study).


              The slave who received punishment was the one who left the clue unfollowed.


              Matthew 25:24“Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’

              26“His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

              HaHa! God doesn't even mind if you use redactive criticism. Whether the text says "virgin" or "young woman", God will take any interpretation that Matthew gives.


              Contrast that with this:

              1 Corinthians 14:26What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.
              Last edited by footwasher; 03-15-2015, 01:43 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by footwasher View Post
                Mark 2:22"No one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins as well; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins."
                I am quite certain you're taking this out of context.
                Quote
                One of the interesting things about the Christian faith, when you think about the Bible, is that it seems to be designed so that every generation needs to chew it through afresh. We can no-one of us live on what was done before because cultures change, that has always been true, the language too, the pressure points of people have always been changing and again and again, this is not just true of our generation but every generation.

                It's rather like the way the Israelites gathered manna. You just have to go out and get the fresh stuff every day.

                But the good thing is that it means we all have to grow up and that there can be no passengers. We've all got to think it through and that is really the Pauline principle of transformation by the renewal of the mind and the way that that happens is when we are faced with new situations and we have to think it through afresh what is it we are saying and what we mean by what we are saying... We've GOT to do that.


                N T Wright
                source - it was not easy for me to dig this up; a search url is worthless.

                In a sense, NT Wright is correct - we do each need to think through the implications of the gospel afresh; Jesus offers a personal relationship, not an intellectual exercise learned through books. On the other hand, there is nothing new under the sun (Ecc. 1:9). I read material from the early church fathers, and find it still extremely profitable many centuries later.

                Originally posted by OBP
                Yes, you are. *You are ignoring the fact that the first half of the Orthodox liturgy (the part not dealing with the Eucharist) appears to be modeled on the Jewish synagogue service - this despite a history of animosity between the two parties dating back to the time you allege the Christian service looked much different. *
                Matthew 23:1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. 4“They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. 5“But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. 6“They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. 8“But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9“Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10“Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. 11“But the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12“Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.
                Still ignoring, I see. Or are you implying some sort of division in the early church of which history is utterly silent?
                In the short story of the race horse, "Silver Blaze", Sherlock Holmes received a revelation, a tip. It seemed curious that when the horse was stolen, the dog did not bark. He rocked the boat, shook the tree (and probably became unpopular with the police, who already had a suspect with a motive and without an alibi in custody) until the answer spilled out.

                All the slaves received revelations, clues that made the conventional interpretation of God's word incoherent. One of them harassed the judge until he got the answer to the mystery (prayer to God). Another disturbed the peace , probably caused division, by insisting that his neighbor give him the answer (group study). A third put his clue into a bank and eventually received his answer (Bible and commentary study).


                The slave who received punishment was the one who left the clue unfollowed.

                Matthew 25:24“Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’

                26“His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.
                This is not "Sherlock Holmes Interpretation 101."
                HaHa! God doesn't even mind if you use redactive criticism. Whether the text says "virgin" or "young woman", God will take any interpretation that Matthew gives.
                What does that have to do with anything here?
                Contrast that with this:

                1 Corinthians 14:26What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.
                Which you utterly misinterpret, as I've previously pointed out. Your response is ...Sherlock Holmes.

                By the way, if you'd watched the whole NT Wright video, you'll note he places rather more emphasis on the sacraments, reading scripture, prayer, and helping the poor than "small group study" (which he, um, fails to mention).
                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                sigpic
                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                Comment


                • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                  I am quite certain you're taking this out of context.
                  Not really.
                  source - it was not easy for me to dig this up; a search url is worthless.
                  Sorry, I found it difficult to embed the video clip
                  In a sense, NT Wright is correct - we do each need to think through the implications of the gospel afresh; Jesus offers a personal relationship, not an intellectual exercise learned through books. On the other hand, there is nothing new under the sun (Ecc. 1:9). I read material from the early church fathers, and find it still extremely profitable many centuries later.
                  I have nothing against reading from the ECF. My gripe is with the lecture style church meeting. At least in college lectures, doubts can be cleared, and points made by different students are tremendously helpful. Many online teaching programs include meeting together sessions. The online modules are supplements, not the main teaching tool. The Eastern Orthodox have no problem with the teachings of the ECF. It's the Western churches that have an eye opening experience, when they take the time to read them.
                  Still ignoring, I see. Or are you implying some sort of division in the early church of which history is utterly silent?
                  It's very clear that testing the spirits was a major part of the church meetings, as seen by the repetitious warnings seen in the NT, by both Christ and the Apostles, against false teachers and doctrine.
                  This is not "Sherlock Holmes Interpretation 101."
                  Deductive reasoning is the same, in any puzzle solving endeavour. The lesson is always the same, as well, in unpacking the information, whether at the crime scene or Bible study: Are there any holes in your conclusion/theory? Any unexplained clues?
                  What does that have to do with anything here?
                  God says He even reaps where he never sowed. Matthew used redaction to conclude the text said "virgin" instead of "young woman". God doesn't care whether He intended for revelation to be found in that text. He'll take the credit for foreseeing the future wherever He gets it!!!
                  Which you utterly misinterpret, as I've previously pointed out. Your response is ...Sherlock Holmes.
                  I showed you where Christ ended hierarchical leadership models. I also showed the instance of the First Century churches being taught to follow the new model. Join the dots.
                  By the way, if you'd watched the whole NT Wright video, you'll note he places rather more emphasis on the sacraments, reading scripture, prayer, and helping the poor than "small group study" (which he, um, fails to mention).
                  Yes, thats why we need to not avoid the gathering of the saints. Each person is a combination of truth and error, according to the revelation given to him or her. Discussion refines the information in the group. So Wright is wrong about failing to mention the importance of small study groups. Even churches like the RCC have some things right and some wrong. Good reason for them to get together too.
                  Last edited by footwasher; 03-20-2015, 10:11 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by footwasher View Post
                    I have nothing against reading from the ECF. My gripe is with the lecture style church meeting. At least in college lectures, doubts can be cleared, and points made by different students are tremendously helpful. Many online teaching programs include meeting together sessions. The online modules are supplements, not the main teaching tool. The Eastern Orthodox have no problem with the teachings of the ECF. It's the Western churches that have an eye opening experience, when they take the time to read them.
                    Interesting. I find it odd, I guess, that you don't have a problem reading the ECF (which, being a written record, is not something with which you can engage in dialogue), but you have a problem with listening to a teacher unless you can interrupt to ask questions. Why not just ask questions after the "lecture" is over?
                    It's very clear that testing the spirits was a major part of the church meetings, as seen by the repetitious warnings seen in the NT, by both Christ and the Apostles, against false teachers and doctrine.
                    I think you're reading that into the text, for reasons I've already stated. There was no need to record the order of a church service when it was experienced every week.
                    Deductive reasoning is the same, in any puzzle solving endeavour. The lesson is always the same, as well, in unpacking the information, whether at the crime scene or Bible study: Are there any holes in your conclusion/theory? Any unexplained clues?

                    God says He even reaps where he never sowed. Matthew used redaction to conclude the text said "virgin" instead of "young woman". God doesn't care whether He intended for revelation to be found in that text. He'll take the credit for foreseeing the future wherever He gets it!!!
                    No, he didn't used redaction criticism, which is entirely a modern concept. The LXX for Isaiah 7:11 uses 'parthenos,' which MEANS "virgin." You are importing ideas entirely foreign to the first century. Because you are using the wrong 'clues,' your deductive reasoning is only going to lead you further astray.
                    I showed you where Christ ended hierarchical leadership models.
                    You asserted. Paul himself appointed elders/overseers (Acts 14:23), and directed Timothy (1 Tim 4:14) and Titus (Tit. 1:5) to do the same (actually, elders were appointed even before Paul was sent on his first missionary journey - Acts 11:30). Was he contradicting the teaching of Jesus Christ?
                    I also showed the instance of the First Century churches being taught to follow the new model. Join the dots.
                    I showed that your understanding of the First Century churches was flawed.
                    Yes, thats why we need to not avoid the gathering of the saints. Each person is a combination of truth and error, according to the revelation given to him or her. Discussion refines the information in the group.
                    Discussion can refine the information in the group (though I don't see much refining going on in this particular discussion). If no one is willing to listen to what the others say, then discussion is useless. If everyone follows a wrong opinion uncritically, discussion can even lead people astray.
                    So Wright is wrong about failing to mention the importance of small study groups.
                    The Russian Orthodox Church survived 70 years (two generations) of no study groups and no teaching of children. Why? Because the liturgy of the Orthodox Church is permeated with its theology; merely following along with the liturgy provides a useful teaching function.
                    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                    sigpic
                    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                      Interesting. I find it odd, I guess, that you don't have a problem reading the ECF (which, being a written record, is not something with which you can engage in dialogue), but you have a problem with listening to a teacher unless you can interrupt to ask questions. Why not just ask questions after the "lecture" is over?
                      Clarification is possible in colleges, with text books, lectures and duscussion. It's not possible in the modern church, which has texts, lectures but no discussions. As noted, even Bible studies are "controlled". The fact that questioning happened in the main service is a reality, given that Paul commands women not to do it.

                      I think you're reading that into the text, for reasons I've already stated. There was no need to record the order of a church service when it was experienced every week.
                      What's the "reading" involved? It's a reality, a stated fact, that Scripture commands testing of spirits, not an interpreted view.


                      No, he didn't used redaction criticism, which is entirely a modern concept. The LXX for Isaiah 7:11 uses 'parthenos,' which MEANS "virgin." You are importing ideas entirely foreign to the first century. Because you are using the wrong 'clues,' your deductive reasoning is only going to lead you further astray.
                      Redactive editing is selective editing, motivated curating. Matthew had the choice of using different texts AND different translation choices. He used the outlier, the LXX, which allowed for different translating, and again chose the unusual interpretation..

                      The original Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14 uses the word almah, which really does mean “young woman” rather than “virgin.” On the other hand, the Septuagint version of Isaiah, the Greek translation that was used by Jews for a couple centuries before the birth of Christ, uses the word parthenos, which can mean either virgin or young woman.

                      You asserted. Paul himself appointed elders/overseers (Acts 14:23), and directed Timothy (1 Tim 4:14) and Titus (Tit. 1:5) to do the same (actually, elders were appointed even before Paul was sent on his first missionary journey - Acts 11:30). Was he contradicting the teaching of Jesus Christ?
                      They were administrative, not teaching roles. Stephen managed the distribution of resources to widows. Peter managed the distribution of resources to those who had been given eternal dwellings, and decided that Ananias and Sapphira were lying.



                      I showed that your understanding of the First Century churches was flawed.
                      It's your word against Scripture.


                      Discussion can refine the information in the group (though I don't see much refining going on in this particular discussion). If no one is willing to listen to what the others say, then discussion is useless. If everyone follows a wrong opinion uncritically, discussion can even lead people astray.
                      Speak for yourself. God can open the heart of other readers to the truth, confirmed by the support of several other texts. Even you have recanted and admitted that new wine needs new wine skins.


                      The Russian Orthodox Church survived 70 years (two generations) of no study groups and no teaching of children. Why? Because the liturgy of the Orthodox Church is permeated with its theology; merely following along with the liturgy provides a useful teaching function.
                      Traditions are formed formed not to teach theology, but to enact the results of right belief. The hierarchy believed that uneducated members had no opportunity to right understanding of the text, doctrine, leading to right manifestations of that understanding, praxis.

                      In following traditions, they believed that God would accept manifesting right doctrine, praxis, which would obviate the intermediate step of understanding.
                      Last edited by footwasher; 03-30-2015, 01:28 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by footwasher View Post
                        Clarification is possible in colleges, with text books, lectures and duscussion. It's not possible in the modern church, which has texts, lectures but no discussions. As noted, even Bible studies are "controlled". The fact that questioning happened in the main service is a reality, given that Paul commands women not to do it.
                        We've been over this before. That women were interrupting the service to ask questions does not mean that men were doing the same thing. You're reading that into the text. And even in modern churches, clarification is indeed possible after the service is over, unless the pastor is some sort of control freak who has no business being in the ministry.
                        What's the "reading" involved? It's a reality, a stated fact, that Scripture commands testing of spirits, not an interpreted view.
                        Your idea that 'testing of spirits' means "interrupting the sermon to ask questions" is indeed an interpreted view.
                        Redactive editing is selective editing, motivated curating. Matthew had the choice of using different texts AND different translation choices. He used the outlier, the LXX, which allowed for different translating, and again chose the unusual interpretation..

                        The original Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14 uses the word almah, which really does mean “young woman” rather than “virgin.” On the other hand, the Septuagint version of Isaiah, the Greek translation that was used by Jews for a couple centuries before the birth of Christ, uses the word parthenos, which can mean either virgin or young woman.
                        Do you have any idea what 'redaction criticism' is? Judging from this example, no.
                        They were administrative, not teaching roles.
                        Your interpretation.
                        Stephen managed the distribution of resources to widows. Peter managed the distribution of resources to those who had been given eternal dwellings, and decided that Ananias and Sapphira were lying.
                        Peter may have handled the distribution of resources within the church, but scripture does not explicitly say that - and Peter did not 'decide' any such thing about Ananias and Sapphira; the Holy Spirit gave him the knowledge that they were lying.
                        It's your word against Scripture.
                        No, it's historical fact against your interpretation of scripture.
                        Speak for yourself. God can open the heart of other readers to the truth, confirmed by the support of several other texts.
                        That's not contrary to what I said.
                        Even you have recanted and admitted that new wine needs new wine skins.
                        What, exactly, have I recanted, and where?
                        Traditions are formed formed not to teach theology, but to enact the results of right belief. The hierarchy believed that uneducated members had no opportunity to right understanding of the text, doctrine, leading to right manifestations of that understanding, praxis.

                        In following traditions, they believed that God would accept manifesting right doctrine, praxis, which would obviate the intermediate step of understanding.
                        You should not opine on that which you have not experienced. Following along with the liturgy provides quite sufficient theology for right understanding.
                        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                        sigpic
                        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                          We've been over this before. That women were interrupting the service to ask questions does not mean that men were doing the same thing. You're reading that into the text. And even in modern churches, clarification is indeed possible after the service is over, unless the pastor is some sort of control freak who has no business being in the ministry.
                          Of course it does! Else the stricture would have been against men and women! Men were supposed to ask questions, as seen in the vigorous questioning Christ, Peter and Paul were subjected to, at all the synagogues they visited.

                          1 Corinthians 14:29‎Let two or three people prophesy, and let the others evaluate what is said.

                          As for open minded "pastors", the less said the better, judging by profusion of pocket dictators found in their midst.

                          Your idea that 'testing of spirits' means "interrupting the sermon to ask questions" is indeed an interpreted view.
                          Um, there wasn't a "sermon", they took turns sharing what the Holy Spirit had revealed to them.

                          Do you have any idea what 'redaction criticism' is? Judging from this example, no.
                          Lower criticism is interpreting what the writer meant. Higher criticism is to question what the writer had done. In other words, higher criticism doesn't accept that the writer was always inspired by the Holy Spirit. Sometimes it was found that the writer had used material from other religions. Thus the scholars questioned the basis of the text, this questioning being labeled source criticism. Redaction criticism is another form of high criticism, the other being source criticism, form criticism, tradition criticism, canonical criticism.


                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism

                          Quote
                          Redaction criticism studies "the collection, arrangement, editing and modification of sources", and is frequently used to reconstruct the community and purposes of the authors of the text.[10]

                          The Septuagint used the word parthenos in the passage referring to Dinah AFTER she had been raped. There it meant "young woman". So the word could be used in different ways. Matthew chose "virgin" when he could have used "young woman". God never sowed that "revelation" there, but He'll take credit ("reap") wherever He can, even where He never sowed!!!

                          Your interpretation.

                          Peter may have handled the distribution of resources within the church, but scripture does not explicitly say that - and Peter did not 'decide' any such thing about Ananias and Sapphira; the Holy Spirit gave him the knowledge that they were lying.
                          Christ's teachings were the basis of an ecosystem for how resources would be administered. Before, none of the missionaries had to worry about how their task was funded. Just as the sandals of the Israelites never wore out in the desert because of the presence of the Lord(thanks, Bill!) , the disciples always had their needs met because Christ was with them, but the time would come when they would not have Him with them.

                          John 12:28You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.

                          Now, Christ would be present only through the disciples, and His provisioning would be through the disciples:

                          Luke 16:9I tell you, make for yourselves friends by means of unrighteous mammon, so that when you fail, they may receive you into the eternal tents.

                          So the system consisted of those who had given up everything to follow Christ, the little flock that God was pleased to give the Kingdom of God to, those who had not done similarly, who would share in eternal life through being received into the eternal tents, and those who decided who was which. A & S were the second, pretending to be the first. Even Simon Magus found out that there was no short cut.


                          No, it's historical fact against your interpretation of scripture.
                          It's not an interpretation. The men were supposed to "judge". It was often a violent confrontation, requiring men to use force to enter the Kingdom of God. The Pharisees neither entered the Kingdom not allowed others to enter, their old wine skins making them resistant to change of their old held view of the text. Just as modern day Pharisee are resistant to going out and gathering fresh manna, preferring to hold on to the rotting manna handed down by previous gatherers. I don't know if you realise that correct information can change hands and become incorrect information, language being so volatile. That's why you will find repetition, reiteration in situations where precise understanding is required, military manuals, court documents, legal contracts, etc.


                          That's not contrary to what I said.
                          You said you gained no clarification. I find that every time I discuss Scripture, God reveals more and more nuances of the text, often through insightful objections to my posts! If it happened for me, I'm sure that God revealed it to other readers of this discussion as well. Of course it's well known that God justifies the humble and the obedient, and is pleased to reveal to them His treasures. To the rebellious, these things are hidden and they only receive the outer form, and in arcs, parables.


                          What, exactly, have I recanted, and where?
                          You rejected the need to posses a personal understanding of the text, being happy to live with the rotting manna of the interpretation of other gatherers. Then you recanted, agreed with the view offered in the Wright video clip suggesting the view you had originally rejected. No amount of Gerrymandering and obfuscation will enable you to escape with this obvious dodge.



                          You should not opine on that which you have not experienced. Following along with the liturgy provides quite sufficient theology for right understanding.

                          And you are proof of that learned state, Sir Oracle? Tradition tries to skip the participation of the Holy Spirit. No thanks, I'll stick with the Holy Spirit.
                          Last edited by footwasher; 03-30-2015, 04:58 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by footwasher View Post
                            Of course it does! Else the stricture would have been against men and women! Men were supposed to ask questions, as seen in the vigorous questioning Christ, Peter and Paul were subjected to, at all the synagogues they visited.
                            During the service?
                            Um, there wasn't a "sermon", they took turns sharing what the Holy Spirit had revealed to them.
                            See Acts 20:7, where there was, indeed, a sermon.

                            In Justin Martyr's description of 2nd-century worship, there was, indeed, a sermon:
                            Source: Justin Martyr Apology 1.67

                            And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succors the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

                            © Copyright Original Source


                            Or was the church already "thoroughly corrupted" by then?
                            Lower criticism is interpreting what the writer meant. Higher criticism is to question what the writer had done. In other words, higher criticism doesn't accept that the writer was always inspired by the Holy Spirit. Sometimes it was found that the writer had used material from other religions. Thus the scholars questioned the basis of the text, this questioning being labeled source criticism. Redaction criticism is another form of high criticism, the other being source criticism, form criticism, tradition criticism, canonical criticism.


                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism

                            Quote
                            Redaction criticism studies "the collection, arrangement, editing and modification of sources", and is frequently used to reconstruct the community and purposes of the authors of the text.[10]

                            The Septuagint used the word parthenos in the passage referring to Dinah AFTER she had been raped. There it meant "young woman". So the word could be used in different ways. Matthew chose "virgin" when he could have used "young woman". God never sowed that "revelation" there, but He'll take credit ("reap") wherever He can, even where He never sowed!!!
                            Now I see - you're confusing redaction criticism with the act of redaction. And right after you provide proof that parthenos does not strictly mean 'virgin,' you allege Matthew deliberately altered the text to parthenos because it does!
                            Christ's teachings were the basis of an ecosystem for how resources would be administered. Before, none of the missionaries had to worry about how their task was funded. Just as the sandals of the Israelites never wore out in the desert because of the presence of the Lord(thanks, Bill!) , the disciples always had their needs met because Christ was with them, but the time would come when they would not have Him with them.

                            John 12:28You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.

                            Now, Christ would be present only through the disciples, and His provisioning would be through the disciples:

                            Luke 16:9I tell you, make for yourselves friends by means of unrighteous mammon, so that when you fail, they may receive you into the eternal tents.

                            So the system consisted of those who had given up everything to follow Christ, the little flock that God was pleased to give the Kingdom of God to, those who had not done similarly, who would share in eternal life through being received into the eternal tents, and those who decided who was which. A & S were the second, pretending to be the first. Even Simon Magus found out that there was no short cut.
                            You're being incoherent here.
                            It's not an interpretation. The men were supposed to "judge". It was often a violent confrontation, requiring men to use force to enter the Kingdom of God. The Pharisees neither entered the Kingdom not allowed others to enter, their old wine skins making them resistant to change of their old held view of the text. Just as modern day Pharisee are resistant to going out and gathering fresh manna, preferring to hold on to the rotting manna handed down by previous gatherers. I don't know if you realise that correct information can change hands and become incorrect information, language being so volatile. That's why you will find repetition, reiteration in situations where precise understanding is required, military manuals, court documents, legal contracts, etc.
                            More incoherence. And why, if you have no problems with readings from the ECF, do you call it 'rotting manna'?
                            You said you gained no clarification. I find that every time I discuss Scripture, God reveals more and more nuances of the text, often through insightful objections to my posts! If it happened for me, I'm sure that God revealed it to other readers of this discussion as well. Of course it's well known that God justifies the humble and the obedient, and is pleased to reveal to them His treasures. To the rebellious, these things are hidden and they only receive the outer form, and in arcs, parables.
                            I gain little clarification from discussions with you, because your posts tend to be incoherent and not directly (if at all) responsive to my points. I often gain clarification from discussions with others.
                            You rejected the need to posses a personal understanding of the text, being happy to live with the rotting manna of the interpretation of other gatherers. Then you recanted, agreed with the view offered in the Wright video clip suggesting the view you had originally rejected. No amount of Gerrymandering and obfuscation will enable you to escape with this obvious dodge.
                            I did no such thing. I reject the need to rely on my personal understanding of the text to the exclusion of others.
                            And you are proof of that learned state, Sir Oracle? Tradition tries to skip the participation of the Holy Spirit. No thanks, I'll stick with the Holy Spirit.
                            Your assertion regarding Tradition only highlights your utter ignorance of it. My worship service is suffused with, and dependent on, the work of the Holy Spirit. As my priest says, without the Holy Spirit, all we're doing is bad theater.
                            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                            sigpic
                            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                              During the service?
                              Yes, during the service:

                              1 Corinthians 14:29Let two or three people prophesy, and let the others evaluate what is said.


                              See Acts 20:7, where there was, indeed, a sermon.
                              Your argument is from silence. There could have been discussion.


                              In Justin Martyr's description of 2nd-century worship, there was, indeed, a sermon:
                              Source: Justin Martyr Apology 1.67

                              And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succors the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

                              © Copyright Original Source


                              Or was the church already "thoroughly corrupted" by then?
                              The citation shows that prophesy was submitted for "consideration". Very discussion orientated. If the church accepted titles like "Father" they have corrupted a direct prohibition against that practice.


                              Now I see - you're confusing redaction criticism with the act of redaction. And right after you provide proof that parthenos does not strictly mean 'virgin,' you allege Matthew deliberately altered the text to parthenos because it does!
                              He did not alter the text: "parthenos" is the word used by the Jewish translators. They meant "young woman", but Matthew changed it to "virgin", an alternate translation, but not the meaning intended by the translators.


                              You're being incoherent here.
                              What do you think is meant by being received into "eternal dwellings" here:

                              Luke 16:9"And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by means of the wealth of unrighteousness, so that when it fails, they will receive you into the eternal dwellings.


                              More incoherence. And why, if you have no problems with readings from the ECF, do you call it 'rotting manna'?
                              What do you think is meant by "violent men take it by force" here:

                              Matthew 11:12"From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven
                              suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.


                              ?

                              I gain little clarification from discussions with you, because your posts tend to be incoherent and not directly (if at all) responsive to my points. I often gain clarification from discussions with others.
                              But I offer more answers to unsolved mysteries! I'm like Sherlock Holmes, I offer the answers to the mysteries like why the dog did not bark during the crime! All because I ask for the Holy Spirit to help me! You obviously don't, else you'd be able to neutralize or effectively rebut my posts.


                              I did no such thing. I reject the need to rely on my personal understanding of the text to the exclusion of others.
                              These are your exact words:

                              One Bad Pig wrote:
                              Quote
                              In a sense, NT Wright is correct - we do each need to think through the implications of the gospel afresh; Jesus offers a personal relationship, not an intellectual exercise learned through books. On the other hand, there is nothing new under the sun (Ecc. 1:9). I read material from the early church fathers, and find it still extremely profitable many centuries later.
                              You recanted from a view of believing in the views of other men to accepting the need to form views for yourself.


                              Your assertion regarding Tradition only highlights your utter ignorance of it. My worship service is suffused with, and dependent on, the work of the Holy Spirit. As my priest says, without the Holy Spirit, all we're doing is bad theater.

                              The you should be offering more answers to mysteries, clarifications that help all to lead a fruitful life.
                              Last edited by footwasher; 04-17-2015, 02:41 AM.

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X