OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 20, 2014, 04:57:20 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Should we let the Orthodox teach Heresy?  (Read 12441 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
idou747
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 36


« on: October 26, 2008, 08:07:18 PM »

I know this has become very fashionable in some protestant circles, but I can't and won't sit still while it happens in Orthodoxy.

Dr. Jeanie Constantinou, PhD Univeriste Laval - biblical studies, patristics, Master of Theology, Harvard University - biblical studies, Master of Theology, Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology - biblical studies, patristics, Orthodox theology, Juris Doctorate, Pepperdine University - Law, Master of Arts in Religious studies, University of San Diego, Bachelors Degree in Religious Studies, University of San Diego

is saying on her Ancient Faith Radio podcast in September:
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/searchthescriptures
that she doesn't believe that Peter wrote 2 Peter.

Since Ancient Faith Radio is like a central repository of most Orthodox podcasts, this is a very public representation of Orthodoxy. Furthermore, it sounds like she intends to expand on this issue greatly in a future podcast.

I contacted her privately, and apparently her position is that 2 Peter is scripture despite not being written by Peter. But despite it being pseudopigrypha, the church knew it was a fake but has the right to say it is scripture anyway, because maybe it has some vague "connection" to the apostle.

I pointed out to her that the book doesn't leave us that option:

2 Peter 1:16 says "For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty".  How much force is there in the verse if the author was in fact NOT an eyewitness, but is actually making up a cleverly devised pseudonymous letter? Clearly, no force is left. There are no pseudonymous eyewitnesses.

2Pet. 1:13 I consider it right, as long as I am in this earthly dwelling, to stir you up by way of reminder, knowing that the laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent.... "  If its pseudonymous, then he is NOT acting "as long as I am in this earthly dwelling", but can wait a hundred years for someone else to put the words in his mouth. Neither need he act quickly to "stir reminder" because the "laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent", since there is all the time in the world to wait for a pseudonymous scribe to insert words into his mouth.

Her claim is that pseudonymity was acceptable practice in antiquity, that we can't impose our modern ideas on ancient writings, and that quote: "all the church understood this.  That's why they were able to accept 2 PEter into the canon, even though everyone knew taht he didn't write it.", and that Life of Macrina by Gregory of Nyssa is pseudonymous.

I pointed out to her that (a) Life of Macrina is NOT pseudonymous, in any shape or form. (b) Tertullian wrote in De Baptismo 17 that a presbyter was defrocked for writing the Acts of Paul (c) Athanasius in his 39th festal letter describes false writings as "supposedly ancient writings designed to deceive the guileless" and true writings as what "original eye witnesses and ministers of the word delivered to our fathers, and (d) Hippo and Carthage rejected the Epistle of Barnabas and 1 Clement precisely because they were not apostolic.

Whereupon her attack on scripture expanded to say that 2 Peter being in the canon is not dogmatic, because only salvation issues can be dogmatic, and since Chrysostom doesn't seem to have had 2 Peter in his canon, and Chrysostom is apparently saved, it is not dogmatic. Besides which "There are things in scripture that are not historically or scientifically true. The Old Testament talks about unicorns and griffins. The bible says that the earth rests on four pillars. What do you do about that or  other passages? Do you take a fundamentalist point of view or understand the Scripture as a product of its time?"

I pointed out to her: (a) You can't put yourself back 1600 years into Chrysostom's shoes, otherwise there is no dogma. (b) If everything any Church father said was acceptable dogma now, ignoring the later catholic consenus, all of Orthodox dogma would be up for grabs. (c) I quoted to her "Sweeter than Honey, Orthodox thinking on Dogma and Truth" by Peter Bouteneff,  dogmas are "authoritative teachings of the Church" and "WHENEVER we find something that is taught clearly and consistently within the Church's authoritative sources, scripture, the fathers, the liturgy, the councils, the canons, and the icons, it can be said to be DOGMA". (d) Since she already agreed 2 Peter was in the canon of scripture I quoted her Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Pomazansky which says, "The definitions of truth declared by the Church have been called, since the days of the Apostles, 'dogmas'" and "In the Christian understanding, dogma is the opposite of opinions". She already agreed the Church has spoken, so how is it not Dogma? From Pomazansky again: "[The Church] has a single and common catholic consciousness, guided by the Holy Spirit"... and "the complete canon of the New Testament books of Sacred Scripture was confirmed by the catholic voice of the whole Church"

(e) The meaning of the Hebrew word for unicorn is very uncertain. It may mean a one horned beast such as the rhinocerous (the scientific name for which is unicornis). (f) There are no griffins in scripture (g) no verse says the earth rests on four pillars.

Her position is in summary: "I think you have to face facts: he didn't write it and many Fathers acknoweldged that. That's the objective historical evidence." and she quotes as evidence things like it being too early in the 1st century for Peter to have acknowledged Paul's writings as scripture.

I pointed out to her (a) No Father said that Peter didn't write it. Origen said it was disputed, and Eusebius said it wasn't in the canonical list of genuine books, but no Father actually said for sure he didn't write it. (b) If some Fathers didn't have in their canon because they weren't sure of its genuineness, it contradicts her earlier statement that the church knew it was fake but was happy to have it in their canon anyway. (c) There is not much objective historical evidence as such. The only evidence is subjective about what Peter would be likely to write. But if the objection against 2 Peter is it contains material that would be unlikely for Peter to write, then it kills the theory that 2 Peter is apostolic anyway through some mysterious "connection" with the apostle after he is dead. It makes it anti-apostolic in being material the apostle would NOT have written.

I am much disturbed that Dr. Jeanie Constantinou is presuming to teach Orthodoxy to the world, and my concerns go well beyond 2 Peter. Her arguments are unworthy of a first year bible student. She seems incapable of forming an argument more sophisticated than "Chrysostom didn't have it, so I don't have to worry". Almost all her claims are demonstrably wrong, to an extent I have never seen before. But worst of all, her conception of what Orthodox dogma and teaching is, is in no way aligned with the Fathers, or well known Orthodox books like Pomazansky. And she seems content to destroy the faith of others by teaching it to the world under the name of Orthodoxy.

But she thinks she knows it all, quote: "I do not intend to insult you, but I know a lot more than you do on the subjects of theology, history and scripture, so this is going to give me a different perspective.  I'm sure you have an expertise in your work or your life that I don't have. I would not come to your work and say you don't know what you are talking about. "

Am I a know-nothing ignoramus, wrongly presuming to tell an academic with 6 degrees how to suck eggs? You be the judge. Tell me if Life of Mecrina is pseudonymous. Tell me if all the ancient church knew full well Peter didn't write 2 Peter. Tell me the verse where there are griffins in the bible. Tell me where the fathers said pseudonymity was perfectly ok.

I've been sending emails about this also to Ancient Faith Radio for the last week, but there silence. If you care about Orthodoxy, petition them to put a stop to this before it gets worse.


 


Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #1 on: October 26, 2008, 08:21:49 PM »

Quote
that she doesn't believe that Peter wrote 2 Peter.

Nothing terribly innovative about that.

Quote
I contacted her privately, and apparently her position is that 2 Peter is scripture despite not being written by Peter. But despite it being pseudopigrypha, the church knew it was a fake but has the right to say it is scripture anyway, because maybe it has some vague "connection" to the apostle.

Should we throw out the story of the woman caught in adultery, because it was added later, and was not written by John himself? I think there is some place for leeway in authorship matters.

Quote
2 Peter 1:16 says "For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty".  How much force is there in the verse if the author was in fact NOT an eyewitness, but is actually making up a cleverly devised pseudonymous letter? Clearly, no force is left. There are no pseudonymous eyewitnesses.

2Pet. 1:13 I consider it right, as long as I am in this earthly dwelling, to stir you up by way of reminder, knowing that the laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent.... "  If its pseudonymous, then he is NOT acting "as long as I am in this earthly dwelling", but can wait a hundred years for someone else to put the words in his mouth. Neither need he act quickly to "stir reminder" because the "laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent", since there is all the time in the world to wait for a pseudonymous scribe to insert words into his mouth.

I'm inclined to believe that 2 Peter was indeed written by an eyewitness, but that doesn't mean that the person had to be Peter.

Quote
Her claim is that pseudonymity was acceptable practice in antiquity, that we can't impose our modern ideas on ancient writings, and that quote: "all the church understood this.  That's why they were able to accept 2 PEter into the canon, even though everyone knew taht he didn't write it.", and that Life of Macrina by Gregory of Nyssa is pseudonymous.

I'm not familiar with the debate over the Life of Macrina, though I do know that there were debates in the early Church over the authorship of this or that documents. Photius, for example, in his Bibliotheca, points out that there was some dispute over the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite. Also, in his work on Church History, Euesebius speaks of the Epistle of James as though he's not sure whether James (the brother of our Lord) actually wrote it, calling it "the so-called epistle of James".

Quote
I've been sending emails about this also to Ancient Faith Radio for the last week, but there silence. If you care about Orthodoxy, petition them to put a stop to this before it gets worse.

I care about Orthodoxy, but I think you are overreacting. Smiley I especially think it goes to far to call this "heresy".
« Last Edit: October 26, 2008, 08:24:58 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
idou747
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 36


« Reply #2 on: October 26, 2008, 08:30:26 PM »

"Should we throw out the story of the woman caught in adultery, because it was added later, and was not written by John himself? I think there is some place for leeway in authorship matters."

There is no intention to deceive here. A completely different issue.

"I'm inclined to believe that 2 Peter was indeed written by an eyewitness, but that doesn't mean that the person had to be Peter."

It SAYS it was written by Peter. 2Pet. 1:1 "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ".

One of the reasons some people say it isn't by Peter is because the book's zeal to prove to the reader it WAS written by Peter. Either the zeal is real by Peter, or the zeal is conspiracy to commit fraud.

"I'm not familiar with the debate over the Life of Macrina"

There is no debate. Read the book, it is not even written in the 1st person, as it would need to be to be pseudonymous. It only switches to 1st person when Gregory talks about himself.

"I do know that there were debates in the early Church over the authorship of this or that documents"

Yes, and is it your position that the Church got it wrong? Yes or no.

"I care about Orthodoxy, but I think you are overreacting."

Explain to me how so. If the the truthfulness of scripture is not dogma, how does the faith stand?



Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,638


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2008, 08:31:02 PM »

I know this has become very fashionable in some protestant circles, but I can't and won't sit still while it happens in Orthodoxy.

Dr. Jeanie Constantinou, PhD Univeriste Laval - biblical studies, patristics, Master of Theology, Harvard University - biblical studies, Master of Theology, Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology - biblical studies, patristics, Orthodox theology, Juris Doctorate, Pepperdine University - Law, Master of Arts in Religious studies, University of San Diego, Bachelors Degree in Religious Studies, University of San Diego

is saying on her Ancient Faith Radio podcast in September:
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/searchthescriptures
that she doesn't believe that Peter wrote 2 Peter.

Since Ancient Faith Radio is like a central repository of most Orthodox podcasts, this is a very public representation of Orthodoxy. Furthermore, it sounds like she intends to expand on this issue greatly in a future podcast.

I contacted her privately, and apparently her position is that 2 Peter is scripture despite not being written by Peter. But despite it being pseudopigrypha, the church knew it was a fake but has the right to say it is scripture anyway, because maybe it has some vague "connection" to the apostle.

I pointed out to her that the book doesn't leave us that option:

2 Peter 1:16 says "For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty".  How much force is there in the verse if the author was in fact NOT an eyewitness, but is actually making up a cleverly devised pseudonymous letter? Clearly, no force is left. There are no pseudonymous eyewitnesses.

2Pet. 1:13 I consider it right, as long as I am in this earthly dwelling, to stir you up by way of reminder, knowing that the laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent.... "  If its pseudonymous, then he is NOT acting "as long as I am in this earthly dwelling", but can wait a hundred years for someone else to put the words in his mouth. Neither need he act quickly to "stir reminder" because the "laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent", since there is all the time in the world to wait for a pseudonymous scribe to insert words into his mouth.

Her claim is that pseudonymity was acceptable practice in antiquity, that we can't impose our modern ideas on ancient writings, and that quote: "all the church understood this.  That's why they were able to accept 2 PEter into the canon, even though everyone knew taht he didn't write it.", and that Life of Macrina by Gregory of Nyssa is pseudonymous.

I pointed out to her that (a) Life of Macrina is NOT pseudonymous, in any shape or form. (b) Tertullian wrote in De Baptismo 17 that a presbyter was defrocked for writing the Acts of Paul (c) Athanasius in his 39th festal letter describes false writings as "supposedly ancient writings designed to deceive the guileless" and true writings as what "original eye witnesses and ministers of the word delivered to our fathers, and (d) Hippo and Carthage rejected the Epistle of Barnabas and 1 Clement precisely because they were not apostolic.

Whereupon her attack on scripture expanded to say that 2 Peter being in the canon is not dogmatic, because only salvation issues can be dogmatic, and since Chrysostom doesn't seem to have had 2 Peter in his canon, and Chrysostom is apparently saved, it is not dogmatic. Besides which "There are things in scripture that are not historically or scientifically true. The Old Testament talks about unicorns and griffins. The bible says that the earth rests on four pillars. What do you do about that or  other passages? Do you take a fundamentalist point of view or understand the Scripture as a product of its time?"

I pointed out to her: (a) You can't put yourself back 1600 years into Chrysostom's shoes, otherwise there is no dogma. (b) If everything any Church father said was acceptable dogma now, ignoring the later catholic consenus, all of Orthodox dogma would be up for grabs. (c) I quoted to her "Sweeter than Honey, Orthodox thinking on Dogma and Truth" by Peter Bouteneff,  dogmas are "authoritative teachings of the Church" and "WHENEVER we find something that is taught clearly and consistently within the Church's authoritative sources, scripture, the fathers, the liturgy, the councils, the canons, and the icons, it can be said to be DOGMA". (d) Since she already agreed 2 Peter was in the canon of scripture I quoted her Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Pomazansky which says, "The definitions of truth declared by the Church have been called, since the days of the Apostles, 'dogmas'" and "In the Christian understanding, dogma is the opposite of opinions". She already agreed the Church has spoken, so how is it not Dogma? From Pomazansky again: "[The Church] has a single and common catholic consciousness, guided by the Holy Spirit"... and "the complete canon of the New Testament books of Sacred Scripture was confirmed by the catholic voice of the whole Church"

(e) The meaning of the Hebrew word for unicorn is very uncertain. It may mean a one horned beast such as the rhinocerous (the scientific name for which is unicornis). (f) There are no griffins in scripture (g) no verse says the earth rests on four pillars.

Her position is in summary: "I think you have to face facts: he didn't write it and many Fathers acknoweldged that. That's the objective historical evidence." and she quotes as evidence things like it being too early in the 1st century for Peter to have acknowledged Paul's writings as scripture.

I pointed out to her (a) No Father said that Peter didn't write it. Origen said it was disputed, and Eusebius said it wasn't in the canonical list of genuine books, but no Father actually said for sure he didn't write it. (b) If some Fathers didn't have in their canon because they weren't sure of its genuineness, it contradicts her earlier statement that the church knew it was fake but was happy to have it in their canon anyway. (c) There is not much objective historical evidence as such. The only evidence is subjective about what Peter would be likely to write. But if the objection against 2 Peter is it contains material that would be unlikely for Peter to write, then it kills the theory that 2 Peter is apostolic anyway through some mysterious "connection" with the apostle after he is dead. It makes it anti-apostolic in being material the apostle would NOT have written.

I am much disturbed that Dr. Jeanie Constantinou is presuming to teach Orthodoxy to the world, and my concerns go well beyond 2 Peter. Her arguments are unworthy of a first year bible student. She seems incapable of forming an argument more sophisticated than "Chrysostom didn't have it, so I don't have to worry". Almost all her claims are demonstrably wrong, to an extent I have never seen before. But worst of all, her conception of what Orthodox dogma and teaching is, is in no way aligned with the Fathers, or well known Orthodox books like Pomazansky. And she seems content to destroy the faith of others by teaching it to the world under the name of Orthodoxy.

But she thinks she knows it all, quote: "I do not intend to insult you, but I know a lot more than you do on the subjects of theology, history and scripture, so this is going to give me a different perspective.  I'm sure you have an expertise in your work or your life that I don't have. I would not come to your work and say you don't know what you are talking about. "

Am I a know-nothing ignoramus, wrongly presuming to tell an academic with 6 degrees how to suck eggs? You be the judge. Tell me if Life of Mecrina is pseudonymous. Tell me if all the ancient church knew full well Peter didn't write 2 Peter. Tell me the verse where there are griffins in the bible. Tell me where the fathers said pseudonymity was perfectly ok.

I've been sending emails about this also to Ancient Faith Radio for the last week, but there silence. If you care about Orthodoxy, petition them to put a stop to this before it gets worse.
So you would oppose modern scholarship because it challenges your understanding of "traditional" belief?  Disagree with scholarship on the basis of equally sound scholarship, such as a careful analysis of the text of 2 Peter, but don't just dismiss it out of hand because it calls into question what you think you know for certain.  For instance, how do you know for certain that the approach to Orthodoxy that you have labeled "traditional" and "Orthodox" is indeed Orthodox?  I've seen a strong tendency in the face of Modernism for Orthodox to take an approach to the Fathers that is very much akin to how Protestants of the Fundamentalist movement approach the Scriptures.  Is it good to follow THIS approach that has become quite fashionable in [Fundamentalist] Protestant circles?
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 26, 2008, 08:39:30 PM »

Dear Idou 747,

What's wrong or "heretical" about the fact that the Bible is a collection of numerous books whose authorship is usually collective and/or unknown?

Why do you think that the spiritual truth contained in these books becomes less truthful if we admit that just as the person called Hamlet did not write Shakespeare's "Hamlet," the person called Peter (John, Mark, Matthew, Joel, Habbakuk, Hosea, Daniel, Micah, etc.) might not have written the books named after that person?

I dunno.... this whole fight for "truth" is, to me, so... Protestant. Smiley
Logged

Love never fails.
idou747
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 36


« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2008, 08:40:41 PM »

"So you would oppose modern scholarship because it challenges your understanding of "traditional" belief?  Disagree with scholarship on the basis of equally sound scholarship, such as a careful analysis of the text of 2 Peter, but don't just dismiss it out of hand because it calls into question what you think you know for certain."

No. Why should I? The whole faith crumbles to the ground in schism if it is pick and choose which beliefs you like best.

I could present lots of good arguments why 2 Peter was by Peter, but I choose not to. It is not the point.

"For instance, how do you know for certain that the approach to Orthodoxy that you have labeled "traditional" and "Orthodox" is indeed Orthodox?"

I quoted the fathers. I quoted well known works on Orthodox dogma. What have you done?

"I've seen a strong tendency in the face of Modernism for Orthodox to take an approach to the Fathers that is very much akin to how Protestants of the Fundamentalist movement approach the Scriptures.  Is it good to follow THIS approach that has become quite fashionable in [Fundamentalist] Protestant circles?"

How is quoting the Fathers modernism? I quoted Tertullian and Athanasius on their approach to pseudonymous works.
 How is your vague whining even the beginning of an argument?



Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,444


WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 26, 2008, 08:43:49 PM »

idou747, Why are we discussing the authorship of 2 Peter and what is such discussion supposed to accomplish?  Since 2 Peter is valid Scripture, what is the point debating its authenticity or not?

Could it be that discussion of 2 Peter on Ancient Faith Radio is needed to help attract converts, who think that 2 Peter is not valid Scripture based on non-Orthodox conventions, to Orthodoxy ?

Presbytera Jeanie has given over 20 lessons on the Scriptures via Ancient Faith Radio and you found issue with one.  What's your point?

Edit to reorganize content for clarity.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2008, 08:44:54 PM by SolEX01 » Logged
idou747
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 36


« Reply #7 on: October 26, 2008, 08:44:05 PM »

Dear Idou 747,

What's wrong or "heretical" about the fact that the Bible is a collection of numerous books whose authorship is usually collective and/or unknown?

How is it unknown if the book says who wrote it?Huh

Quote

Why do you think that the spiritual truth contained in these books becomes less truthful if we admit that just as the person called Hamlet did not write Shakespeare's "Hamlet,"


What? Hamlet is a play, a work of fiction. Are you saying the bible's truth is equivilent to works of fiction?

Quote
the person called Peter (John, Mark, Matthew, Joel, Habbakuk, Hosea, Daniel, Micah, etc.) might not have written the books named after that person?

I dunno.... this whole fight for "truth" is, to me, so... Protestant. Smiley

Wow, another person making wild accusations, but with no argument from the fathers. Go argue it out with Athanasius.


Logged
idou747
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 36


« Reply #8 on: October 26, 2008, 08:45:39 PM »

idou747, Why are we discussing the authorship of 2 Peter and what is such discussion supposed to accomplish?  Since 2 Peter is valid Scripture, what is the point debating its authenticity or not?

Oh, so you think scripture lies too. Great.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,444


WWW
« Reply #9 on: October 26, 2008, 08:47:49 PM »

Oh, so you think scripture lies too. Great.

I resent people who put words in my mouth.   Angry 

Like Pres. Jeanie told you, she wouldn't question your "area of expertise" and why are you questioning hers?

Sure, you think you mean well except that you're making a big deal out of something which has already been settled.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #10 on: October 26, 2008, 08:47:56 PM »

You ask if the Church got it wrong. Some in the Church probably had it wrong, some didn't. There were many disputes in the early Church over who wrote what (Revelation, Hebrews, 2 Peter, etc.) If Peter the Apostle didn't write 2 Peter, that's not a huge deal--certainly it's not heresy. You didn't remark on how Eusebius questioned the authorship of James. Eusebius didn't seem to think that the entire Scriptures depended on James actually being written by James the (step)brother of our Lord.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #11 on: October 26, 2008, 08:48:48 PM »

How is quoting the Fathers modernism? I quoted Tertullian and Athanasius on their approach to pseudonymous works.

But Tertullian lived in the 2nd century A.D. and Athanasius in the 3rd. At that time, there was no such thing as "science," there were no firmly accepted criteria for bibliographical accuracy, so it is a small wonder that Tertullian, Athanasius, and many other writers of those centuries repeated the then-common belief that Peter wrote both 1-st and 2-nd Peter, Moses wrote the five books of Moses, and the like. Why should WE be like them IN THIS regard? Maybe there are some other things that we'd rather learn from the Fathers... like non-conformism...

How is your vague whining even the beginning of an argument?

Wow, that's very un-charitable and plain insulting. I believe you owe Peter the Aleut an apology, dear brother.



Logged

Love never fails.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,638


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #12 on: October 26, 2008, 08:51:31 PM »

No. Why should I? The whole faith crumbles to the ground in schism if it is pick and choose which beliefs you like best.
I'm not counseling you to pick and choose what you wish to believe.

Quote
I could present lots of good arguments why 2 Peter was by Peter, but I choose not to. It is not the point.
I'm sure you could.  Besides, the internal evidence of the text that 2 Peter was indeed written by St. Peter is good enough for me.  I just don't feel it necessary to cry about those scholars who have different and opposing theories, as if their theories destroy my faith in the apostolicity of 2 Peter.

Quote
"For instance, how do you know for certain that the approach to Orthodoxy that you have labeled "traditional" and "Orthodox" is indeed Orthodox?"

I quoted the fathers. I quoted well known works on Orthodox dogma. What have you done?
Merely quoting the Fathers and Orthodox dogma does not make your approach to them Orthodox.  What about the context in which they spoke and wrote?  Can you separate Patristic writings from their historical context and apply them to the totally different historical and philosophical circumstances we face today?

Quote
"I've seen a strong tendency in the face of Modernism for Orthodox to take an approach to the Fathers that is very much akin to how Protestants of the Fundamentalist movement approach the Scriptures.  Is it good to follow THIS approach that has become quite fashionable in [Fundamentalist] Protestant circles?"

How is quoting the Fathers modernism? I quoted Tertullian and Athanasius on their approach to pseudonymous works.
 How is your vague whining even the beginning of an argument?
First, you have no need to be rude just because I'm trying to encourage you to expand your vision.  Second, I am in no way calling your quoting of the Fathers modernist--if anything, I'm insinuating that your approach to the Fathers may in fact fall into the opposite extreme of reactionary fundamentalism.
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #13 on: October 26, 2008, 08:52:02 PM »

Dear Idou 747,

What's wrong or "heretical" about the fact that the Bible is a collection of numerous books whose authorship is usually collective and/or unknown?

How is it unknown if the book says who wrote it?Huh

And Hamlet wrote "Hamlet," right?

Wow, another person making wild accusations, but with no argument from the fathers. Go argue it out with Athanasius.

No, it's not wild accusations. The Biblical Literalism is a fairly modern phenomenon, born some time in the late 18th- early 19th century, as a Fundamentalist Protestant reaction to the so-called "High Criticism" of the era of the Enlightennent. It is very alien to the Holy Orthodoxy.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2008, 08:53:08 PM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
idou747
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 36


« Reply #14 on: October 26, 2008, 08:53:37 PM »

You ask if the Church got it wrong. Some in the Church probably had it wrong, some didn't. There were many disputes in the early Church over who wrote what (Revelation, Hebrews, 2 Peter, etc.) If Peter the Apostle didn't write 2 Peter, that's not a huge deal--certainly it's not heresy. You didn't remark on how Eusebius questioned the authorship of James. Eusebius didn't seem to think that the entire Scriptures depended on James actually being written by James the (step)brother of our Lord.

Ok, so I can go into an Orthodox church and teach that veneration of icons is wrong, because St. Epiphanius says so, even though it is subsequently settled by the Church. Come to that Eusebius had Arian tendancies, so I guess that is ok too.

So everything is up for grabs in Orthodoxy. Amazing. The Church can't settle anything over time, we can always go and and dispute a settled consensus.


Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,638


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #15 on: October 26, 2008, 08:55:54 PM »

You ask if the Church got it wrong. Some in the Church probably had it wrong, some didn't. There were many disputes in the early Church over who wrote what (Revelation, Hebrews, 2 Peter, etc.) If Peter the Apostle didn't write 2 Peter, that's not a huge deal--certainly it's not heresy. You didn't remark on how Eusebius questioned the authorship of James. Eusebius didn't seem to think that the entire Scriptures depended on James actually being written by James the (step)brother of our Lord.
Ok, so I can go into an Orthodox church and teach that veneration of icons is wrong, because St. Epiphanius says so, even though it is subsequently settled by the Church. Come to that Eusebius had Arian tendancies, so I guess that is ok too.
So, what's your point in making this connection?

Quote
So everything is up for grabs in Orthodoxy. Amazing. The Church can't settle anything over time, we can always go and and dispute a settled consensus.
Who's saying that?
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,444


WWW
« Reply #16 on: October 26, 2008, 08:56:10 PM »

Ok, so I can go into an Orthodox church and teach that veneration of icons is wrong, because St. Epiphanius says so, even though it is subsequently settled by the Church. Come to that Eusebius had Arian tendancies, so I guess that is ok too.

So everything is up for grabs in Orthodoxy. Amazing. The Church can't settle anything over time, we can always go and and dispute a settled consensus.

You're obviously still angry at the reunification between ROCOR and MP; hence, take out your frustrations on anything from canonical Orthodoxy which looks even one iota inconsistent with your belief system.  Brother, I pray for your soul.   Cry
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,638


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #17 on: October 26, 2008, 08:59:23 PM »

You're obviously still angry at the reunification between ROCOR and MP;
Uhhh, SolEX, I take issue with this allegation.  Nowhere in this thread has idou747 intimated such a thing, so I think it best you drop this idea.

Quote
hence, take out your frustrations on anything from canonical Orthodoxy which looks even one iota inconsistent with your belief system.
Faulty conclusion based on an untested premise.

Quote
Brother, I pray for your soul.   Cry
I could agree with this sentiment if it didn't strike me as so judgmental in the light of what you've said above.  If anything, it borders on the ad hominem.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2008, 09:00:37 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
idou747
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 36


« Reply #18 on: October 26, 2008, 09:00:20 PM »

How is quoting the Fathers modernism? I quoted Tertullian and Athanasius on their approach to pseudonymous works.

But Tertullian lived in the 2nd century A.D. and Athanasius in the 3rd. At that time, there was no such thing as "science," there were no firmly accepted criteria for bibliographical accuracy, so it is a small wonder that Tertullian, Athanasius, and many other writers of those centuries repeated the then-common belief that Peter wrote both 1-st and 2-nd Peter

1) What's science got to do with it? Science says dead men don't rise.

2) The whole canon is based on "then-common belief".

Quote
Moses wrote the five books of Moses, and the like. Why should WE be like them IN THIS regard?

You don't have to. Go become an athiest, because the bible is certainly a pile of tall tales.

However, 2 Peter says it was written by Peter, so just don't go claiming that you believe the bible.

Quote
Maybe there are some other things that we'd rather learn from the Fathers... like non-conformism...

Non-conformism? Orthodoxy and non-conformism are antonyms. Conciliarity is conformism.

Quote
How is your vague whining even the beginning of an argument?

Wow, that's very un-charitable and plain insulting. I believe you owe Peter the Aleut an apology, dear brother.


How is saying that I am acting like a protestant not insulting?


Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,638


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #19 on: October 26, 2008, 09:05:02 PM »

How is saying that I am acting like a protestant not insulting?
If I posit that your reactionary approach to Tradition is consistent with the Fundamentalist approach to the Scriptures, how is it not true that you're acting like a Protestant?  It would have been insulting if I said you ARE a Protestant, but, as it stands now, I did not.  It's not an insult to question your behavior.
Logged
idou747
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 36


« Reply #20 on: October 26, 2008, 09:07:28 PM »

No. Why should I? The whole faith crumbles to the ground in schism if it is pick and choose which beliefs you like best.
I'm not counseling you to pick and choose what you wish to believe.

How so since you defend people who pick and choose what they believe?

Quote
Quote
I could present lots of good arguments why 2 Peter was by Peter, but I choose not to. It is not the point.
I'm sure you could.  Besides, the internal evidence of the text that 2 Peter was indeed written by St. Peter is good enough for me.  I just don't feel it necessary to cry about those scholars who have different and opposing theories, as if their theories destroy my faith in the apostolicity of 2 Peter.

Ok, so you're happy for scholars to come into your church and teach any and every theory that take their fancy. Amazing.

Quote
Quote
"For instance, how do you know for certain that the approach to Orthodoxy that you have labeled "traditional" and "Orthodox" is indeed Orthodox?"

I quoted the fathers. I quoted well known works on Orthodox dogma. What have you done?
Merely quoting the Fathers and Orthodox dogma does not make your approach to them Orthodox.  What about the context in which they spoke and wrote?  Can you separate Patristic writings from their historical context and apply them to the totally different historical and philosophical circumstances we face today?

1) If you think I'm approaching the fathers wrong, prove it. Why tell me I "might not be" as a substantive response to quoting the fathers?

2) Prove that the "historical and philosophical circumstances" are "totally different", and prove that I should care. The faith is under attack in all the old ways with merely new clothing.

Quote

Quote
"I've seen a strong tendency in the face of Modernism for Orthodox to take an approach to the Fathers that is very much akin to how Protestants of the Fundamentalist movement approach the Scriptures.  Is it good to follow THIS approach that has become quite fashionable in [Fundamentalist] Protestant circles?"

How is quoting the Fathers modernism? I quoted Tertullian and Athanasius on their approach to pseudonymous works.
 How is your vague whining even the beginning of an argument?
First, you have no need to be rude just because I'm trying to encourage you to expand your vision.  Second, I am in no way calling your quoting of the Fathers modernist--if anything, I'm insinuating that your approach to the Fathers may in fact fall into the opposite extreme of reactionary fundamentalism.

What is "reactionary fundamentalism"? Sounds like empty name calling to me.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,444


WWW
« Reply #21 on: October 26, 2008, 09:10:44 PM »

Quote from: idou747
The Church can't settle anything over time, we can always go and and dispute a settled consensus.

My 1+ line defense is: well, not everyone liked and supported ROCOR and MP getting back together based on the remarks made by idou747 about "disputing a settled consensus."

Uhhh, SolEX, I take issue with this allegation.  Nowhere in this thread has idou747 intimated such a thing, so I think it best you drop this idea.

Fair enough, I won't mention anything regarding ROCOR/MP unless it is brought up by the OP.   angel

I could agree with this sentiment if it didn't strike me as so judgmental in the light of what you've said above.  If anything, it borders on the ad hominem.

How does praying for someone who revolts against today's canonical structure seen as an ad hominem?  I don't see idou747's point in arguing something which has been canonical for 1,600 years.   Huh
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,638


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #22 on: October 26, 2008, 09:11:47 PM »

However, 2 Peter says it was written by Peter, so just don't go claiming that you believe the bible.
I think the point Asteriktos and Heorhij have tried to make is that reliance solely on the internal evidence of the text (i.e., "2 Peter says it was written by Peter") is NOT a traditional, and therefore not an Orthodox, method of validating the canonicity of an epistle.  What EXTERNAL evidence is there that 2 Peter was largely believed to be written by St. Peter?  If 2 Peter was in fact written by someone else, why does this alone destroy the book's apostolicity if the epistle otherwise represents perfectly that which St. Peter preached?
Logged
idou747
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 36


« Reply #23 on: October 26, 2008, 09:12:51 PM »

How is saying that I am acting like a protestant not insulting?
If I posit that your reactionary approach to Tradition is consistent with the Fundamentalist approach to the Scriptures, how is it not true that you're acting like a Protestant?

Amazingly enough (go read the church fathers), believing the scriptures is not a protestant distinctive.

How how is referring to an argument as vague an insult, which is what I'm accused of?

Quote
It would have been insulting if I said you ARE a Protestant, but, as it stands now, I did not.  It's not an insult to question your behavior.


Logged
idou747
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 36


« Reply #24 on: October 26, 2008, 09:18:13 PM »

However, 2 Peter says it was written by Peter, so just don't go claiming that you believe the bible.
I think the point Asteriktos and Heorhij have tried to make is that reliance solely on the internal evidence of the text (i.e., "2 Peter says it was written by Peter") is NOT a traditional, and therefore not an Orthodox, method of validating the canonicity of an epistle. 

Who said it was? My methodology is the Church agrees it is canonical.  Go read Pomazansky again "the complete canon of the New Testament books of Sacred Scripture was confirmed by the catholic voice of the whole Church"

Pick your choice:

a) The Church is wrong.
b) Scripture lies
c) Peter wrote it.

Quote
What EXTERNAL evidence is there that 2 Peter was largely believed to be written by St. Peter?  If 2 Peter was in fact written by someone else, why does this alone destroy the book's apostolicity if the epistle otherwise represents perfectly that which St. Peter preached?

1) 2 Peter says Peter wrote it. If this "represents perfectly" what Peter preached, then Peter preached that he wrote 2 Peter.

2) As I said already, Constantinou's and other's argument is that the content of 2 Peter is inconsistent with what Peter could have preached in the 1st century. That is the entire argument about why Peter didn't write 2 Peter. So how can it perfectly represent Peter, when the entire argument is that it is inconsistent with what Peter could have said?



Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,638


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #25 on: October 26, 2008, 09:26:24 PM »

1) If you think I'm approaching the fathers wrong, prove it. Why tell me I "might not be" as a substantive response to quoting the fathers?
I'm not here to prove anything.  I'm just here to question what you think is so obvious.

Quote
2) Prove that the "historical and philosophical circumstances" are "totally different", and prove that I should care. The faith is under attack in all the old ways with merely new clothing.
A very reactionary thing to say, which only confirms my point.

Quote
What is "reactionary fundamentalism"? Sounds like empty name calling to me.
Empty name calling only if I called YOU a Fundamentalist, which I never have.  All I'm doing is asking you to reconsider why you believe as you do and why you have taken such a fearful, reactionary approach to the Faith.  As far as what I mean by reactionary fundamentalism, maybe this definition from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary might be helpful:

fun⋅da⋅men⋅tal⋅ism
–noun
1.    (sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2.    the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3.    strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.


"fundamentalism." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 26 Oct. 2008. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundamentalism >.
Logged
idou747
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 36


« Reply #26 on: October 26, 2008, 09:42:34 PM »

1) If you think I'm approaching the fathers wrong, prove it. Why tell me I "might not be" as a substantive response to quoting the fathers?
I'm not here to prove anything.  I'm just here to question what you think is so obvious.

This is a "have you stopped beating your wife" type question. Without presenting any evidence or argument, you ask "innocently".

Quote
Quote
2) Prove that the "historical and philosophical circumstances" are "totally different", and prove that I should care. The faith is under attack in all the old ways with merely new clothing.
A very reactionary thing to say, which only confirms my point.

You haven't read the fathers have you?

Quote
Quote
What is "reactionary fundamentalism"? Sounds like empty name calling to me.
Empty name calling only if I called YOU a Fundamentalist, which I never have.  All I'm doing is asking you to reconsider why you believe as you do and why you have taken such a fearful, reactionary approach to the Faith.  As far as what I mean by reactionary fundamentalism, maybe this definition from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary might be helpful:

fun⋅da⋅men⋅tal⋅ism
–noun
1.    (sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.

Yes, those shocking fundamentalists believing the virgin birth, resurrection and second coming. Terrible.

Quote
2.    the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3.    strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.

Oh no, we don't want to adhere to any basic ideas or principles, how un-Christian.




Logged
Symeon
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 582


Radovan Karadzic - Serbian Hero


« Reply #27 on: October 26, 2008, 09:44:52 PM »

Good on you for calling out Dr. Jeanie. And where ever did she get the ridiculous idea that St. Gregory didn't write the Life of Macrina? That isn't even a point of contention anywhere, from anyone (besides her), that I've seen.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,638


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #28 on: October 26, 2008, 09:54:53 PM »

However, 2 Peter says it was written by Peter, so just don't go claiming that you believe the bible.
I think the point Asteriktos and Heorhij have tried to make is that reliance solely on the internal evidence of the text (i.e., "2 Peter says it was written by Peter") is NOT a traditional, and therefore not an Orthodox, method of validating the canonicity of an epistle. 
Who said it was? My methodology is the Church agrees it is canonical.
Good. Smiley  On this we can agree.  However, when you argue, as you did in the quote above, that the internal evidence that St. Peter wrote 2 Peter is sufficient for belief that St. Peter did indeed write the epistle and that belief in the Bible is all that's necessary, doesn't that kinda render moot your methodology that the Church agrees that 2 Peter is canonical?

Quote
Quote
What EXTERNAL evidence is there that 2 Peter was largely believed to be written by St. Peter?  If 2 Peter was in fact written by someone else, why does this alone destroy the book's apostolicity if the epistle otherwise represents perfectly that which St. Peter preached?

1) 2 Peter says Peter wrote it. If this "represents perfectly" what Peter preached, then Peter preached that he wrote 2 Peter.
WRONG!  That logic works only if you silently assert your conclusion as the beginning premise.

Quote
2) As I said already, Constantinou's and other's argument is that the content of 2 Peter is inconsistent with what Peter could have preached in the 1st century. That is the entire argument about why Peter didn't write 2 Peter. So how can it perfectly represent Peter, when the entire argument is that it is inconsistent with what Peter could have said?
Semantic style...  You're arguing that semantic style (i.e., how the author of 2 Peter articulated his public doctrine into words) is just as central to what St. Peter taught as is the substance of his doctrine.  Is it possible that a disciple of St. Peter penned 2 Peter based on the tradition he had been taught by St. Peter but in the disciple's own words?  How does this not possibly represent perfectly the tradition of St. Peter just because the language is slightly different?

Personally, as I've said before, I have no real reason to question whether St. Peter really wrote 2 Peter.  The fact that 2 Peter attributes its own authorship to St. Peter and that the Church has traditionally recognized St. Peter's authorship of this epistle (AFAIK) are good enough for me.  I just feel that if my faith cannot handle a challenge from a scholar who might disagree with me without leading me to fear that the very life of the Church is under attack, then my faith probably wasn't very strong to begin with.  "Upon this rock I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it."
« Last Edit: October 26, 2008, 10:08:46 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #29 on: October 26, 2008, 10:05:17 PM »

I would recommend that if posters are going to refer to "the Fathers" that they provide full citations of which Fathers they are talking about so we can read them in context.  Just like if we quote "the canons."

One refreshing thing about Orthodoxy is that we are not constrained to pick sides in the fundamentalist vs liberal controversy of the modern era.

I find a lot of what passes for Biblical "scholarship" to be boring anyway though; a lot of theories that sound plausible but with no motive, etc.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2008, 10:08:04 PM by Fr. Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,638


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #30 on: October 26, 2008, 10:07:22 PM »

You haven't read the fathers have you?
Whether I have read the Fathers or I haven't, I fail to see how my knowledge of the Fathers (or lack thereof) is even relevant to my criticism of your position.

Quote
Quote
Quote
What is "reactionary fundamentalism"? Sounds like empty name calling to me.
Empty name calling only if I called YOU a Fundamentalist, which I never have.  All I'm doing is asking you to reconsider why you believe as you do and why you have taken such a fearful, reactionary approach to the Faith.  As far as what I mean by reactionary fundamentalism, maybe this definition from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary might be helpful:

fun⋅da⋅men⋅tal⋅ism
–noun
1.    (sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.

Yes, those shocking fundamentalists believing the virgin birth, resurrection and second coming. Terrible.
They also believe in a strictly literalist interpretation of the Scriptures that strips the words of Scripture from their historical context and that the Bible should be used as the foundation for scientific theories.

Quote
Quote
2.    the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3.    strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.

Oh no, we don't want to adhere to any basic ideas or principles, how un-Christian.
And how do you see this clearly hostile ridicule of the opposing thesis in this debate doing anything to make any logical sense?
Logged
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 967



« Reply #31 on: October 26, 2008, 10:18:46 PM »

a lot of theories that sound plausible but with no motive

Please clarify.  Huh
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,638


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #32 on: October 26, 2008, 10:24:49 PM »

Quote from: idou747
The Church can't settle anything over time, we can always go and and dispute a settled consensus.

My 1+ line defense is: well, not everyone liked and supported ROCOR and MP getting back together based on the remarks made by idou747 about "disputing a settled consensus."
But idou747 never said anything to make a connection between "disputing settled consensus" and the ROCOR/MP reunification.  This connection is something you have crafted solely in your own mind.

Quote
Uhhh, SolEX, I take issue with this allegation.  Nowhere in this thread has idou747 intimated such a thing, so I think it best you drop this idea.

Fair enough, I won't mention anything regarding ROCOR/MP unless it is brought up by the OP.   angel
Thank you. Smiley

Quote
I could agree with this sentiment if it didn't strike me as so judgmental in the light of what you've said above.  If anything, it borders on the ad hominem.

How does praying for someone who revolts against today's canonical structure seen as an ad hominem?  I don't see idou747's point in arguing something which has been canonical for 1,600 years.   Huh
Huh
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #33 on: October 26, 2008, 10:37:30 PM »

Quote
I would recommend that if posters are going to refer to "the Fathers" that they provide full citations of which Fathers they are talking about so we can read them in context.

Though I have said my piece in this thread, you make a good point, so fwiw I've alluded to two different Church writers:

St. Photius, Bibliotheca, 1
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3, 25
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #34 on: October 26, 2008, 10:41:14 PM »

a lot of theories that sound plausible but with no motive

Please clarify.  Huh

A good example of this is the JDEP theory that used to be popular among Biblical scholars, where they would posit that there were four authors or editors or redactors of the Old Testament and we can see the evidence of who wrote what by the style of writing etc etc etc and this is somehow important because we get to see what the culture and context of the writing is etc etc

The theory sounds plausible when it is laid out but after I had a whole class on it I still could not answer the question: "What is the motive for the authors redacting the way this is presented?"  Why should I believe this theory? Why should it be this way and not the simple explanation that Moses wrote the Pentatuch?

I couldn't answer that question and some of the evidence used, while interesting, was simply not provable one way or the other.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
idou747
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 36


« Reply #35 on: October 26, 2008, 10:50:57 PM »

Good on you for calling out Dr. Jeanie. And where ever did she get the ridiculous idea that St. Gregory didn't write the Life of Macrina? That isn't even a point of contention anywhere, from anyone (besides her), that I've seen.

No, she said that Gregory did write the Life of Macrina, but he did so pseudonymously. That would mean Gregory pretends to be Macrina, which is not true as it is written in 3rd person except when he refers to himself.


Logged
LBK
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,129


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #36 on: October 26, 2008, 11:00:34 PM »

No, she said that Gregory did write the Life of Macrina, but he did so pseudonymously. That would mean Gregory pretends to be Macrina, which is not true as it is written in 3rd person except when he refers to himself.

Idou, pseudonymous simply means writing under a name which is not your own. The grammatical tense used in a piece of writing has little or nothing to do with it.

Famous examples of pseudonymous writers are Mark Twain (Samuel L Clemens), the Bronte sisters (who all originally wrote under male names, such as Currer Bell), and George Eliot (Mary-Ann Evans).
Logged
idou747
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 36


« Reply #37 on: October 26, 2008, 11:07:17 PM »

However, 2 Peter says it was written by Peter, so just don't go claiming that you believe the bible.
I think the point Asteriktos and Heorhij have tried to make is that reliance solely on the internal evidence of the text (i.e., "2 Peter says it was written by Peter") is NOT a traditional, and therefore not an Orthodox, method of validating the canonicity of an epistle. 
Who said it was? My methodology is the Church agrees it is canonical.
Good. Smiley  On this we can agree.  However, when you argue, as you did in the quote above, that the internal evidence that St. Peter wrote 2 Peter is sufficient for belief that St. Peter did indeed write the epistle and that belief in the Bible is all that's necessary, doesn't that kinda render moot your methodology that the Church agrees that 2 Peter is canonical?

The internal evidence is... and this is agreed even by those who don't think Peter wrote it... that the author of the epistle INTENDS us to believe Peter wrote it.

So again, (a) scripture lies (b) it isn't scripture (the church got it wrong) (c) Peter wrote it.

If this doesn't address what you said, then I don't know what you are saying.

Quote

Quote
Quote
What EXTERNAL evidence is there that 2 Peter was largely believed to be written by St. Peter?  If 2 Peter was in fact written by someone else, why does this alone destroy the book's apostolicity if the epistle otherwise represents perfectly that which St. Peter preached?

1) 2 Peter says Peter wrote it. If this "represents perfectly" what Peter preached, then Peter preached that he wrote 2 Peter.
WRONG!  That logic works only if you silently assert your conclusion as the beginning premise.

Both sides agree that's what the book says. It doesn't take an exegetical Goliath to know the books says that. How can we wrestle with the creed or councils, if we can't agree on this simple and obvious fact?

Quote
Quote
2) As I said already, Constantinou's and other's argument is that the content of 2 Peter is inconsistent with what Peter could have preached in the 1st century. That is the entire argument about why Peter didn't write 2 Peter. So how can it perfectly represent Peter, when the entire argument is that it is inconsistent with what Peter could have said?
Semantic style...  You're arguing that semantic style (i.e., how the author of 2 Peter articulated his public doctrine into words) is just as central to what St. Peter taught as is the substance of his doctrine.  Is it possible that a disciple of St. Peter penned 2 Peter based on the tradition he had been taught by St. Peter but in the disciple's own words?  How does this not possibly represent perfectly the tradition of St. Peter just because the language is slightly different?

1) The entire pseudonymous argument is based on the idea that it is anachronistic for what Peter would have taught. How can you cut away the entire basis for the position as an argument for the acceptability of the position?

2) As I argued above, and which you have not responded to, the letter doesn't make sense for some kind of legitimate pseudonymity. The author says he is writing by way of reminder by way of urgency because his death draws near. If he died a long time ago, then that is no cause for the writing of the letter urgently. The author only allows you to believe in authenticity or fraud, not in some kind of repetition of a long dead apostle.

3) As I showed from the Fathers, pseudonymity was a punishable offence in the early church. Not a legitimate pastime.

Quote
Personally, as I've said before, I have no real reason to question whether St. Peter really wrote 2 Peter.  The fact that 2 Peter attributes its own authorship to St. Peter and that the Church has traditionally recognized St. Peter's authorship of this epistle (AFAIK) are good enough for me.  I just feel that if my faith cannot handle a challenge from a scholar who might disagree with me without leading me to fear that the very life of the Church is under attack, then my faith probably wasn't very strong to begin with.  "Upon this rock I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it."

Your faith can handle the challenge. Great, but its not the issue. By your argument you are happy to have Jehovah's witnesses come in and teach Arianism in your church because "your faith can handle a challenge". It's not the point.

Logged
idou747
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 36


« Reply #38 on: October 26, 2008, 11:09:38 PM »

One refreshing thing about Orthodoxy is that we are not constrained to pick sides in the fundamentalist vs liberal controversy of the modern era.

So we can... side with Bishop Spong for example, when he is in in a fundamentalist vs liberal controversy?

Are you serious?

Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #39 on: October 26, 2008, 11:15:34 PM »

One refreshing thing about Orthodoxy is that we are not constrained to pick sides in the fundamentalist vs liberal controversy of the modern era.

So we can... side with Bishop Spong for example, when he is in in a fundamentalist vs liberal controversy?

Are you serious?

You don't seem to understand what I am talking about. Please don't assume you know what others are talking about and jump on them when you could be missing the point totally (which in this case you are).
« Last Edit: October 26, 2008, 11:17:52 PM by Fr. Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
idou747
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 36


« Reply #40 on: October 26, 2008, 11:20:40 PM »

You haven't read the fathers have you?
Whether I have read the Fathers or I haven't, I fail to see how my knowledge of the Fathers (or lack thereof) is even relevant to my criticism of your position.

Your criticism is that I am reactionary. And that makes me like a protestant fundamentalist. My dictionary says a reactionary is a person who opposes reform. But that's exactly what Orthodox are, people who hold to the traditions. Protestants are reformers.  You're all back to front.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
What is "reactionary fundamentalism"? Sounds like empty name calling to me.
Empty name calling only if I called YOU a Fundamentalist, which I never have.  All I'm doing is asking you to reconsider why you believe as you do and why you have taken such a fearful, reactionary approach to the Faith.  As far as what I mean by reactionary fundamentalism, maybe this definition from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary might be helpful:

fun⋅da⋅men⋅tal⋅ism
–noun
1.    (sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.

Yes, those shocking fundamentalists believing the virgin birth, resurrection and second coming. Terrible.
They also believe in a strictly literalist interpretation of the Scriptures that strips the words of Scripture from their historical context and that the Bible should be used as the foundation for scientific theories.

So is that what I stand accused of here? Opposing science in the name of religion? Do you actually think that is a cogent argument concerning anything I have said?

Quote

Quote
Quote
2.    the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3.    strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.

Oh no, we don't want to adhere to any basic ideas or principles, how un-Christian.
And how do you see this clearly hostile ridicule of the opposing thesis in this debate doing anything to make any logical sense?

I didn't know there was going to be an opposing side in a supposedly Orthodox forum, arguing that Orthodoxy shouldn't involve adherence to basic sets of principles. If I wanted to argue with an atheist world view, there are a lot of better places to do it.


Logged
idou747
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 36


« Reply #41 on: October 26, 2008, 11:22:32 PM »

One refreshing thing about Orthodoxy is that we are not constrained to pick sides in the fundamentalist vs liberal controversy of the modern era.

So we can... side with Bishop Spong for example, when he is in in a fundamentalist vs liberal controversy?

Are you serious?

You don't seem to understand what I am talking about. Please don't assume you know what others are talking about and jump on them when you could be missing the point totally (which in this case you are).

So tell me what the point is, because nobody here seems to be actually making a cogent point.


Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,444


WWW
« Reply #42 on: October 26, 2008, 11:26:31 PM »

So tell me what the point is, because nobody here seems to be actually making a cogent point.

You tell us what the point is because I don't get it.   Huh

The Orthodox Study Bible states that internal evidence exists for Peter to have written 2 Peter.  I'm sorry if that means nothing to you and remember that not many of us are renowned theologians with access to source documents establishing the authorship of 2 Peter.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #43 on: October 26, 2008, 11:30:25 PM »

One refreshing thing about Orthodoxy is that we are not constrained to pick sides in the fundamentalist vs liberal controversy of the modern era.

So we can... side with Bishop Spong for example, when he is in in a fundamentalist vs liberal controversy?

Are you serious?

You don't seem to understand what I am talking about. Please don't assume you know what others are talking about and jump on them when you could be missing the point totally (which in this case you are).

So tell me what the point is, because nobody here seems to be actually making a cogent point.


If you had responded politely and with a genuine interest in discussion maybe I would have taken the time to put down some thoughts; but seeing this is the second unprovoked abrasive response to me in this thread, coupled with a nonsensical reference to Spong and a dismissive assessment of other forum participants, I'm not going to spend any more time engaging you.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
idou747
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 36


« Reply #44 on: October 26, 2008, 11:31:23 PM »

So tell me what the point is, because nobody here seems to be actually making a cogent point.

You tell us what the point is because I don't get it.   Huh

What part of my opening statement confuses you?

Quote
The Orthodox Study Bible states that internal evidence exists for Peter to have written 2 Peter.  I'm sorry if that means nothing to you and remember that not many of us are renowned theologians with access to source documents establishing the authorship of 2 Peter.

If I'm the one arguing Peter wrote it, then how do I stand accused of saying that evidence for Peter writing it "means nothing to me"?

This is descending into silliness.





Logged
Tags: heresy Ancient Faith Radio Modernism fundamentalism Scripture 2 Peter St. Peter RudenessNotTraditionalism 
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.202 seconds with 71 queries.