OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 28, 2014, 04:41:12 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 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?  (Read 16313 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #135 on: August 16, 2010, 08:12:06 PM »

I got other examples where the NT doesn't follow that rule, therefore the rule isn't "apostolic".

on the Apostolic rule by those who know what they are talking about.

some of my thoughts on the matter, and related issues
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19095.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19811.0.html

More importantly, the statements by those who know the meaning of "apostolic":

St. Irenaeus, who demonstrated the Apostolic preaching against the heresies
Quote
Bk III Chapter II.—The heretics follow neither Scripture nor tradition.
1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.” (1 Cor. ii. 6.) And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.
2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
3. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Where-fore they must be opposed at all points, if per-chance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it.

Bk III Chapter XVI.—Proofs from the apostolic writings, that Jesus Christ was one and the same, the only begotten Son of God, perfect God and perfect man.
1. But there are some who say that Jesus was merely a receptacle of Christ, upon whom the Christ, as a dove, descended from above, and that when He had declared the unnameable Father He entered into the Pleroma in an incomprehensible and invisible manner: for that He was not comprehended, not only by men, but not even by those powers and virtues which are in heaven, and that Jesus was the Son, but that (See book i. 12, 4) Christ was the Father, and the Father of Christ, God; while others say that He merely suffered in outward appearance, being naturally impassible. The Valentinians, again, maintain that the dispensational Jesus was the same who passed through Mary, upon whom that Saviour from the more exalted [region] descended, who was also termed Pan, (See also book ii. c. xii. s. 6) because He possessed the names (vocabula) of all those who had produced Him; but that [this latter] shared with Him, the dispensational one, His power and His name; so that by His means death was abolished, but the Father was made known by that Saviour who had descended from above, whom they do also allege to be Himself the receptacle of Christ and of the entire Pleroma; confessing, indeed, in tongue one Christ Jesus, but being divided in [actual] opinion: for, as I have already observed, it is the practice of these men to say that there was one Christ, who was produced by Monogenes, for the confirmation of the Pleroma; but that another, the Saviour, was sent [forth] for the glorification of the Father; and yet another, the dispensational one, and whom they represent as having suffered, who also bore [in himself] Christ, that Saviour who returned into the Pleroma. I judge it necessary therefore to take into account the entire mind of the apostles regarding our Lord Jesus Christ, and to show that not only did they never hold any such opinions regarding Him; but, still further, that they announced through the Holy Spirit, that those who should teach such doctrines were agents of Satan, sent forth for the purpose of overturning the faith of some, and drawing them away from life.
2. That John knew the one and the same Word of God, and that He was the only begotten, and that He became incarnate for our salvation, Jesus Christ our Lord, I have sufficiently proved from the word of John himself. And Matthew, too, recognising one and the same Jesus Christ, exhibiting his generation as a man from the Virgin, (Ps. cxxxii. 11) even as God did promise David that He would raise up from the fruit of his body an eternal King, having made the same promise to Abraham a long time previously, says: “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” (Matt. i. 1) Then, that he might free our mind from suspicion regarding Joseph, he says: “But the birth of Christ (Matt. i. 18) was on this wise. When His mother was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” Then, when Joseph had it in contemplation to put Mary away, since she proved with child, [Matthew tells us of] the angel of God standing by him, and saying: “Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins. Now this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is, God with us;” clearly signifying that both the promise made to the fathers had been accomplished, that the Son of God was born of a virgin, and that He Himself was Christ the Saviour whom the prophets had foretold; not, as these men assert, that Jesus was He who was born of Mary, but that Christ was He who descended from above. Matthew might certainly have said, “Now the birth of Jesus was on this wise;” but the Holy Ghost, foreseeing the corrupters [of the truth], and guarding by anticipation against their deceit, says by Matthew, “But the birth of Christ was on this wise;” and that He is Emmanuel, lest perchance we might consider Him as a mere man: for “not by the will of the flesh nor by the will of man, but by the will of God was the Word made flesh;” (John i. 13, 14) [Schaff's note: From this, and also a quotation of the same passage in chap. xix. of this book, it appears that Irenæus must have read ὃς … ἐγεννήθη here, and not οἳ … ἐγεννήθησαν. Tertullian quotes the verse to the same effect (Lib. de Carne Christi, cap. 19 and 24)]. and that we should not imagine that Jesus was one, and Christ another, but should know them to be one and the same.
5. Therefore did the Lord also say to His disciples after the resurrection, “O thoughtless ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory?” (Luke xxiv. 25) And again does He say to them: “These are the words which I spoke unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning Me. Then opened He their understanding, that they should understand the Scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead, and that repentance for the remission of sins be preached in His name among all nations.” (Luke xxiv. 44), etc. Now this is He who was born of Mary; for He says: “The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected, and crucified, and on the third day rise again.” (Mark viii. 31 and Luke ix. 22) The Gospel, therefore, knew no other son of man but Him who was of Mary, who also suffered; and no Christ who flew away from Jesus before the passion; but Him who was born it knew as Jesus Christ the Son of God, and that this same suffered and rose again, as John, the disciple of the Lord, verifies, saying: “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have eternal life in His name,” (John xx. 31)—foreseeing these blasphemous systems which divide the Lord, as far as lies in their power, saying that He was formed of two different substances. For this reason also he has thus testified to us in his Epistle: “Little children, it is the last time; and as ye have heard that Antichrist doth come, now have many antichrists appeared; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but [they departed], that they might be made manifest that they are not of us. Know ye therefore, that every lie is from without, and is not of the truth. Who is a liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist.” (1 John ii. 18, etc., loosely quoted)
6. But inasmuch as all those before mentioned, although they certainly do with their tongue confess one Jesus Christ, make fools of themselves, thinking one thing and saying another;  for their hypotheses vary, as I have already shown, alleging, [as they do,] that one Being suffered and was born, and that this was Jesus; but that there was another who descended upon Him, and that this was Christ, who also ascended again; and they argue, that he who proceeded from the Demiurge, or he who was dispensational, or he who sprang from Joseph, was the Being subject to suffering; but upon the latter there descended from the invisible and ineffable [places] the former, whom they assert to be incomprehensible, invisible, and impassible: they thus wander from the truth, because their doctrine departs from Him who is truly God, being ignorant that His only-begotten Word, who is always present with the human race, united to and mingled with His own creation, according to the Father’s pleasure, and who became flesh, is Himself Jesus Christ our Lord, who did also suffer for us, and rose again on our behalf, and who will come again in the glory of His Father, to raise up all flesh, and for the manifestation of salvation, and to apply the rule of just judgment to all who were made by Him. There is therefore, as I have pointed out, one God the Father, and one Christ Jesus, who came by means of the whole dispensational arrangements [connected with Him], and gathered together all things in Himself. (Eph. i. 10) But in every respect, too, He is man, the formation of God; and thus He took up man into Himself, the invisible becoming visible, the incomprehensible being made comprehensible, the impassible becoming capable of suffering, and the Word being made man, thus summing up all things in Himself: so that as in super-celestial, spiritual, and invisible things, the Word of God is supreme, so also in things visible and corporeal He might possess the supremacy, and, taking to Himself the pre-eminence, as well as constituting Himself Head of the Church, He might draw all things to Himself at the proper time.
 announced, and the Word of God, who became incarnate when the fulness of time had come, at which the Son of God had to become the Son of man.
8. All, therefore, are outside of the [Christian] dispensation, who, under pretext of knowledge, understand that Jesus was one, and Christ another, and the Only-begotten another, from whom again is the Word, and that the Saviour is another, whom these disciples of error allege to be a production of those who were made Æons in a state of degeneracy. Such men are to outward appearance sheep; for they appear to be like us, by what they say in public, repeating the same words as we do; but inwardly they are wolves. Their doctrine is homicidal, conjuring up, as it does, a number of gods, and simulating many Fathers, but lowering and dividing the Son of God in many ways. These are they against whom the Lord has cautioned us beforehand; and His disciple, in his Epistle already mentioned, commands us to avoid them, when he says: “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Take heed to them, that ye lose not what ye have wrought.” (2 John 7, 8 ) And again does he say in the Epistle: “Many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit which separates Jesus Christ is not of God, but is of antichrist.” (1 John iv. 1, 2) These words agree with what was said in the Gospel, that “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” Wherefore he again exclaims in his Epistle, “Every one that believeth that Jesus is the Christ, has been born of God;” (1 John v. 1) knowing Jesus Christ to be one and the same, to whom the gates of heaven were opened, because of His taking upon Him flesh: who shall also come in the same flesh in which He suffered, revealing the glory of the Father.
9. Concurring with these statements, Paul, speaking to the Romans, declares: “Much more they who receive abundance of grace and righteousness for [eternal] life, shall reign by one, Christ Jesus.” (Rom. v. 17) It follows from this, that he knew nothing of that Christ who flew away from Jesus; nor did he of the Saviour above, whom they hold to be impassible. For if, in truth, the one suffered, and the other remained incapable of suffering, and the one was born, but the other descended upon him who was born, and left him again, it is not one, but two, that are shown forth. But that the apostle did know Him as one, both who was born and who suffered, namely Christ Jesus, he again says in the same Epistle: “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized in Christ Jesus were baptized in His death? that like as Christ rose from the dead, so should we also walk in newness of life.” (Rom. vi. 3, 4) But again, showing that Christ did suffer, and was Himself the Son of God, who died for us, and redeemed us with His blood at the time appointed beforehand, he says: “For how is it, that Christ, when we were yet without strength, in due time died for the ungodly? But God commendeth His love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more, then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son; much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.” (Rom. v. 6–10)  He declares in the plainest manner, that the same Being who was laid hold of, and underwent suffering, and shed His blood for us, was both Christ and the Son of God, who did also rise again, and was taken up into heaven, as he himself [Paul] says: “But at the same time, [it, is] Christ [that] died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God.” (Rom. viii. 34) And again, “Knowing that Christ, rising from the dead, dieth no more:” (Rom. vi. 9) for, as himself foreseeing, through the Spirit, the subdivisions of evil teachers [with regard to the Lord’s person], and being desirous of cutting away from them all occasion of cavil, he says what has been already stated, [and also declares:] “But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies.” (Rom. viii. 11) This he does not utter to those alone who wish to hear: Do not err, [he says to all:] Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is one and the same, who did by suffering reconcile us to God, and rose from the dead; who is at the right hand of the Father, and perfect in all things; “who, when He was buffeted, struck not in return; who, when He suffered, threatened not;” (1 Pet. ii. 23) and when He underwent tyranny, He prayed His Father that He would forgive those who had crucified Him. For He did Himself truly bring in salvation: since He is Himself the Word of God, Himself the Only-begotten of the Father, Christ Jesus our Lord.

BK IV Preface.

3. For their system is blasphemous above all [others], since they represent that the Maker and Framer, who is one God, as I have shown, was produced from a defect or apostasy. They utter blasphemy, also, against our Lord, by cutting off and dividing Jesus from Christ, and Christ from the Saviour, and again the Saviour from the Word, and the Word from the Only-begotten. And since they allege that the Creator originated from a defect or apostasy, so have they also taught that Christ and the Holy Spirit were emitted on account of this defect, and that the Saviour was a product of those Æons who were produced from a defect; so that there is nothing but blasphemy to be found among them. In the preceding book, then, the ideas of the apostles as to all these points have been set forth, [to the effect] that not only did they, “who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word” (Luke i. 2) of truth, hold no such opinions, but that they did also preach to us to shun these doctrines,(2 Tim. ii. 23) foreseeing by the Spirit those weak-minded persons who should be led astray. [Schaff's note: The solemnity of the apostolic testimonies against the crop of tares that was to spring up receives great illustration from Irenæus. 1 John ii. 18.]
4. For as the serpent beguiled Eve, by promising her what he had not himself, [2 Pet. ii. 19.] so also do these men, by pretending [to possess] superior knowledge, and [to be acquainted with] ineffable mysteries; and, by promising that admittance which they speak of as taking place within the Pleroma, plunge those that believe them into death, rendering them apostates from Him who made them. And at that time, indeed, the apostate angel, having effected the disobedience of mankind by means of the serpent, imagined that he escaped the notice of the Lord; wherefore God assigned him the form [Rev. xii. 9] and name [of a serpent]. But now, since the last times are [come upon us], evil is spread abroad among men, which not only renders them apostates, but by many machinations does [the devil] raise up blasphemers against the Creator, namely, by means of all the heretics already mentioned. For all these, although they issue forth from diverse regions, and promulgate different [opinions], do nevertheless concur in the same blasphemous design, wounding [men] unto death, by teaching blasphemy against God our Maker and Supporter, and derogating from the salvation of man. Now man is a mixed organization of soul and flesh, who was formed after the likeness of God, and moulded by His hands, that is, by the Son and Holy Spirit, to whom also He said, “Let Us make man.” (Gen. i. 26) This, then, is the aim of him who envies our life, to render men disbelievers in their own salvation, and blasphemous against God the Creator. For whatsoever all the heretics may have advanced with the utmost solemnity, they come to this at last, that they blaspheme the Creator, and disallow the salvation of God’s workmanship, which the flesh truly is; on behalf of which I have proved, in a variety of ways, that the Son of God accomplished the whole dispensation [of mercy], and have shown that there is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption.

Bk. IV Chapter XXIV.—The conversion of the Gentiles was more difficult than that of the Jews; the labours of those apostles, therefore who engaged in the former task, were greater than those who undertook the latter.
1. Wherefore also Paul, since he was the apostle of the Gentiles, says, “I laboured more than they all.” (1 Cor. xv. 10) For the instruction of the former, [viz., the Jews,] was an easy task, because they could allege proofs from the Scriptures, and because they, who were in the habit of hearing Moses and the prophets, did also readily receive the First-begotten of the dead, and the Prince of the life of God,—Him who, by the spreading forth of hands, did destroy Amalek, and vivify man from the wound of the serpent, by means of faith which was [exercised] towards Him. As I have pointed out in the preceding book, the apostle did, in the first place, instruct the Gentiles to depart from the superstition of idols, and to worship one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and the Framer of the whole creation; and that His Son was His Word, by whom He founded all things; and that He, in the last times, was made a man among men; that He reformed the human race, but destroyed and conquered the enemy of man, and gave to His handiwork victory against the adversary. But although they who were of the circumcision still did not obey the words of God, for they were despisers, yet they were previously instructed not to commit adultery, nor fornication, nor theft, nor fraud; and that whatsoever things are done to our neighbours’ prejudice, were evil, and detested by God. Wherefore also they did readily agree to abstain from these things, because they had been thus instructed.
2. But they were bound to teach the Gentiles also this very thing, that works of such a nature were wicked, prejudicial, and useless, and destructive to those who engaged in them. Wherefore he who had received the apostolate to the Gentiles, [Schaff's note: A clear note of recognition on the part of our author, that St. Paul’s mission was world-wide, while St. Peter’s was limited.] did labour more than those who preached the Son of God among them of the circumcision. For they were assisted by the Scriptures, which the Lord confirmed and fulfilled, in coming such as He had been announced; but here, [in the case of the Gentiles,] there was a certain foreign erudition, and a new doctrine [to be received, namely], that the gods of the nations not only were no gods at all, but even the idols of demons; and that there is one God, who is “above all principality, and dominion, and power, and every name which is named;” (Eph. i. 21) and that His Word, invisible by nature, was made palpable and visible among men, and did descend “to death, even the death of the cross;” (Phil. ii. 8 ) also, that they who believe in Him shall be incorruptible and not subject to suffering, and shall receive the kingdom of heaven. These things, too, were preached to the Gentiles by word, without [the aid of] the Scriptures: wherefore, also, they who preached among the Gentiles underwent greater labour. But, on the other hand, the faith of the Gentiles is proved to be of a more noble description, since they followed the word of God without the instruction [derived] from the [sacred] writings.

Chapter XXXII.—That one God was the author of both Testaments, is confirmed by the authority of a presbyter who had been taught by the apostles.
1. After this fashion also did a presbyter, a disciple of the apostles, reason with respect to the two testaments, proving that both were truly from one and the same God. For [he maintained] that there was no other God besides Him who made and fashioned us, and that the discourse of those men has no foundation who affirm that this world of ours was made either by angels, or by any other power whatsoever, or by another God. For if a man be once moved away from the Creator of all things, and if he grant that this creation to which we belong was formed by any other or through any other [than the one God], he must of necessity fall into much inconsistency, and many contradictions of this sort; to which he will [be able to] furnish no explanations which can be regarded as either probable or true. And, for this reason, those who introduce other doctrines conceal from us the opinion which they themselves hold respecting God, because they are aware of the untenable and absurd nature of their doctrine, and are afraid lest, should they be vanquished, they should have some difficulty in making good their escape. But if any one believes in [only] one God, who also made all things by the Word, as Moses likewise says, “God said, Let there be light: and there was light;” (Gen. i. 3) and as we read in the Gospel, “All things were made by Him; and without Him was nothing made;” (John i. 3) and the Apostle Paul [says] in like manner, “There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father, who is above all, and through all, and in us all” (Eph. iv. 5, 6)—this man will first of all “hold the head, from which the whole body is compacted and bound together, and, through means of every joint according to the measure of the ministration of each several part, maketh increase of the body to the edification of itself in love.” (Eph. iv. 16; Col. ii. 19)  And then shall every word also seem consistent to him, if he for his part diligently read the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine, as I have pointed out.
2. For all the apostles taught that there were indeed two testaments among the two peoples; but that it was one and the same God who appointed both for the advantage of those men (for whose sakes the testaments were given) who were to believe in God, I have proved in the third book from the very teaching of the apostles; and that the first testament was not given without reason, or to no purpose, or in an accidental sort of manner; but that it subdued those to whom it was given to the service of God, for their benefit (for God needs no service from men), and exhibited a type of heavenly things, inasmuch as man was not yet able to see the things of God through means of immediate vision; and foreshadowed the icons of those things which [now actually] exist in the Church, in order that our faith might be firmly established; [Schaff's note: If this and the former chapter seem to us superfluous, we must reflect that such testimony, from the beginning, has established the unity of Holy Scripture, and preserved to us—the Bible.] and contained a prophecy of things to come, in order that man might learn that God has foreknowledge of all things.

Quote
Bk V. Preface: In the four preceding books, my very dear friend, which I put forth to thee, all the heretics have been exposed, and their doctrines brought to light, and these men refuted who have devised irreligious opinions. [I have accomplished this by adducing] something from the doctrine peculiar to each of these men, which they have left in their writings, as well as by using arguments of a more general nature, and applicable to them all Then I have pointed out the truth, and shown the preaching of the Church, which the prophets proclaimed (as I have already demonstrated), but which Christ brought to perfection, and the apostles have handed down, from whom the Church, receiving [these truths], and throughout all the world alone preserving them in their integrity (bene), has transmitted them to her sons. Then also—having disposed of all questions which the heretics propose to us, and having explained the doctrine of the apostles, and clearly set forth many of those things which were said and done by the Lord in parables—I shall endeavour, in this the fifth book of the entire work which treats of the exposure and refutation of knowledge falsely so called, to exhibit proofs from the rest of the Lord’s doctrine and the apostolical epistles: [thus] complying with thy demand, as thou didst request of me (since indeed I have been assigned a place in the ministry of the word); and, labouring by every means in my power to furnish thee with large assistance against the contradictions of the heretics, as also to reclaim the wanderers and convert them to the Church of God, to confirm at the same time the minds of the neophytes, that they may preserve stedfast the faith which they have received, guarded by the Church in its integrity, in order that they be in no way perverted by those who endeavour to teach them false doctrines, and lead them away from the truth. It will be incumbent upon thee, however, and all who may happen to read this writing, to peruse with great attention what I have already said, that thou mayest obtain a knowledge of the subjects against which I am contending. For it is thus that thou wilt both controvert them in a legitimate manner, and wilt be prepared to receive the proofs brought forward against them, casting away their doctrines as filth by means of the celestial faith; but following the only true and stedfast Teacher, the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #136 on: August 16, 2010, 08:16:27 PM »


As the Septuagint NEVER uses  σπέρμασιν  Paul cannot argue its absence is significant in Gen 22:18.

Sure he can. Just because it doesn't appear in the LXX, it didn't disappear (as Galatians show) from the Greek language.


No he cannot. If you cite different wording as significant, then the wording has to be different.

In the Septuagint the wording is not different, its singular "seed" throughout.
Yes, I am aware that sola scriptura is painting you into a corner.

But since neither Christ, His Church, St. Paul nor the scriptures teach sola scriptura, that's your problem.

St. Paul cites a verse (LXX) and a nonexistent verse (at least outside the Targum).  Greek has a different plural for "seed," that is all the significance St. Paul needed.  Anyone who spoke Greek (as the Galatians did) have no problem following the argument.  If you don't, again, that's your problem.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #137 on: August 16, 2010, 08:51:44 PM »


As the Septuagint NEVER uses  σπέρμασιν  Paul cannot argue its absence is significant in Gen 22:18.

Sure he can. Just because it doesn't appear in the LXX, it didn't disappear (as Galatians show) from the Greek language.


No he cannot. If you cite different wording as significant, then the wording has to be different.

In the Septuagint the wording is not different, its singular "seed" throughout.
Yes, I am aware that sola scriptura is painting you into a corner.

But since neither Christ, His Church, St. Paul nor the scriptures teach sola scriptura, that's your problem.

St. Paul cites a verse (LXX) and a nonexistent verse (at least outside the Targum).  Greek has a different plural for "seed," that is all the significance St. Paul needed.  Anyone who spoke Greek (as the Galatians did) have no problem following the argument.  If you don't, again, that's your problem.

You are trying to evade the issue changing the subject.


Paul cited a difference as significant, if he is using the Septuagint there is no difference.

Paul said this is different than those texts where "seeds" is plural, because here its singular.

NKJ  Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.
 (Gal 3:16 NKJ)

But as that is not true for the Septuagint, "seed" is singular everywhere it occurs, THEREFORE Paul was not referring to the Septuagint when he said this, the Bible he was referring to has this difference.


To illustrate:

For the statement "Red apples are best" to be true, "not red apples" must exist so a contrast can be made. If all the apples are red, the statement is a trick.

For Paul's statement "as seed is singular it refers to Christ" to be true, "not singular seed" must exist so a contrast can be made. If all the occurrences of "seed" are singular, Paul's argument is a trick.


In the Aramaic Targums "seed" is found both singular and plural, therefore with it Paul can argue the singular has a different reference than the plural:

17 therefore, blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy sons as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the sea shore; and thy sons shall inherit the cities of their enemies.
 18 And all the peoples of the earth shall be blessed through thy son: forasmuch as thou hast received My word.- Gen 22:17-18 OKE Targum Onkelos on the Pentateuch (English)


17 that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy sons as the stars of the heavens, and they shall be as the sand which is upon the shore of the sea, and thy sons shall inherit the cities before their enemies.
 18 And all the peoples of the earth shall be blessed through the righteousness of thy son, because thou hast obeyed My word. -Gen 22:17-18 PJE Targum Pseudo Jonathan on the Pentateuch:
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 09:21:29 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #138 on: August 16, 2010, 09:32:53 PM »

You are trying to evade the issue changing the subject.

No, it's the same subject that it's been all along, in all your threads:  the Orthodox (and the Catholics) do not look at Scripture in the same way that you do.

Therefore, telling them that this or that verse of Scripture supports or negates against a particular theological point you're trying to make is of no use, unless you can back it up with evidence from Tradition, showing that the historical Church has always interpreted that verse in the same way you do.

That's all there is to it, but I'm sure we'll see another twenty or thirty pages before you concede that point (if ever).  Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 09:33:25 PM by theistgal » Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #139 on: August 16, 2010, 10:53:11 PM »

You are trying to evade the issue changing the subject.

No, it's the same subject that it's been all along, in all your threads:  the Orthodox (and the Catholics) do not look at Scripture in the same way that you do.

Therefore, telling them that this or that verse of Scripture supports or negates against a particular theological point you're trying to make is of no use, unless you can back it up with evidence from Tradition, showing that the historical Church has always interpreted that verse in the same way you do.

That's all there is to it, but I'm sure we'll see another twenty or thirty pages before you concede that point (if ever).  Roll Eyes

Apostolic oral tradition, that should be very weighty to every believer:

NKJ  Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.
 (Gal 3:16 NKJ)

Its certain Paul and the Galatians use a translation that has both the singular and plural "seed" in it, the Septuagint does not.
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #140 on: August 16, 2010, 10:57:00 PM »


As the Septuagint NEVER uses  σπέρμασιν  Paul cannot argue its absence is significant in Gen 22:18.

Sure he can. Just because it doesn't appear in the LXX, it didn't disappear (as Galatians show) from the Greek language.


No he cannot. If you cite different wording as significant, then the wording has to be different.

In the Septuagint the wording is not different, its singular "seed" throughout.
Yes, I am aware that sola scriptura is painting you into a corner.

But since neither Christ, His Church, St. Paul nor the scriptures teach sola scriptura, that's your problem.

St. Paul cites a verse (LXX) and a nonexistent verse (at least outside the Targum).  Greek has a different plural for "seed," that is all the significance St. Paul needed.  Anyone who spoke Greek (as the Galatians did) have no problem following the argument.  If you don't, again, that's your problem.

You are trying to evade the issue changing the subject.

No, you're trying to evade the fact that neither your flavor of sola scriptura nor Aramaic primacy can fit.

move away from the hammer.


Quote
Paul cited a difference as significant, if he is using he Septuagint there is no difference.

He's using Greek, which distinguishes between singular (one subject) and plural (2/3 or more subjects): there used to be a dual in Attic (2 subjects), but it fell into disuse by the time of the LXX. Hebrew has the same numbers.  English has only singular and plural, and the dual only in "both." Some languages make no, or limited, distinctions in number.

I won't be going over the grammar again.

Quote
Paul said this is different than those texts where "seeds" is plural, because here its singular.

Greek "ou", Hebrew "lo" and English "not" all negate verbs, meaning "didn't happen." so when he says "He does not say" So thre is nothing to cite.

I'm not going to discuss nonexistent texts anymore.

Quote
NKJ  Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.
 (Gal 3:16 NKJ)

But as that is not true for the Septuagint, "seed" is singular everywhere it occurs, Paul was not referring to the Septuagint when he said this.

He cites the LXX, which is singular. That you have difficultry with proof staring you in the face is your problem.

I'm not going to state the obvious again.

Quote
o illustrate:
For the statement "Red apples are best" to be true, "not red apples" must exist so a comparison can be made. If all the apples are red, the statement is a trick.

Not really, but I'm not going to get sidetracked on that, and will just give you this for sake of argument.

Quote
For Paul's statement "as seed is singular it refers to Christ" to be true, "not singular seed" must exist so a comparison can be made. If all the occurrences of "seed" are singular, Paul's argument is a trick.[/b]

see how sola scriptura has warped your ability to reason from the scriputures., trying to twist the scriptures into it?

move away from the hammer.
looking for verses that neither exist nor are needed.

If the plural didn't exist in Greek (or English), then the comparison wouldn't be valid. To use your example, if I say these red apples are the best, and then you complain that they can't be, because I didn't get them from Alaska, your point wouldn't be valid: there are plenty of red apples in WA and MI.

Really, the analogy would be "I did not say purple apples are best, but that red apples are the best."  As long as there are red apples, whether purple apples exist or not is relevant.  In fact whether red apples exist or not doesn't mater either, as the statement is only dealing with the fact that I said that "I said 'they were best,." not the simple declaration "red apples are best."

I'm not sqeezing your apples anymore to make orange juice.

Quote
But Paul is right, you are wrong, its not the Septuagint he is referring to, but the Aramaic Targums:

Paul is right: it refers to one, namely Christ. You are your rabbis are out of luck.  The quote from the LXX is unequivocal.

Again I won't state the obvious anymore.

I will discuss why it is impossible that St. Paul is citing the Targums, any Targum.

Quote
17 therefore, blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy sons as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the sea shore; and thy sons shall inherit the cities of their enemies.
 18 And all the peoples of the earth shall be blessed through thy son: forasmuch as thou hast received My word.- Gen 22:17-18 OKE Targum Onkelos on the Pentateuch (English)


17 that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy sons as the stars of the heavens, and they shall be as the sand which is upon the shore of the sea, and thy sons shall inherit the cities before their enemies.
 18 And all the peoples of the earth shall be blessed through the righteousness of thy son, because thou hast obeyed My word. -Gen 22:17-18 PJE Targum Pseudo Jonathan on the Pentateuch:
Yes, well if you want to cling to the veil of Moses, and take the rabbis as your masters, and walk disorderly according to the traditions of men you receive of them, that's your choice.  So if you want to agree with the sons of the bondswoman, simply get circumcized, go the mikvah and find a nice shul (someone here has done that).

The Galatians prefered, like us, be to sons of the freewoman and of the heavenly Jerusalem. St. Paul argued the Jews erred in thinking the promise applied all the progeny of Abraham, instead of the Son of Abraham. You choose the Pharisees, we choose the Aposltes.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 10:59:15 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #141 on: August 16, 2010, 11:02:43 PM »

You are trying to evade the issue changing the subject.

No, it's the same subject that it's been all along, in all your threads:  the Orthodox (and the Catholics) do not look at Scripture in the same way that you do.

Therefore, telling them that this or that verse of Scripture supports or negates against a particular theological point you're trying to make is of no use, unless you can back it up with evidence from Tradition, showing that the historical Church has always interpreted that verse in the same way you do.

That's all there is to it, but I'm sure we'll see another twenty or thirty pages before you concede that point (if ever).  Roll Eyes

Apostolic oral tradition, that should be very weighty to every believer:

NKJ  Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.
 (Gal 3:16 NKJ)

Its certain Paul and the Galatians use a translation that has both the singular and plural "seed" in it.
Or a language that does. Your sola scriptura binders, not being binding, are irrelevant.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #142 on: August 16, 2010, 11:04:20 PM »

You are trying to evade the issue changing the subject.

No, it's the same subject that it's been all along, in all your threads:  the Orthodox (and the Catholics) do not look at Scripture in the same way that you do.

Therefore, telling them that this or that verse of Scripture supports or negates against a particular theological point you're trying to make is of no use, unless you can back it up with evidence from Tradition, showing that the historical Church has always interpreted that verse in the same way you do.

That's all there is to it, but I'm sure we'll see another twenty or thirty pages before you concede that point (if ever).  Roll Eyes
For the verse in question, we don't need to look it diferently.  Only be able tor read Greek. Or for that matter, English.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #143 on: August 17, 2010, 05:08:07 AM »


Quote
Paul cited a difference as significant, if he is using he Septuagint there is no difference.

He's using Greek, which distinguishes between singular (one subject) and plural (2/3 or more subjects): there used to be a dual in Attic (2 subjects), but it fell into disuse by the time of the LXX. Hebrew has the same numbers.  English has only singular and plural, and the dual only in "both." Some languages make no, or limited, distinctions in number.

I won't be going over the grammar again.


Quote
Paul said this is different than those texts where "seeds" is plural, because here its singular.


Greek "ou", Hebrew "lo" and English "not" all negate verbs, meaning "didn't happen." so when he says "He does not say" So thre is nothing to cite.

I'm not going to discuss nonexistent texts anymore.

NKJ  Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.
 (Gal 3:16 NKJ)

But as that is not true for the Septuagint, "seed" is singular everywhere it occurs, Paul was not referring to the Septuagint when he said this.

He cites the LXX, which is singular. That you have difficultry with proof staring you in the face is your problem.

I'm not going to state the obvious again.


You contradict yourself, you say Paul is citing ancient Attic which wasn't in use, but I thought you were trying to prove Paul cited the LXX which was in use?

And your ditty about "seeds" plural is confused, you say "no" means it didn't exist but then affirm it did in ancient Attic and the Galatians were supposed to know this. If "no" means it didn't exist, how can that be a contrast to what does exist?  In other words, you have Paul saying "seed" has a different reference than "nothing", it refers to Christ.


Rather than parse a confused apologetic, lets look at  ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου in context:

NKJ  Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.
 (Gal 3:16 NKJ)

Paul argues that God does not use the plural "seeds", as if the promise extended to many persons, but to "seed" the singular number, as if one was intended; and that one must be Christ.

Paul is claiming the use of the singular "seed" instead of the plural "seeds", indicates the promise related to Christ, not the descendants of Abraham.

So Paul is identifying the singular "seed" as referring to Christ.

BUT every occurrence of  "seed" in the LXX is singular! Therefore Paul's argument means ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου refers to Christ in these texts also:


LXE  Genesis 26:4 And I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven; and I will give to thy seed all this land, and all the nations of the earth shall be blest in thy seed(ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου). (Gen 26:4 LXE)

LXE  Genesis 28:14 And thy seed shall be as the sand of the earth; and it shall spread abroad to the sea, and the south, and the north, and to the east; and in thee and in thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) shall all the tribes of the earth be blessed. (Gen 28:14 LXE)

LXE  Deuteronomy 28:46 And these things shall be signs in thee, and wonders among thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) for ever; (Deu 28:46 LXE)

LXE  2 Kings 5:27 The leprosy also of Naiman shall cleave to thee, and to thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) for ever. And he went out from his presence leprous, like snow. (2Ki 5:27 LXE)

Clearly Christ is NOT the "seed" in these texts at all, refuting Paul's argument....even though "seed" is singular in number, Christ is not meant.

So "seeds" plural must exist in the context Paul is referring to because he is making a distinction in the appearance of both, while "seeds" plural in one verse refers to Abraham's descendants, when God speaks of Christ, He "says not" seeds plural, but "seed" singular.

The only translations having both are Aramaic:


17 therefore, blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy sons as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the sea shore; and thy sons shall inherit the cities of their enemies.
 18 And all the peoples of the earth shall be blessed through thy son: forasmuch as thou hast received My word.- Gen 22:17-18 OKE Targum Onkelos on the Pentateuch (English)


17 that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy sons as the stars of the heavens, and they shall be as the sand which is upon the shore of the sea, and thy sons shall inherit the cities before their enemies.
 18 And all the peoples of the earth shall be blessed through the righteousness of thy son, because thou hast obeyed My word. -Gen 22:17-18 PJE Targum Pseudo Jonathan on the Pentateuch


With this version Paul's argument makes perfect sense.

It stretches credulity to suppose Paul hinges his argument on Attic conventions long since forgotten...

Paul cites a text the Galatians can read for themselves, see the use of both the plural "seeds" and singular "seed" and see how the reference is Christ.

When I read it, Paul's argument is sound, clearly Christ is the Seed.

« Last Edit: August 17, 2010, 05:39:13 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #144 on: August 17, 2010, 05:58:06 AM »


Quote
Paul cited a difference as significant, if he is using he Septuagint there is no difference.

He's using Greek, which distinguishes between singular (one subject) and plural (2/3 or more subjects): there used to be a dual in Attic (2 subjects), but it fell into disuse by the time of the LXX. Hebrew has the same numbers.  English has only singular and plural, and the dual only in "both." Some languages make no, or limited, distinctions in number.

I won't be going over the grammar again.


Quote
Paul said this is different than those texts where "seeds" is plural, because here its singular.


Greek "ou", Hebrew "lo" and English "not" all negate verbs, meaning "didn't happen." so when he says "He does not say" So thre is nothing to cite.

I'm not going to discuss nonexistent texts anymore.

NKJ  Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.
 (Gal 3:16 NKJ)

But as that is not true for the Septuagint, "seed" is singular everywhere it occurs, Paul was not referring to the Septuagint when he said this.

He cites the LXX, which is singular. That you have difficultry with proof staring you in the face is your problem.

I'm not going to state the obvious again.

You contradict yourself, you say Paul is citing ancient Attic

If you read what I wrote, you will see that I did not. At least not here (he does in Acts )..

Quote
which wasn't in use, but I thought you were trying to prove Paul cited the LXX which was in use?

One neeed only compare the texts.

So when the Orthodox cite this text to prove Septuagint Primacy, they lose because Paul cites the Aramaic Targum, not the Septuagint at all.

Gen. 22:18 τῷ σπέρματί σου (LXX)
Gal.   3:16 τῷ σπέρματί σου

You might want to learn Greek, before attempting to make such arguments that are easily refuted.

Quote
And your ditty about οὐ λέγει "not say" is confused, you say "no" means it didn't exist but then affirm it did in Attic....Huh

No, I did not say that.  St. Paul did not say that. Galatians does not say that. The LXX does not say that, hence God did not say that.

Quote
If "no" means it didn't exist,

The verse didn't exist, as St. Paul points out.

Quote
how can what doesn't exist be proof of anything?

For one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction

Quote
Rather than parse a confused apologetic, lets look at οὐ λέγει in context:

NKJ  Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.
 (Gal 3:16 NKJ)

In other words, God does not use the plural "seeds", as if the promise extended to many persons, but to "seed" the singular number, as if one was intended; and that one must be Christ.

Paul is claiming the use of the singular "seed" instead of the plural "seeds", indicates the promise related to Christ, not the descendants of Abraham.

So Paul is identifying the singular "seed" as referring to Christ. The problem is every occurrence of  "seed" is singular, therefore Paul's argument means ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου necessitates Christ is the seed in all these texts:

Where does St. Paul cite them?  

Quote
LXE  Genesis 26:4 And I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven; and I will give to thy seed all this land, and all the nations of the earth shall be blest in thy seed(ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου). (Gen 26:4 LXE)

LXE  Genesis 28:14 And thy seed shall be as the sand of the earth; and it shall spread abroad to the sea, and the south, and the north, and to the east; and in thee and in thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) shall all the tribes of the earth be blessed. (Gen 28:14 LXE)

LXE  Deuteronomy 28:46 And these things shall be signs in thee, and wonders among thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) for ever; (Deu 28:46 LXE)

LXE  2 Kings 5:27 The leprosy also of Naiman shall cleave to thee, and to thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) for ever. And he went out from his presence leprous, like snow. (2Ki 5:27 LXE)

Clearly Christ is NOT the "seed" in all these texts, even though "seed" is singular in number.

Where does St. Paul speak of Naman?

Quote
So "seeds" plural must exist in the context Paul is referring to because he is making a distinction in the appearance of both, while "seeds" plural in one verse refers to Abraham's descendants, "seed" singular in another refers to Christ.

The only texts having both are the Aramaic:

17 that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy sons as the stars of the heavens, and they shall be as the sand which is upon the shore of the sea, and thy sons shall inherit the cities before their enemies.
 18 And all the peoples of the earth shall be blessed through the righteousness of thy son, because thou hast obeyed My word. -Gen 22:17-18 PJE Targum Pseudo Jonathan on the Pentateuch:

With this version Paul's argument makes perfect sense.
It stretches credulity to suppose Paul hinges his argument on Attic conventions long since forgotten...

The plural, in contrast to the dual, was alive and well in Koine.

Quote
He is citing a text they can read and see there the distinction, and when you do read it in the Aramaic, the reference to Christ is clear.
None of the Galatians spoke Aramaic, nor did they read it, nor had it been read in Galatia for three centuries by St. Paul's day.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2010, 06:04:48 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,371



« Reply #145 on: August 17, 2010, 01:52:11 PM »

You do understand that the earliest LXX manuscript we have pre-dates the earliest MT manuscript we have, right?  And that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also pre-date the earliest MT manuscrupt, "gel" more with the LXX, right?  So you do know that you are begging the question, which manuscript reflects the earlier text: the LXX, or the MT, which is technically a translation, since the PMT didn't have the vowels, and thus required interpretation in order to translate it from Hebrew without vowels to Hebrew with vowels.

That's somewhat true, but not entirely true. There are some significant differences between the DSS and MT readings where the LXX follows the former rather than the latter; therefore one might prefer, in English, to translate the LXX/DSS reading instead of the MT, though of course one cannot determine whether it is the DSS or the MT which deviates from the ur-text. Far more common, however, are places where the LXX appears to mistranslate the MT, and the DSS reading is the same as the latter. In these cases one would tend to prefer to retranslate the Hebrew and ignore the Greek.

I personally see no real reason to invest in belief in an inerrant text, given that (a) I personally have to read it in translation, and (b) it is manifestly necessary to appeal to interpretation, offering another opportunity to introduce error.
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #146 on: August 17, 2010, 02:58:51 PM »

You do understand that the earliest LXX manuscript we have pre-dates the earliest MT manuscript we have, right?  And that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also pre-date the earliest MT manuscrupt, "gel" more with the LXX, right?  So you do know that you are begging the question, which manuscript reflects the earlier text: the LXX, or the MT, which is technically a translation, since the PMT didn't have the vowels, and thus required interpretation in order to translate it from Hebrew without vowels to Hebrew with vowels.

That's somewhat true, but not entirely true. There are some significant differences between the DSS and MT readings where the LXX follows the former rather than the latter; therefore one might prefer, in English, to translate the LXX/DSS reading instead of the MT, though of course one cannot determine whether it is the DSS or the MT which deviates from the ur-text. Far more common, however, are places where the LXX appears to mistranslate the MT, and the DSS reading is the same as the latter. In these cases one would tend to prefer to retranslate the Hebrew and ignore the Greek.

I personally see no real reason to invest in belief in an inerrant text, given that (a) I personally have to read it in translation, and (b) it is manifestly necessary to appeal to interpretation, offering another opportunity to introduce error.

Good argument. I was reviewing some verses cited earlier in support of the lxx:

τῷ θεῷ καὶ οὐχ ηὑρίσκετο ὅτι μετέθηκεν αὐτὸν ὁ θεός

Jacob ... worshipped, leaning on the top of his staff
Gen 47.31 quoted in Heb 11.21


Net Bible footnote shows the consonants are the same, vowel points different:

6 tc The MT reads מִטָּה (mittah, “bed, couch”). The LXX reads the word as מַטֶּה (matteh, “staff, rod”) and interprets this to mean that Jacob bowed down in worship while leaning on the top of his staff. The LXX reading was used in turn by the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews (Heb 11:21).- Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press

Rather than conclude either text is wrong,  perhaps they  are both right as a picture can be accurately described by different words. The point is he worshiped God. He may have done this while leaning on  the top of his staff, at the bed's head.

I rejoice in alternate readings, they don't seem to adversely affect doctrine, but often provide depth to the event or entity described.

By faith I default to the Hebrew and Greek autographs being inerrant, and accept the Masoretic vowel points preserve inspired vocalization. If believing Christ and His apostles the word of God stands forever, will be punished, then so be it. But I suspect faith in Christ, the apostles, His Word, will be rewarded. IN the interrm, because my confidence is in God to guide me into the truth, alternate readings are a blessing, not a curse.



« Last Edit: August 17, 2010, 03:07:07 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #147 on: August 17, 2010, 03:33:43 PM »

You do understand that the earliest LXX manuscript we have pre-dates the earliest MT manuscript we have, right?  And that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also pre-date the earliest MT manuscrupt, "gel" more with the LXX, right?  So you do know that you are begging the question, which manuscript reflects the earlier text: the LXX, or the MT, which is technically a translation, since the PMT didn't have the vowels, and thus required interpretation in order to translate it from Hebrew without vowels to Hebrew with vowels.

That's somewhat true, but not entirely true. There are some significant differences between the DSS and MT readings where the LXX follows the former rather than the latter;

That's somewhat true, but not entirely true. As the LXX predates the DSS and MT, it doesn't follow either, although it might agree with either.  Btw, another problem for the MT and the Protestant canon is the DSS contain  Sirach, Tobit as (juding from the Talmud, which includes knowledge of Judith and Maccabbees) included by the Jews in the canon, and books like Baruch (in Greek!).

Quote
therefore one might prefer, in English, to translate the LXX/DSS reading instead of the MT, though of course one cannot determine whether it is the DSS or the MT which deviates from the ur-text. Far more common, however, are places where the LXX appears to mistranslate the MT,

Since the MT didn't come into being until centuries after physical texts we still have of the LXX (e.g. Sinaiticus, Vatiicanus, Alexandrinusj etc.), the LXX couldn't possibly mistranslate (or, for that matter, translaate) the MT.

Quote
and the DSS reading is the same as the latter. In these cases one would tend to prefer to retranslate the Hebrew and ignore the Greek.

So "a young woman" shall conceive"? No chance.

Quote
I personally see no real reason to invest in belief in an inerrant text, given that (a) I personally have to read it in translation, and (b) it is manifestly necessary to appeal to interpretation, offering another opportunity to introduce error.
Or correct it.  I'm rereading Melito of Sardis "On Pascha," from around 180. It expounds a lot on typology, and in the process demolishes the claim of the Jehovah Witnesseses and other neo-Arians to any antiquity.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2010, 03:35:00 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #148 on: August 17, 2010, 04:31:13 PM »

You do understand that the earliest LXX manuscript we have pre-dates the earliest MT manuscript we have, right?  And that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also pre-date the earliest MT manuscrupt, "gel" more with the LXX, right?  So you do know that you are begging the question, which manuscript reflects the earlier text: the LXX, or the MT, which is technically a translation, since the PMT didn't have the vowels, and thus required interpretation in order to translate it from Hebrew without vowels to Hebrew with vowels.

That's somewhat true, but not entirely true. There are some significant differences between the DSS and MT readings where the LXX follows the former rather than the latter; therefore one might prefer, in English, to translate the LXX/DSS reading instead of the MT, though of course one cannot determine whether it is the DSS or the MT which deviates from the ur-text. Far more common, however, are places where the LXX appears to mistranslate the MT, and the DSS reading is the same as the latter. In these cases one would tend to prefer to retranslate the Hebrew and ignore the Greek.

I personally see no real reason to invest in belief in an inerrant text, given that (a) I personally have to read it in translation, and (b) it is manifestly necessary to appeal to interpretation, offering another opportunity to introduce error.

Good argument. I was reviewing some verses cited earlier in support of the lxx:

τῷ θεῷ καὶ οὐχ ηὑρίσκετο ὅτι μετέθηκεν αὐτὸν ὁ θεός

Jacob ... worshipped, leaning on the top of his staff
Gen 47.31 quoted in Heb 11.21


Net Bible footnote shows the consonants are the same, vowel points different:

6 tc The MT reads מִטָּה (mittah, “bed, couch”). The LXX reads the word as מַטֶּה (matteh, “staff, rod”) and interprets this to mean that Jacob bowed down in worship while leaning on the top of his staff. The LXX reading was used in turn by the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews (Heb 11:21).- Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press

Rather than conclude either text is wrong,  perhaps they  are both right as a picture can be accurately described by different words. The point is he worshiped God. He may have done this while leaning on  the top of his staff, at the bed's head.

I rejoice in alternate readings, they don't seem to adversely affect doctrine, but often provide depth to the event or entity described.

Oh?  St. John of Damascus quotes Pope St. Athansius the Great in defense of the Holy Icons:
Quote
We, who are of the faithful, do not worship images as gods, as the heathens did, God forbid, but we mark our lovingdesire alone to see the face of the person represented in image. Hence, when it is obliterated, we are wont to throw the image as so much wood into the fire. Jacob, when he was about to die, worshipped on the point of Joseph's staff, not honouring the staff but its owner. Just in the same way do we greet images as we should embrace our children and parents to signify our affection. Thus the Jew, too, worshipped the tablets of the law, and the two golden cherubim in carved work, not because he honoured gold or stone for itself, but the Lord who had ordered them to be made.

and St. Leontinus of Neapolis in defense of the Holy Icons:
Quote
If you, O Jew, reproach me saying that I adore the wood of the Cross as God, why do you not reproach Jacob, who worshipped on the point of his staff ? Now it is evident that he was not worshipping wood. So with us ; we are worshipping Christ through the Cross, not the wood of the Cross.

Commentary.—If we adore the Cross, made of whatever wood it may be, how shall we not adore the image of the Crucified ?

Abraham worshipped the impious men who sold him the cave, and bent his knee to the ground, yet did not worship them as gods. Jacob praised Pharao, an impious idolator, yet not as God. and he fell down at the feet of Esau, yet did not worship him as God. And again, How does God order us to worship the earth and mountains? 'Exalt the Lord your God and worship Him upon His holy mountain, and adore His footstool, that is, the earth. For heaven is My throne, He says, and the earth My footstool. How was it that Moses worshipped Jothor, an idolator, and Daniel, Nabuchodonosor ? How can you reproach me because I honour those who honour God and show Him service ? Tell me, is it not fitting to worship the saints, rather than to throw stones at them as you do? Is it not right to worship them, rather than to attack them, and to fling your benefactors into the mire ? If you loved God, you. would be ready to honour His servants also. And if the bones of the just are unclean, why were the bones of Jacob and Joseph brought with all honour from Egypt? How was it that a dead man arose again on touching the bones of Eliseus ? If God works wonders through bones, it is evident that He can work them through images, and stones, and many other things, as in the case of Eliseus, who gave his staff to his servant, saying, ' With this go and raise from the dead the son of the Sunamitess.' With his staff Moses chastised Pharao, parted the waters, struck the rock, and drew forth the stream. And Solomon said, ' Blessed is the wood by which justice cometh.' Eliseus took iron out of the Jordan with a piece of wood. And again, the wood is the wood of life, and the wood of Sabec, that is, of remission. Moses humbled the serpent with wood and saved the people. The blossoming rod in the tabernacle confirmed the priesthood of Aaron. Perhaps, O Jew, you will tell me that God prescribed to Moses beforehand all the things of the testimony in the tabernacle. Now, I say to you that Solomon made a great variety of things in the temple in carvings and sculpture, which God had not ordered him to do. Nor did the tabernacle of the testimony contain them, nor the temple which God showed to Ezechiel, nor was Solomon to be blamed in this. He had had these sculptured images made for the glory of God as we do. You, too, had many and varied images and signs in the Old Testament to serve as a reminder of God, if you had not lost them through ingratitude. For instance, the rod of Moses, the tablets of the law, the burning bush, the rock giving forth water, the ark containing the manna, the altar set on fire from above, the lamina bearing the divine name, the ephod, the tabernacle overshadowed by God. If you had prepared all these things by day and by night, saying, ' Glory be to Thee, O Almighty God, who hast done wonders in Israel through all these things'; if through all these ordinances of the law, carried out of old, you had fallen on your knees to adore God, you would see that worship is given to Him by images.  And further on:—He who truly loves a friend or the king, and especially his benefactor, if he sees that benefactor's son, or his staff, or his chair, or his crown, or his house, or his servant, he holds them fast in his embrace, and if he honours his benefactor, and king, how much more God. Again I repeat it, would that you had made images according to the law of Moses and the prophet-:, and that day by day you had worshipped the God of images. Whenever, then, you see Christians adoring the Cross, know that thoy are adoring the Crucified Christ, not the mere wood.  If, indeed, they honoured wood as wood, they would be bound to worship trees of whatever kind, as you, O Israel, worshipped them of old, saying to the tree and to the stone, 'Thou art my God and didst bring me forth.' We do not speak either to the Cross or to the representations of the saints in this way. They are not our gods, but books which He open and are venerated in churches in order to remind us of God and to lead us to worship Him. He who honours the martyr honours Gocl, to whom the martyr bore testimony. He who worships the apostle of Christ worships Him who sent the apostle. He who falls at the feet of Christ's mother most certainly shows honour to her 'Son. There is no God but one, He who is known and adored in the Trinity.

On this account I depict Christ and His sufferings in churches, and houses, and public places, and images, on clothes, and store-houses, and in every available place, so that ever before me, I may bear them in lasting memory, and not be unmindful, as you are, of my Lord God. In worshipping the book of the law, you are not worshipping parchment or colour, but God's words contained in it. So do I worship the image of Christ, neither wood nor colouring for themselves. Adoring an inanimate figure of Christ through the Cross, I seem to possess and to adore Christ. Jacob received Joseph's cloak of many colours from his brothers who had sold him, and he caressed it with tears as he gazed at it. He did not weep over the cloak, but considered it a way of showing his love for Joseph and of embracing him. Thus do we Christians embrace with our lips the image of Christ, or the apostles, or the martyrs, whilst in spirit we deem that we are embracing Christ Himself or His martyr. As I have often said, the end in view must always be considered in all greeting and worship. If you upbraid me because I worship the wood of the Cross, why do you not upbraid Jacob for worshipping on the point of Joseph's staff? It is evident that it was not the wood he honoured by his worship, but Joseph, as we adore Christ through the Cross. Abraham worshipped impious men who sold him the cave, and bent his knee to the ground, yet he did not worship them as gods. And again, Jacob magnified impious Pharao and idolatrous Esau seven times, yet not as God. How many salutations and worshippings I have put before you, both natural and scriptural which are not to be condemned, and you no sooner see any one worshipping the image of Christ or His Immaculate Mother or a saint than you are angry and blaspheme and call me an idolator. Have you no shame, seeing me as you do day by day pulling down the temples of idols in the whole world and raising churches to martyrs ? If I worship idols, why do I honour martyrs, their destroyers ? If I glorify wood, as you say, why do I honour the saints who have pulled down the wooden statues of demons? If I glorify stones, how can I glorify the apostles who broke the stone idols ? If I honour the images of false gods, how can I praise and glorify and keep the feast of the three children at Babylon who would not worship the golden statue ? How greatly foolish people err, and how blind they are! What shamelessness is yours, O Jew! what impiety! You sin indeed against the truth. Arise, O God, and justify Thy cause. Judge and justify us from people, not all people, but from senseless and hostile people who constantly provoke Thee.
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA48&dq=John+of+Damascus+Jacob+staff&id=ibnUAAAAMAAJ#v=onepage&q=jacob%20staff&f=false


Quote
By faith I default to the Hebrew and Greek autographs being inerrant, and accept the Masoretic vowel points preserve inspired vocalization.

So Perssonims teaches that Our Lord withheld inspiration from the Holy Spirit who had come down upon her 10 days after Christ's Ascension, but He inspired the rabbis who denied Him as Messiah and who blasphemed against the Holy Spirit.

Quote
If believing Christ and His apostles the word of God stands forever, will be punished, then so be it. But I suspect faith in Christ, the apostles, His Word, will be rewarded.

Expressing disbelief in Christ and His Apostles, and accusing the word of God of corruption is not Faith in Christ, His Apostles, His Church and His Word meriting a reward. Rather, it begs for punishment.

Quote
IN the interrm, because my confidence is in God to guide me into the truth, alternate readings are a blessing, not a curse.
Your confidence is not misplaced, but your "understanding" is misguided, which renders alternative readings a snare.

II Peter 3:15 Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2010, 04:32:58 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #149 on: August 17, 2010, 05:56:31 PM »

Oh?  St. John of Damascus quotes Pope St. Athansius the Great in defense of the Holy Icons:
Quote
We, who are of the faithful, do not worship images as gods, as the heathens did, God forbid, but we mark our lovingdesire alone to see the face of the person represented in image. Hence, when it is obliterated, we are wont to throw the image as so much wood into the fire. Jacob, when he was about to die, worshipped on the point of Joseph's staff, not honouring the staff but its owner. Just in the same way do we greet images as we should embrace our children and parents to signify our affection. Thus the Jew, too, worshipped the tablets of the law, and the two golden cherubim in carved work, not because he honoured gold or stone for itself, but the Lord who had ordered them to be made.

Nope, don't buy it. He lost his credibility when he cites pseudo Dionysius as Dionysius. Athanasius had nothing to do with icons.



« Last Edit: August 17, 2010, 05:57:24 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,371



« Reply #150 on: August 17, 2010, 06:00:13 PM »

You do understand that the earliest LXX manuscript we have pre-dates the earliest MT manuscript we have, right?  And that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also pre-date the earliest MT manuscrupt, "gel" more with the LXX, right?  So you do know that you are begging the question, which manuscript reflects the earlier text: the LXX, or the MT, which is technically a translation, since the PMT didn't have the vowels, and thus required interpretation in order to translate it from Hebrew without vowels to Hebrew with vowels.

That's somewhat true, but not entirely true. There are some significant differences between the DSS and MT readings where the LXX follows the former rather than the latter;

That's somewhat true, but not entirely true. As the LXX predates the DSS and MT, it doesn't follow either, although it might agree with either.  Btw, another problem for the MT and the Protestant canon is the DSS contain  Sirach, Tobit as (juding from the Talmud, which includes knowledge of Judith and Maccabbees) included by the Jews in the canon, and books like Baruch (in Greek!).

Well, this Protestant has the Apocrypha in his bible, so you need not argue against a point I did not make. Also, you appear to mean "follow" in a different sense than I do: when I am speaking of the LXX "following" one of the Hebrew versions I mean that it appears to be translating the same Hebrew original as is found in that Hebrew version. That is also what I mean when I say that the LXX appears to mistranslate the MT: if there is no deviation among the Hebrew versions then one would ordinarily give some credence to the possibility of a mistranslation, particularly where the form of the difference suggests a misunderstanding.

Quote
Quote
and the DSS reading is the same as the latter. In these cases one would tend to prefer to retranslate the Hebrew and ignore the Greek.

So "a young woman" shall conceive"? No chance.

If that's the only difference you care about, who else cares? In my opinion pretty much everyone who gets in a wrestling match over that word at that point is engaging in a sort of scripture-twisting. The interpretation of one word in Isaiah is not going to overturn the testimony of Matthew and Luke concerning the virgin birth.

Quote
Quote
I personally see no real reason to invest in belief in an inerrant text, given that (a) I personally have to read it in translation, and (b) it is manifestly necessary to appeal to interpretation, offering another opportunity to introduce error.

Or correct it.  I'm rereading Melito of Sardis "On Pascha," from around 180. It expounds a lot on typology, and in the process demolishes the claim of the Jehovah Witnesses and other neo-Arians to any antiquity.

All you have to know about the JWs and scripture you can find by trying to read the NWT. It is so manifestly awful, it trumpets the translators' ignorance of the Hebrew and Greek languages.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #151 on: August 17, 2010, 06:49:04 PM »

Oh?  St. John of Damascus quotes Pope St. Athansius the Great in defense of the Holy Icons:
Quote
We, who are of the faithful, do not worship images as gods, as the heathens did, God forbid, but we mark our lovingdesire alone to see the face of the person represented in image. Hence, when it is obliterated, we are wont to throw the image as so much wood into the fire. Jacob, when he was about to die, worshipped on the point of Joseph's staff, not honouring the staff but its owner. Just in the same way do we greet images as we should embrace our children and parents to signify our affection. Thus the Jew, too, worshipped the tablets of the law, and the two golden cherubim in carved work, not because he honoured gold or stone for itself, but the Lord who had ordered them to be made.

Nope, don't buy it.

Rev.  3:17Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: 18I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. 19As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

If you want to render you coin to others, that's your choice.

Quote
He lost his credibility when he cites pseudo Dionysius as Dionysius.

LOL. Christ we know, and the Apostles we know, and St. Dionysius we know (and even pseudo-Dionysius we know) and St. John of Damascus we know, but who are you?

Rather presumptios of you, in particular as St. John makes no dependence on the writer of the corpus being identical to the first century bishop.
btw, John Sandopoulos on his Mystagogy has an interesting post on the Dionysian corpus
Quote
[Below are two classic writings by the Rev. John Parker who defended the authenticity of the Areopagite corpus as first century texts with apostolic authority. Though written a little over a hundred years ago, the arguments have yet to be refuted by his many critics who delight in deriding him. The interesting question he asks is whether St. Dionysius was influenced by the Alexandrian School and the Neoplatonists or was it in fact the other way around. The Rev. Parker translated St. Dionysius in the late 19th century into English both very accurately and literally which means that it is often unintelligable, but the benefit of this translation is that it maintains first century terminology that all later translations ignore. This is curious, because even if the writings are the work of "Pseudo-Dionysius", these terms must have been stylistically important as archaisms meant to enhance the feeling of authenticity, and thus worth noting. Though his arguments need to be a bit refined and expanded upon to suit contemporay scholarship, I consider it to still be a credible argument at least worth considering, as it also defends the majority of the opinions of the Church Fathers. - J.S.]
http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2009/10/genuiness-of-writings-of-dionysius.html

Quote
Athanasius had nothing to do with icons.

His holy testimony says otherwise.




[/quote]
« Last Edit: August 17, 2010, 06:49:52 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #152 on: August 17, 2010, 07:53:59 PM »

You do understand that the earliest LXX manuscript we have pre-dates the earliest MT manuscript we have, right?  And that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also pre-date the earliest MT manuscrupt, "gel" more with the LXX, right?  So you do know that you are begging the question, which manuscript reflects the earlier text: the LXX, or the MT, which is technically a translation, since the PMT didn't have the vowels, and thus required interpretation in order to translate it from Hebrew without vowels to Hebrew with vowels.

That's somewhat true, but not entirely true. There are some significant differences between the DSS and MT readings where the LXX follows the former rather than the latter;

That's somewhat true, but not entirely true. As the LXX predates the DSS and MT, it doesn't follow either, although it might agree with either.  Btw, another problem for the MT and the Protestant canon is the DSS contain  Sirach, Tobit as (juding from the Talmud, which includes knowledge of Judith and Maccabbees) included by the Jews in the canon, and books like Baruch (in Greek!).

Well, this Protestant has the Apocrypha in his bible,

Apocrypha? Interesting choice of words.

Quote
so you need not argue against a point I did not make.

Your choice of words makes me think otherwise.

Quote
Also, you appear to mean "follow" in a different sense than I do: when I am speaking of the LXX "following" one of the Hebrew versions I mean
but that is not what you said. Some (not naming names  Roll Eyes) are not so careful, and refer to the MT as the Hebrew original.

Quote
that it appears to be translating the same Hebrew original as is found in that Hebrew version. That is also what I mean when I say that the LXX appears to mistranslate the MT: if there is no deviation among the Hebrew versions then one would ordinarily give some credence to the possibility of a mistranslation, particularly where the form of the difference suggests a misunderstanding.
In the stemma of the text types

only the hypothetical (hypothetical becaue it is reconstructed) archtype (not to be confused with the Hebrew and Aramaic autographs) and the later Hebrew hyparchtype predates Christ and His Apostles. What the Jews did off on the side with the MT isn't of interest to those who hold fast to the Tradition received of the Apostles.

Quote
Quote
Quote
and the DSS reading is the same as the latter. In these cases one would tend to prefer to retranslate the Hebrew and ignore the Greek.

So "a young woman" shall conceive"? No chance.

If that's the only difference you care about, who else cares?

The Jews and their followers. They have been fighting us on that (and other spots) for going on two thousand years.

Quote
In my opinion pretty much everyone who gets in a wrestling match over that word at that point is engaging in a sort of scripture-twisting. The interpretation of one word in Isaiah is not going to overturn the testimony of Matthew and Luke concerning the virgin birth.

It has provided a staple of polemic to those who don't accept Matthew and Luke, ostensibly for that reason. The B'nei Noach are just one of many. It also determines whose authority you accept, the Apostles, the rabbis or the "higher critics."

Quote
Quote
Quote
I personally see no real reason to invest in belief in an inerrant text, given that (a) I personally have to read it in translation, and (b) it is manifestly necessary to appeal to interpretation, offering another opportunity to introduce error.

Or correct it.  I'm rereading Melito of Sardis "On Pascha," from around 180. It expounds a lot on typology, and in the process demolishes the claim of the Jehovah Witnesses and other neo-Arians to any antiquity.

All you have to know about the JWs and scripture you can find by trying to read the NWT. It is so manifestly awful, it trumpets the translators' ignorance of the Hebrew and Greek languages.
Melito is more straightforward stake through the JW heart.  Using the NWT can be tedious, and for much of the argument depends on the Christian and the JW knowing Greek.  The former is common, the latter nearly unheard of (including the NWT translators).
« Last Edit: August 17, 2010, 07:55:02 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #153 on: August 17, 2010, 10:13:35 PM »

Rather than parse a confused apologetic, lets look at οὐ λέγει in context:

NKJ  Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.
 (Gal 3:16 NKJ)
...

So Paul is identifying the singular "seed" as referring to Christ. The problem is every occurrence of  "seed" is singular, therefore Paul's argument means ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου necessitates Christ is the seed in all these texts:

]LXE  Genesis 26:4 And I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven; and I will give to thy seed all this land, and all the nations of the earth shall be blest in thy seed(ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου). (Gen 26:4 LXE)

LXE  Genesis 28:14 And thy seed shall be as the sand of the earth; and it shall spread abroad to the sea, and the south, and the north, and to the east; and in thee and in thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) shall all the tribes of the earth be blessed. (Gen 28:14 LXE)

LXE  Deuteronomy 28:46 And these things shall be signs in thee, and wonders among thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) for ever; (Deu 28:46 LXE)

LXE  2 Kings 5:27 The leprosy also of Naiman shall cleave to thee, and to thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) for ever. And he went out from his presence leprous, like snow. (2Ki 5:27 LXE)

Clearly Christ is NOT the "seed" in all these texts, even though "seed" is singular in number.

Where does St. Paul cite them?  
Where does St. Paul speak of Naman?

Paul argued the singular is Christ, therefore verses having the singular where it is not Christ prove Paul wrong.

Paul is wrong according to his own argument, the singular does NOT refer to Christ...OFTEN, in the LXX.

Paul argued a spelling difference shows when it applies to Christ. That spelling difference doesn't exist in the LXX.


But in the Aramaic Targums, Paul's argument is sound:

17 therefore, blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy sons as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the sea shore; and thy sons shall inherit the cities of their enemies.
 18 And all the peoples of the earth shall be blessed through thy son: forasmuch as thou hast received My word.- Gen 22:17-18 OKE Targum Onkelos on the Pentateuch (English)


17 that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy sons as the stars of the heavens, and they shall be as the sand which is upon the shore of the sea, and thy sons shall inherit the cities before their enemies.
 18 And all the peoples of the earth shall be blessed through the righteousness of thy son, because thou hast obeyed My word. -Gen 22:17-18 PJE Targum Pseudo Jonathan on the Pentateuch

« Last Edit: August 17, 2010, 10:17:08 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,219



« Reply #154 on: August 17, 2010, 10:46:12 PM »

You do understand that the earliest LXX manuscript we have pre-dates the earliest MT manuscript we have, right?  And that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also pre-date the earliest MT manuscrupt, "gel" more with the LXX, right?  So you do know that you are begging the question, which manuscript reflects the earlier text: the LXX, or the MT, which is technically a translation, since the PMT didn't have the vowels, and thus required interpretation in order to translate it from Hebrew without vowels to Hebrew with vowels.

I focused on one text to make my point, lest we go all over the map on this and get no where.

It is Orthodox position the LXX translation is inspired...I believe Exodus 32:4 proves it is not, if it were, "gods" would read "god".

Aaron was providing for their need of the sensible, hoping to retain worship of the true God via the image, that is clear in vvs 32:4-6.
[Emphasis mine] This is really all the proof we need, right?  Grin

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #155 on: August 17, 2010, 11:00:05 PM »

You do understand that the earliest LXX manuscript we have pre-dates the earliest MT manuscript we have, right?  And that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also pre-date the earliest MT manuscrupt, "gel" more with the LXX, right?  So you do know that you are begging the question, which manuscript reflects the earlier text: the LXX, or the MT, which is technically a translation, since the PMT didn't have the vowels, and thus required interpretation in order to translate it from Hebrew without vowels to Hebrew with vowels.

I focused on one text to make my point, lest we go all over the map on this and get no where.

It is Orthodox position the LXX translation is inspired...I believe Exodus 32:4 proves it is not, if it were, "gods" would read "god".

Aaron was providing for their need of the sensible, hoping to retain worship of the true God via the image, that is clear in vvs 32:4-6.
[Emphasis mine] This is really all the proof we need, right?  Grin

In Christ,
Andrew

Not that argument, the one right above your post is all the proof you need Paul didn't use the LXX.

That his translators may have used the Septuagint when putting his Aramaic arguments into Greek, seems to be the case. But its clear from his argument, both he and the Galatians were using an Aramaic Translation.

I happen to like the LXX, not the apocrypha in it however. I don't believe I'd be materially harmed if it were the only translation available to me.

I sympathize with those who choose the Septuagint over the Hebrew...we all will be judged by our conscience...and if your conscience says that is correct, for you it is..

I do not judge you at all, in fact, I applaud your consistency with what you know is right. (Ac 23:1; 24:16; Rom 2:15)

BUT when the Orthodox claim the LXX changes are inspired, and must be accepted, that wasn't what Paul the apostle believed, and practiced.

Therefore I object, my conscience forces me to.


 
« Last Edit: August 17, 2010, 11:22:40 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #156 on: August 17, 2010, 11:22:58 PM »

Eh...consciences (A.K.A. feelings) are fickle and arbitrary things. It's a good thing Christ has given us objective standards and concrete realities to live in, and does not leave us to our own devices. Just imagine what the Church would look like if everyone judged everything by their own consciences! Cheesy

Oh wait.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2010, 11:25:52 PM by bogdan » Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #157 on: August 17, 2010, 11:31:44 PM »

Eh...consciences (A.K.A. feelings) are fickle and arbitrary things. It's a good thing Christ has given us objective standards and concrete realities to live in, and does not leave us to our own devices. Just imagine what the Church would look like if everyone lived by their own consciences! Cheesy

Oh wait.

Again you contradict apostolic doctrine, Paul doesn't say he obeyed objective standards and concrete realities, but his conscience:

NKJ  Acts 23:1 Then Paul, looking earnestly at the council, said, "Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day." (Act 23:1 NKJ)

NKJ  Acts 24:16 "This being so, I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men.
 (Act 24:16 NKJ)

NKJ  Romans 2:15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) (Rom 2:15 NKJ)

Living according to conscience is apostolic doctrine:

 27 If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience' sake.
 28 But if anyone says to you, "This was offered to idols," do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience' sake; for "the earth is the LORD'S, and all its fullness."
 29 "Conscience, " I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man's conscience?
 (1Co 10:27-29 NKJ)

If your conscience is you do right sticking with the LXX, then stick with it you should. If your conscience says bowing down to God before images is right, then for you it is.

 18 Pray for us; for we are confident that we have a good conscience, in all things desiring to live honorably. (Heb 13:18 NKJ)


But when the Orthodox teach incorrectly against the objective standards and concrete reality in holy Scripture, apostolic doctrine, then my conscience says I must object to the error.

« Last Edit: August 17, 2010, 11:37:00 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #158 on: August 17, 2010, 11:39:00 PM »

The well-formed conscience of a Holy Apostle is different from the demon-courting conscience of your average Bogdan.

And he certainly is not telling people to contradict dogma based on their consciences (note, eating meat offered to idols is not a dogma, so that is where your analogy breaks down). More often than not, our gut feelings and base instincts are 180 degrees out of phase with what God wants.

And besides, they can't both be right. The LXX and MT can't be "the most true" depending on the beholder's conscience. Iconography can't be both idol worship and a Christian obligation. It's one or the other.

John Spong doesn't believe in the resurrection. It breaks with his conscience. But that doesn't make his beliefs legitimate. Someone can be a very sincere heretic. Church history is full of them.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2010, 11:39:39 PM by bogdan » Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #159 on: August 17, 2010, 11:49:47 PM »

The difference with your example from 1 Corinthians is that the Church has never said that icons are optional. They aren't. Viz this megalynarion from the Paraklesis to the Theotokos:

Speechless be the lips of the impious, who refuse to reverence the revered icon, which is known by the name "Directress", and which hath been depicted for us by the Apostle, Luke the Evangelist.

Not only did St Luke himself paint this icon (which nukes the argument that the Apostles didn't have icons), but those who refuse to reverence it are impious—unrighteous, irreverent before God.

(Lest someone bewail the fact that the Bible doesn't mention icons, bear in mind that the Gospels collectively only account for about 18 days of Jesus' life, and the rest of the NT are only a handful of letters dealing with specific problems. It's hardly comprehensive, and an argument from silence does not work therefore.)
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #160 on: August 17, 2010, 11:59:46 PM »

Rather than parse a confused apologetic, lets look at οὐ λέγει in context:

NKJ  Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.
 (Gal 3:16 NKJ)
...

So Paul is identifying the singular "seed" as referring to Christ. The problem is every occurrence of  "seed" is singular, therefore Paul's argument means ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου necessitates Christ is the seed in all these texts:

]LXE  Genesis 26:4 And I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven; and I will give to thy seed all this land, and all the nations of the earth shall be blest in thy seed(ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου). (Gen 26:4 LXE)

LXE  Genesis 28:14 And thy seed shall be as the sand of the earth; and it shall spread abroad to the sea, and the south, and the north, and to the east; and in thee and in thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) shall all the tribes of the earth be blessed. (Gen 28:14 LXE)

LXE  Deuteronomy 28:46 And these things shall be signs in thee, and wonders among thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) for ever; (Deu 28:46 LXE)

LXE  2 Kings 5:27 The leprosy also of Naiman shall cleave to thee, and to thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) for ever. And he went out from his presence leprous, like snow. (2Ki 5:27 LXE)

Clearly Christ is NOT the "seed" in all these texts, even though "seed" is singular in number.

Where does St. Paul cite them?  
Where does St. Paul speak of Naman?

REPEATS ARGUMENT ALREADY REFUTED
Stick to what St. Paul cites, and stop twisting his words to your own destruction.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #161 on: August 18, 2010, 12:01:30 AM »

The well-formed conscience of a Holy Apostle is different from the demon-courting conscience of your average Bogdan.

And he certainly is not telling people to contradict dogma based on their consciences (note, eating meat offered to idols is not a dogma, so that is where your analogy breaks down). More often than not, our gut feelings and base instincts are 180 degrees out of phase with what God wants.

And besides, they can't both be right. The LXX and MT can't be "the most true" depending on the beholder's conscience. Iconography can't be both idol worship and a Christian obligation. It's one or the other.

John Spong doesn't believe in the resurrection. It breaks with his conscience. But that doesn't make his beliefs legitimate. Someone can be a very sincere heretic. Church history is full of them.

You are confusing conscience, with subjective decision making, they are not the same. Of course belief doesn't make something right or wrong. It can only make it right or wrong to those having the belief.

The conscience is trained by God's Word, improved by the Holy Spirit's ministry...it "informs us" when we are doing right or wrong. Its not a decision maker, its a judge. God's judge in us.


5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake. (Rom 13:5 NKJ)

We all will be judged on how well we obeyed our conscience, not on how well we obeyed dogma:

 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel (Rom 2:16 NKJ)

 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us-- baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (1Pe 3:21 NKJ)


« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 12:03:35 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #162 on: August 18, 2010, 12:13:57 AM »

Rather than parse a confused apologetic, lets look at οὐ λέγει in context:

NKJ  Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.
 (Gal 3:16 NKJ)
...

So Paul is identifying the singular "seed" as referring to Christ. The problem is every occurrence of  "seed" is singular, therefore Paul's argument means ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου necessitates Christ is the seed in all these texts:

]LXE  Genesis 26:4 And I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven; and I will give to thy seed all this land, and all the nations of the earth shall be blest in thy seed(ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου). (Gen 26:4 LXE)

LXE  Genesis 28:14 And thy seed shall be as the sand of the earth; and it shall spread abroad to the sea, and the south, and the north, and to the east; and in thee and in thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) shall all the tribes of the earth be blessed. (Gen 28:14 LXE)

LXE  Deuteronomy 28:46 And these things shall be signs in thee, and wonders among thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) for ever; (Deu 28:46 LXE)

LXE  2 Kings 5:27 The leprosy also of Naiman shall cleave to thee, and to thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) for ever. And he went out from his presence leprous, like snow. (2Ki 5:27 LXE)

Clearly Christ is NOT the "seed" in all these texts, even though "seed" is singular in number.

Where does St. Paul cite them?  
Where does St. Paul speak of Naman?

REPEATS ARGUMENT ALREADY REFUTED
Stick to what St. Paul cites, and stop twisting his words to your own destruction.

I twisted nothing. Paul says the singular is Christ, but that is incorrect when I inspect the Septuagint...lots of times the singular refers to others.

In another post I recall you questioned how the Galatians would know Aramaic. That shows you never studied the book, Galatia was Jewish convert church, and Galatians one of the first books written. They spoke Aramaic and Paul is arguing Christ is the fulfillment of the law, because they are wavering:

 6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, (Gal 1:6 NKJ)

Peter's apostolic oral doctrine was antichristian heresy, JEWS from James (Aramaic speakers) bullied him into it....and Paul was sent by God to intervene and fix it:


11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;
 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
 (Gal 2:11-13 NKJ)

Hence the foolish idea the church cannot defect from the truth is absurd...of course they can, they have free will. Peter almost did, God in His mercy, sent Paul to stop him.



« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 12:16:09 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #163 on: August 18, 2010, 12:32:20 AM »

The difference with your example from 1 Corinthians is that the Church has never said that icons are optional. They aren't. Viz this megalynarion from the Paraklesis to the Theotokos:

Speechless be the lips of the impious, who refuse to reverence the revered icon, which is known by the name "Directress", and which hath been depicted for us by the Apostle, Luke the Evangelist.

Not only did St Luke himself paint this icon (which nukes the argument that the Apostles didn't have icons), but those who refuse to reverence it are impious—unrighteous, irreverent before God.

(Lest someone bewail the fact that the Bible doesn't mention icons, bear in mind that the Gospels collectively only account for about 18 days of Jesus' life, and the rest of the NT are only a handful of letters dealing with specific problems. It's hardly comprehensive, and an argument from silence does not work therefore.)

I don't believe the legend true...and if it were correct that Luke drew images on his gospel, that still does not prove he venerated them as the Orthodox do.

I discussed all this thoroughly on another thread, I'll not be repeating that material here.

As I said, if your conscience is reverence icons, then that is right for you.

Its not right for me, I know better:

 47 "And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
 48 "But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.
 (Luk 12:47-48 NKJ)

Punishment is according to one's knowing what is correct, according to one's conscience about the thing. For example, the Israelis died immediately for idolatry, as they were privy to the revelation of God delivering them out of Egypt and so had to know the truth:

 27 And he said to them, "Thus says the LORD God of Israel:`Let every man put his sword on his side, and go in and out from entrance to entrance throughout the camp, and let every man kill his brother, every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.'" (Exo 32:27 NKJ)

But the same idolatry by the nations, was overlooked for a time:

 30 "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, (Act 17:30 NKJ)

Again, Jesus said about His generation (which saw His glory) "few would be saved", but people from the nations would be saved:

23 Then one said to Him, "Lord, are there few who are saved?" And He said to them,
 24 "Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able.
 25 "When once the Master of the house has risen up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock at the door, saying,`Lord, Lord, open for us,' and He will answer and say to you,`I do not know you, where you are from,'
 26 "then you will begin to say,`We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.'
 27 "But He will say,`I tell you I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.'
 28 "There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out.
 29 "They will come from the east and the west, from the north and the south, and sit down in the kingdom of God.
 (Luk 13:23-29 NKJ)

The saved will be so many they cannot be numbered:

 9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands,
 10 and crying out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!"
 (Rev 7:9-10 NKJ)

Because Great is God's mercy...He judges righteously, not according to dogma, but according to the revelation of Christ in each one of us, and how well we obeyed that revelation. Those who know the full objective truth because they study His Word, are judged with great severeness:

NKJ  James 3:1 My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment. (Jam 3:1 NKJ)

If your conscience ever bears you witness icons are not right according to apostolic doctrine, then you must obey your conscience and repent, or suffer severely  for your rebellion against God.

God speaks to  us through our conscience.

 22 Then Samuel said: "Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, As in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams.
 23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry
. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He also has rejected you from being king."
 (1Sa 15:22-23 NKJ)


« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 12:37:38 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #164 on: August 18, 2010, 12:34:54 AM »

You do understand that the earliest LXX manuscript we have pre-dates the earliest MT manuscript we have, right?  And that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also pre-date the earliest MT manuscrupt, "gel" more with the LXX, right?  So you do know that you are begging the question, which manuscript reflects the earlier text: the LXX, or the MT, which is technically a translation, since the PMT didn't have the vowels, and thus required interpretation in order to translate it from Hebrew without vowels to Hebrew with vowels.

I focused on one text to make my point, lest we go all over the map on this and get no where.

It is Orthodox position the LXX translation is inspired...I believe Exodus 32:4 proves it is not, if it were, "gods" would read "god".

Aaron was providing for their need of the sensible, hoping to retain worship of the true God via the image, that is clear in vvs 32:4-6.
[Emphasis mine] This is really all the proof we need, right?  Grin

In Christ,
Andrew

Not that argument, the one right above your post is all the proof you need Paul didn't use the LXX.

Only if you can't read Greek. Or match letters.
One neeed only compare the texts.
So when the Orthodox cite this text to prove Septuagint Primacy, they lose because Paul cites the Aramaic Targum, not the Septuagint at all.

Gen. 22:18 τῷ σπέρματί σου (LXX)
Gal.   3:16 τῷ σπέρματί σου

You might want to learn Greek, before attempting to make such arguments that are easily refuted.

Quote
That his translators may have used the Septuagint when putting his Aramaic arguments into Greek, seems to be the case. But its clear from his argument, both he and the Galatians were using an Aramaic Translation.

St. Paul spoke Aramaic, but the Galatians did not.  Official support for Aramaic disappeared from what would be in Galatia with Alexander and the Selucids, and then the Celtic speaking Galatians obliterated what was before, then adopting the Greek around them.  One need not assume any translation when the original was Greek, quoting the Greek LXX.

Quote
I happen to like the LXX, not the apocrypha in it however.

The Anagignoskomena you mean? The same books that Our Lord, His Apostles and their Church accepted, and the Jews accepted for centuries? Indeed the Jews still obey Maccabees in celebrating Hanukah, follow Judith in commanding women to celebrate and light the Hanukkah candles (Halakha rarely enjoins commandments on women), the framework of the amidah from Sirach, etc...

Quote
I don't believe I'd be materially harmed if it were the only translation available to me.

I'm not sure any version is safe.

Quote
I sympathize with those who choose the Septuagint over the Hebrew...we all will be judged by our conscience...and if your conscience says that is correct, for you it is..


For my thoughts are not your thoughts neither are your ways my ways saith the LORD. Isaiah 55:8

25 My soul cleaveth unto the dust: quicken thou me according to thy word. 26I have declared my ways, and thou heardest me: teach me thy statutes. 27Make me to understand the way of thy precepts: so shall I talk of thy wondrous works. 28My soul melteth for heaviness: strengthen thou me according unto thy word. 29Remove from me the way of lying: and grant me thy law graciously. 30I have chosen the way of truth: thy judgments have I laid before me. 31I have stuck unto thy testimonies: O LORD, put me not to shame. 32I will run the way of thy commandments, when thou shalt enlarge my heart. 33HE. Teach me, O LORD, the way of thy statutes; and I shall keep it unto the end. 34Give me understanding, and I shall keep thy law; yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart. 35Make me to go in the path of thy commandments; for therein do I delight. 36Incline my heart unto thy testimonies, and not to covetousness. 37Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity; and quicken thou me in thy way.
38Stablish thy word unto thy servant, who is devoted to thy fear.  Ps. 118 (119)

Quote
I do not judge you at all, in fact, I applaud your consistency with what you know is right. (Ac 23:1; 24:16; Rom 2:15)

Quote
BUT when the Orthodox claim the LXX changes are inspired, and must be accepted, that wasn't what Paul the apostle believed, and practiced.


There's that twisting again.

Quote
Therefore I object, my conscience forces me to.[/b]
I'd look into that.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 12:39:05 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #165 on: August 18, 2010, 12:36:32 AM »

Icons are not idols.  Orthodox do not worship icons as idols.  Please prove otherwise or stop making thus unfounded accusation.
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #166 on: August 18, 2010, 12:43:44 AM »

Icons are not idols.  Orthodox do not worship icons as idols.  Please prove otherwise or stop making thus unfounded accusation.

I believe I discussed icons thoroughly on another thread...and proved that they have the same affect on the believer, and God. When you render the infinite transcendent Christ into a finite form, a picture, you have destroyed any hope of speaking to Him personally.

He is infinite, and all images, whether idols or icons, make Him finite to the soul...

That defiles the relationship, and Christ must leave where there is defilement, He is Holy:

 6 Furthermore He said to me, "Son of man, do you see what they are doing, the great abominations that the house of Israel commits here, to make Me go far away from My sanctuary? (Eze 8:6 NKJ)

I'll not participate in changing the subject from my opening post. This is the last time I allow myself to veer off from the topic of this thread.


I'm still going through the "proofs for the Septuagint" posted earlier...as I find something relevant, I will be sure to discuss it here.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 12:46:15 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #167 on: August 18, 2010, 12:49:05 AM »

No, you didn't prove anything.  Asserting is not proving.
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #168 on: August 18, 2010, 12:55:00 AM »

Eh...consciences (A.K.A. feelings) are fickle and arbitrary things. It's a good thing Christ has given us objective standards and concrete realities to live in, and does not leave us to our own devices. Just imagine what the Church would look like if everyone judged everything by their own consciences! Cheesy

Oh wait.
simplified:

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #169 on: August 18, 2010, 01:32:34 AM »

Eh...consciences (A.K.A. feelings) are fickle and arbitrary things. It's a good thing Christ has given us objective standards and concrete realities to live in, and does not leave us to our own devices. Just imagine what the Church would look like if everyone lived by their own consciences! Cheesy

Oh wait.

Again you contradict apostolic doctrine, Paul doesn't say he obeyed objective standards and concrete realities, but his conscience:

NKJ  Acts 23:1 Then Paul, looking earnestly at the council, said, "Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day." (Act 23:1 NKJ)

NKJ  Acts 24:16 "This being so, I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men.
 (Act 24:16 NKJ)

NKJ  Romans 2:15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) (Rom 2:15 NKJ)

Gal. 2:1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain... 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

Quote
Living according to conscience is apostolic doctrine:

 27 If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience' sake.
 28 But if anyone says to you, "This was offered to idols," do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience' sake; for "the earth is the LORD'S, and all its fullness."
 29 "Conscience, " I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man's conscience?
 (1Co 10:27-29 NKJ)

Acts 15:2 Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question. 6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. 22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas,[e] and Silas, leading men among the brethren. 23 They wrote this, letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:Greetings.  25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.  If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
21:17 And when we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except  that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.”

Quote
If your conscience is you do right sticking with the LXX, then stick with it you should. If your conscience says bowing down to God before images is right, then for you it is.

 18 Pray for us; for we are confident that we have a good conscience, in all things desiring to live honorably. (Heb 13:18 NKJ)

Heb 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person...6 when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God bow down in worship before Him... 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.

Quote
But when the Orthodox teach incorrectly against the objective standards and concrete reality in holy Scripture, apostolic doctrine, then my conscience says I must object to the error.

John 14:7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.”
8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”
9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.

Matthew 16:21 From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.
22 Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!”
23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #170 on: August 18, 2010, 01:37:28 AM »

The well-formed conscience of a Holy Apostle is different from the demon-courting conscience of your average Bogdan.

And he certainly is not telling people to contradict dogma based on their consciences (note, eating meat offered to idols is not a dogma, so that is where your analogy breaks down). More often than not, our gut feelings and base instincts are 180 degrees out of phase with what God wants.

And besides, they can't both be right. The LXX and MT can't be "the most true" depending on the beholder's conscience. Iconography can't be both idol worship and a Christian obligation. It's one or the other.

John Spong doesn't believe in the resurrection. It breaks with his conscience. But that doesn't make his beliefs legitimate. Someone can be a very sincere heretic. Church history is full of them.

You are confusing conscience, with subjective decision making, they are not the same. Of course belief doesn't make something right or wrong. It can only make it right or wrong to those having the belief.

The conscience is trained by God's Word, improved by the Holy Spirit's ministry...it "informs us" when we are doing right or wrong. Its not a decision maker, its a judge. God's judge in us.


5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake. (Rom 13:5 NKJ)

We all will be judged on how well we obeyed our conscience, not on how well we obeyed dogma:

 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel (Rom 2:16 NKJ)

 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us-- baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (1Pe 3:21 NKJ)
And where is the only place you can get that baptism? Hint:
John 4:2 (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples)
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #171 on: August 18, 2010, 02:13:28 AM »

Rather than parse a confused apologetic, lets look at οὐ λέγει in context:

NKJ  Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.
 (Gal 3:16 NKJ)
...

So Paul is identifying the singular "seed" as referring to Christ. The problem is every occurrence of  "seed" is singular, therefore Paul's argument means ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου necessitates Christ is the seed in all these texts:

]LXE  Genesis 26:4 And I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven; and I will give to thy seed all this land, and all the nations of the earth shall be blest in thy seed(ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου). (Gen 26:4 LXE)

LXE  Genesis 28:14 And thy seed shall be as the sand of the earth; and it shall spread abroad to the sea, and the south, and the north, and to the east; and in thee and in thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) shall all the tribes of the earth be blessed. (Gen 28:14 LXE)

LXE  Deuteronomy 28:46 And these things shall be signs in thee, and wonders among thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) for ever; (Deu 28:46 LXE)

LXE  2 Kings 5:27 The leprosy also of Naiman shall cleave to thee, and to thy seed (ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου) for ever. And he went out from his presence leprous, like snow. (2Ki 5:27 LXE)

Clearly Christ is NOT the "seed" in all these texts, even though "seed" is singular in number.

Where does St. Paul cite them?  
Where does St. Paul speak of Naman?

REPEATS ARGUMENT ALREADY REFUTED
Stick to what St. Paul cites, and stop twisting his words to your own destruction.

I twisted nothing. Paul says the singular is Christ, REPEATS IRRELEVANT/REFUTED ARGUMENT.

In another post I recall you questioned how the Galatians would know Aramaic. That shows you never studied the book, Galatia was Jewish convert church,


Uncircumcized Jews who worship those which are not gods? You haven't studied Judaism (if you read Maccabbees, you could remedy that).

Gal 3: 1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among youas crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?....4:8 But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods. 9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain. 17 They zealously court you, but for no good; yes, they want to exclude you, that you may be zealous for them. 18 But it is good to be zealous in a good thing always, and not only when I am present with you. 19 My little children, for whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you, 20 I would like to be present with you now and to change my tone; for I have doubts about you....5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free,[a] and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. 2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.  7 You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8 This persuasion does not come from Him who calls you. 9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump. 10 I have confidence in you, in the Lord, that you will have no other mind; but he who troubles you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is.
11 And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased. 12 I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off!

Quote
and Galatians one of the first books written.


I tend to agree with your chronology, but what does that have to do with your misidentification of its original language?

Quote
They spoke Aramaic

No, they did not.  Try to cough up some evidence that they did.

Quote
and Paul is arguing Christ is the fulfillment of the law, because they are wavering:

6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, (Gal 1:6 NKJ)

No, because Hebrew Christians were trying to make Hebrews out of them.

Acts 15: 1 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

Quote
Peter's apostolic oral doctrine was antichristian heresy

This Apostolic oral doctrine?
Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth [i.e. ORAL] and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. 36 The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all— 37 that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. 39 And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they[e] killed by hanging on a tree. 40 Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, 41 not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. 42 And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. 43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.” 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

Acts 15:6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ[ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”

Quote
JEWS


No, Hebrew Christians.

Quote
from James (Aramaic speakers)


(your proof?)

Quote
bullied him into it....and Paul was sent by God to intervene and fix it:
11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;
 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
 (Gal 2:11-13 NKJ)

Quote
Hence the foolish idea the church cannot defect from the truth is absurd

Only if you submit to the Vatican's teaching Peter=the Church.

Quote
...of course they can, they have free will. Peter almost did, God in His mercy, sent Paul to stop him.

And St. Paul was also authorized by the Church.
Acts 13: 1 Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 As they celebrated liturgy to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them [i.e. consecrate], they sent them away.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 02:21:35 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #172 on: August 18, 2010, 03:17:13 AM »

The difference with your example from 1 Corinthians is that the Church has never said that icons are optional. They aren't. Viz this megalynarion from the Paraklesis to the Theotokos:

Speechless be the lips of the impious, who refuse to reverence the revered icon, which is known by the name "Directress", and which hath been depicted for us by the Apostle, Luke the Evangelist.

Not only did St Luke himself paint this icon (which nukes the argument that the Apostles didn't have icons), but those who refuse to reverence it are impious—unrighteous, irreverent before God.

(Lest someone bewail the fact that the Bible doesn't mention icons, bear in mind that the Gospels collectively only account for about 18 days of Jesus' life, and the rest of the NT are only a handful of letters dealing with specific problems. It's hardly comprehensive, and an argument from silence does not work therefore.)

I don't believe the legend true...and if it were correct that Luke drew images on his gospel, that still does not prove he venerated them as the Orthodox do.

I discussed all this thoroughly on another thread, I'll not be repeating that material here.

We have, from tradition, the Apostle Luke painting several icons as well.

Without proof, you have nothing.

The fact copies of Luke's gospel never had icons is an overwhelming mass of irrefutable evidence the autograph didn't have them either.

The irrefutable evidence is that the autograph of Luke had no attribution to St. Luke on it.  The Church put it there.  The same Church with the icons.

Quote
What icon venerating Orthodox Christian would fail to copy Luke's icons perfectly, so that every extent copy had icons?

Yes, we have to remember that your faith came into existence after the age of printing, so you are hazzy on the concept of manuscripts.

You see, before Mr. Gutenberg, instead of setting one printing press and printing copy after copy, which can be done relatively cheaply, every book had to be written out by hand. Labor intensive, it made books quite expensive, so there were few of them. Illlustrating a book would make it cost prohibitive, so even few were illustrated. So few that only a hand full have survived, among them the Ambrosian Iliad, Vergilius Vaticanus and the Vergilius Romanus, and the Quedlinburg Itala fragment and Cotton Genesis, all of them of the 5th century, the last two being from Bibles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quedlinburg_Itala_fragment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_Genesis
dating nearly as far back of the earliest full Bibles we have (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) which predate the illuminated Bibles by only a few decades. So I guess you have to admit, as documented by the previous three centuries, that the complete Bible didn't exist until the second half of the 4th century, within the lifetime of the earliest illuminated Biblical (actually, any) manuscript codices that survive-which doesn't say the first ones to be produced. The evidence indicates otherwise.

You also should read more carefullly. Shanghaiski said nothing about St. Luke's Gospel being illuminated, nor does the Church.  The Tradition states he wrote (the conventional term) several icons, in addition to writing the Gospel and Acts. You have confused the two acts.

Even works that you would expect to have illustrations, like Ptolemy and Strabo works on geography and astronomy lack illustrations like maps.  Sometimes the most schematic of maps are inserted by later copyists. In the case of the Gospels, why they were neither bound in one volume nor illuminated is not hard to understand why icon venerating and Bible loving Orthodox Christian would fail to copy Luke's icons perfectly, so that every extent copy had icons:Even if the extreme expense could be overcome, they faced the risk of all that expense going up in smoke.  Book burning wasn't invented with printing. Several of the Roman persecusions focused specifically on seizing Bibles and consigning them to the flames. And that is before the ravages of time.

Do have the slightest idea of the extent of available evidence for anything in antiquity?

What the Church tradition teaches is that St. Luke practiced panal painting, which we know was extremely popular in antiquity but of which very, very few examples of any sort have survived.  The largest catch of this art form is the Fayyum portraits, which survive because of being buried (and hence not in use where they can be lost, destroyed, worn out, whatever) in the dry climate, and they number under a thousand over nearly half a millenium. Not much. Several panals survive which are venerated  as St. Luke's work (I venerated one in Saidnay, Syria. In the neighborhood they still speak Aramaic). Unfortunately, like all panal icons from antiquity, they have suffered from well intentioned but ill executed restorations.

I have a Bible in Church Slavonic, reprinted by authroity of the Holy Governing Synod in 1900 on the 1756 edition.  Not a single icon in it (the idea was for mass distribution, illustrations still increase the cost of producing a book considerably).  So I guess that I can conclude that Orthodox Russia in the 18th and 19th centuries didn't venerate icons. I also have a reprint of the 1688 Bucharest Bible, which also doesn't have a single icon in it (altough it does have the coat of arms of the sponsoring prince and the Romanian principalities on it.  So I guess the Romanian Orthodox of the 17th century didn't venerate images either.


I guess not.

Quote
So your argument icon veneration was practiced by Luke fails on many levels, but most importantly, where it matters, you have no proof, therefore you have nothing, only a claim.

On the same basis, the same can be said of your claim that St. Luke wrote the Gospel that the Church attributes to him. And your Muslim friends do say that.

And oh, btw, to get back to St.John the purported subject of this thread, he doesn't mention the tradition of St. Luke's icon, although it was well know and we have records of it centuries before St. John's time, and the tradition appears from India to Ethiopia to the Netherlands, and Rome, Constantinople, Syria, etc. inbetween.  The first glorified saint identified as an iconographer is St. Lazarus of Constantinople: 800?-867, i.e. a century after the rise of the iconoclasts: prior to that, it seems writing icons wasn't seen as significant a cause for canonization, being taken for granted.

Quote
As I said, if your conscience is reverence icons, then that is right for you.

21 Then they asked Him, saying, “Teacher, we know that You say and teach rightly, and You do not show personal favoritism, but teach the way of God in truth: 22 Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” 24 Show Me a denarius. Whose icon and inscription does it have?” They answered and said, “Caesar’s.” 25 And He said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

Quote
Its not right for me, I know better:
 47 "And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
 48 "But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.
 (Luk 12:47-48 NKJ)

Isaiah 7:10 Moreover the LORD spoke again to Ahaz, saying, 11 “Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God; ask it either in the depth or in the height above.” 12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, nor will I test the LORD!” 13 Then he said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

Heb 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person...6 when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God bow down in worship before Him

Quote
Punishment is according to one's knowing what is correct, according to one's conscience about the thing. For example, the Israelis died immediately for idolatry, as they were privy to the revelation of God delivering them out of Egypt and so had to know the truth:

 27 And he said to them, "Thus says the LORD God of Israel:`Let every man put his sword on his side, and go in and out from entrance to entrance throughout the camp, and let every man kill his brother, every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.'" (Exo 32:27 NKJ)

Heb 12:1 Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
18 For you have not come to the mountain that may be touched and that burned with fire, and to blackness and darkness and tempest, 19 and the sound of a trumpet and the voice of words, so that those who heard it begged that the word should not be spoken to them anymore. 20 (For they could not endure what was commanded: “And if so much as a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned[e] or shot with an arrow.”21 And so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I am exceedingly afraid and trembling.”)
22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.  25 See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven, 26 whose voice then shook the earth; but now He has promised, saying, “Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven.” 27 Now this, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of those things that are being shaken, as of things that are made, that the things which cannot be shaken may remain. 28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. 29 For our God is a consuming fire.
II Peter 1:16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 18 And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Quote
But the same idolatry by the nations, was overlooked for a time:

John 5:30 "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, (Act 17:30 NKJ)
31 “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. 32 There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true. 33 You have sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. 34 Yet I do not receive testimony from man, but I say these things that you may be saved. 35 He was the burning and shining lamp, and you were willing for a time to rejoice in his light. 36 But I have a greater witness than John’s; for the works which the Father has given Me to finish—the very works that I do—bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me. 37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. 38 But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. 39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.
41 “I do not receive honor from men. 42 But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you. 43 I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. 44 How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God? 45 Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

12:37 But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, 38 that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke: " Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?”39 Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: 40 “ He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.”  41 These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him.  42 Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; 43 for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.
44 Then Jesus cried out and said, “He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me. 45 And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me.[ 46 I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness. 47 And if anyone hears My words and does not believe,I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. 49 For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. 50 And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak.”

24 So they again called the man who was blind, and said to him, “Give God the glory! We know that this Man is a sinner.” 25 He answered and said, “Whether He is a sinner or not I do not know. One thing I know: that though I was blind, now I see.” 26 Then they said to him again, “What did He do to you? How did He open your eyes?” 27 He answered them, “I told you already, and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become His disciples?” 28 Then they reviled him and said, “You are His disciple, but we are Moses’ disciples. 29 We know that God spoke to Moses; as for this fellow, we do not know where He is from.” 30 The man answered and said to them, “Why, this is a marvelous thing, that you do not know where He is from; yet He has opened my eyes! 31 Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him. 32 Since the world began it has been unheard of that anyone opened the eyes of one who was born blind. 33 If this Man were not from God, He could do nothing.” 34 They answered and said to him, “You were completely born in sins, and are you teaching us?” And they cast him out. 35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him, He said to him, “Do you believe in the Son of God?” 36 He answered and said, “Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?” 37 And Jesus said to him, “You have both seen Him and it is He who is talking with you.”
38 Then he said, “Lord, I believe!” And he worshiped Him. 39 And Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind.” 40 Then some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these words, and said to Him, “Are we blind also?”
41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains."


Quote
Because Great is God's mercy...He judges righteously, not according to dogma, but according to the revelation of Christ in each one of us, and how well we obeyed that revelation. Those who know the full objective truth because they study His Word, are judged with great severeness:

NKJ  James 3:1 My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment. (Jam 3:1 NKJ)

If your conscience ever bears you witness icons are not right according to apostolic doctrine, then you must obey your conscience and repent, or suffer severely  for your rebellion against God.

God speaks to  us through our conscience.

 22 Then Samuel said: "Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, As in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams.
 23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry
. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He also has rejected you from being king."
 (1Sa 15:22-23 NKJ)
No, He speaks to us through His Church.

Luke 10:16 He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #173 on: August 18, 2010, 03:46:18 AM »

Icons are not idols.  Orthodox do not worship icons as idols.  Please prove otherwise or stop making thus unfounded accusation.

I believe I discussed icons thoroughly on another thread...

you prattled a lot, but as for discussing...does evasion count?

Quote
and proved that they have the same affect on the believer, and God. When you render the infinite transcendent Christ into a finite form,


Like in the Incarnation?

Quote
a picture, you have destroyed any hope of speaking to Him personally.

He is infinite, and all images, whether idols or icons, make Him finite to the soul...

Heb 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person...6 when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God bow down in worship before Him." Col. 1:15 He is the icon of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness of the Godhead should dwell.

So much for His the fullness of His infinity baring Him from being finite to the soul.


Quote
That defiles the relationship, and Christ must leave where there is defilement, He is Holy:

 6 Furthermore He said to me, "Son of man, do you see what they are doing, the great abominations that the house of Israel commits here, to make Me go far away from My sanctuary? (Eze 8:6 NKJ)

Phillippians 2:5 Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

So much for Christ leaving. What He left was the heights of divinity.

Quote
I'll not participate in changing the subject from my opening post. This is the last time I allow myself to veer off from the topic of this thread.

You already tipped your hand:
Instead of another multi-page thread, how about you just tell us your point, Alfred? Why is it so important to you to discredit the OT used by the Orthodox?  What's in it that you dislike?

I dislike untruth, declaring the Septuagint inspired, claiming its changes to the Hebrew "were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation" is not true.
Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set. Prov. 22:28.

Ooops! Forgot. The Apostles and Fathers are not your Fathers.

Quote
Once one swallows that error, then all the apocrypha becomes scripture,

Sooo your disingenous accusations of changing the subject
Btw, on the title: What changes?
The LXX text predates the Masoretic Text. Heck, the Vulgate text predates the Masoretic text. We have physical copies of the LXX in one codex that predate the eariest complete Masoretic scroll by over half a millenium. So how can the LXX change anything in the Masoretic text?
And rather than trying to twist texts, why don't you attack a more comprehensive issue, like the status of the Anagignoskomena?
Why not answer my argument instead of changing the subject.
were not based on any rape of purity, but out of anger that I exposed your ulterior motives.

Btw, as witnessed by the Hebrew Church, the Spirit, Christ, His Apostles and His Church, the Anagignoskomena.

Quote
and all the unscriptural ideas in them become dogma

TRANSLATION: the Anagignoskomena/Deuterocanonicals further expose the heretical ideas that Perssonism tries to read into the scripture, so we must condemn them and remove them from the Bible.

Quote
...and before you know it, your bowing down to icons believing that is what God would have you do.

When the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld the icon of the invisible God, the Father said "let all the angels of God worship Him." John 1:14, Col. 1:15, Heb. 1:6
so the kind of game you want to play is known. Your hand has been called.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 03:47:07 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Robert W
Self-appointed forum herald
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Finland
Posts: 469


Love is no feeling


« Reply #174 on: August 18, 2010, 06:47:39 AM »

When you render the infinite transcendent Christ into a finite form, a picture, you have destroyed any hope of speaking to Him personally.

He is infinite, and all images, whether idols or icons, make Him finite to the soul...

Like in the Incarnation?

Yep, I believe you are correct ialmisry. Alfred Persson has now convinced me that none of the twelve disciples spoke with Christ personally. This is because the Father committed heresy and had the Son appear in a finite incarnate form. Any personal relationship would have been impossible.

...another attempt at a reductio ad absurdum argument angel
« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 06:55:00 AM by Robert W » Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #175 on: August 18, 2010, 11:23:58 AM »

Eh...consciences (A.K.A. feelings) are fickle and arbitrary things. It's a good thing Christ has given us objective standards and concrete realities to live in, and does not leave us to our own devices. Just imagine what the Church would look like if everyone judged everything by their own consciences! Cheesy

Oh wait.
simplified:



I like the chart, but it left out a significant event, when Constantine about AD 312 opened the gates of the church to the unsaved, and tares overran the wheat:


 24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field;
 25 "but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way.
 26 "But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared.
 27 "So the servants of the owner came and said to him,`Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?'
 28 "He said to them,`An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him,`Do you want us then to go and gather them up?'
 29 "But he said,`No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them.
 30 `Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn."'"
 (Mat 13:24-30 NKJ)

 33 Another parable He spoke to them: "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till it was all leavened." (Mat 13:33 NKJ)

 31 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field,
 32 "which indeed is the least of all the seeds; but when it is grown it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches."
 (Mat 13:31-32 NKJ)


 2 And he cried mightily with a loud voice, saying, "Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and has become a dwelling place of demons, a prison for every foul spirit, and a cage for every unclean and hated bird! (Rev 18:2 NKJ)
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,524



« Reply #176 on: August 18, 2010, 12:13:13 PM »

Granted that they were there in unprecedentedly high numbers but tares did not overrun the wheat. The fact that the Orthodox Church continued to be the True Faith, the Body of Christ, is due to the Holy Spirit guiding her and protecting her during the centuries that She was entangled with the state. In the centuries leading up to the Edict of Milan, the Church was also persecuted by the state and many (most) apostatized, but She remained true. We have always had tares with the wheat--even during the days of the apostles.

On the other thread I had recommended reading some conversion stories. I think I should give you more concrete recommendations. Please start with the following:

Frederica Mathewes-Green's interview with Father Deacon Barnabas (Charles) Powell, a former associate of Dr. Charles Stanley (In Touch Ministries). You could also benefit a lot from reading her essays on that same site. http://www.frederica.com/writings/dn-barnabas-powell.html#entry8547789

Father Peter Gillquist's book, Becoming Orthodox: A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith, published by the Conciliar Press, which has many other publications by the former Evangelicals who joined the True Church. Here is the link to the Conciliar Press: http://www.conciliarpress.com/

Thirsting For God in a Land of Shallow Wells by Matthew Gallatin, a former Calvary Chapel minister. This book is also published by Conciliar Press.

Continuing to pray for your conversion, I remain your brother in Christ.


« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 12:14:28 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #177 on: August 18, 2010, 01:35:43 PM »

I like the chart, but it left out a significant event, when Constantine about AD 312 opened the gates of the church to the unsaved, and tares overran the wheat:

Actually, it was Christ Himself who opened the door to the "tares among the wheat" - ever heard of a fellow named Judas Iscariot?  Wink
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #178 on: August 18, 2010, 01:52:25 PM »

I like the chart, but it left out a significant event, when Constantine about AD 312 opened the gates of the church to the unsaved, and tares overran the wheat:

Actually, it was Christ Himself who opened the door to the "tares among the wheat" - ever heard of a fellow named Judas Iscariot?  Wink

That's horrible, even if joking.

An enemy sowed the tares, not Christ.
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #179 on: August 18, 2010, 02:16:33 PM »

Eh...consciences (A.K.A. feelings) are fickle and arbitrary things. It's a good thing Christ has given us objective standards and concrete realities to live in, and does not leave us to our own devices. Just imagine what the Church would look like if everyone judged everything by their own consciences! Cheesy

Oh wait.
simplified:



I like the chart, but it left out a significant event, when Constantine about AD 312 opened the gates of the church to the unsaved
So your voice is among the cacophony of the rabble "blame [the Holy Emperor] Constantine" for your "Great Apostacy?


IN THIS SIGN CONQUER

Quote
and tares overran the wheat:
Arius thought so.


no filioque there.

Quote
24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field;
 25 "but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way.
 26 "But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared.
 27 "So the servants of the owner came and said to him,`Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?'
 28 "He said to them,`An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him,`Do you want us then to go and gather them up?'
 29 "But he said,`No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them.
 30 `Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn."'"
 (Mat 13:24-30 NKJ)


Quote
33 Another parable He spoke to them: "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till it was all leavened." (Mat 13:33 NKJ)

 31 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field,
 32 "which indeed is the least of all the seeds; but when it is grown it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches."
 (Mat 13:31-32 NKJ)

Indeed, the Church increased more than three fold, and many nations came to nest in its branches.

Btw, I am aware of the twisting of these verses by your likeminded, to the destruction of their sense.

Scripture readings for the Glorious Feast of SS Constantine and Helen Equal-to-the-Apostles:
22 Then Solomon stood before the altar of the LORD in the presence of all the assembly of Israel, and spread out his hands toward heaven; 23 and he said: “LORD God of Israel, there is no God in heaven above or on earth below like You, who keep Your covenant and mercy with Your servants who walk before You with all their hearts. 27 “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You. How much less this temple which I have built! 28 Yet regard the prayer of Your servant and his supplication, O LORD my God, and listen to the cry and the prayer which Your servant is praying before You today: 29 that Your eyes may be open toward this temple night and day, toward the place of which You said, ‘My name shall be there,’ that You may hear the prayer which Your servant makes toward this place. 30 And may You hear the supplication of Your servant and of Your people Israel, when they pray toward this place. Hear in heaven Your dwelling place; and when You hear, forgive.  3 Kingdoms 8:22-23, 27-30

10 I will greatly rejoice in the LORD,
      My soul shall be joyful in my God;
      For He has clothed me with the garments of salvation,
      He has covered me with the robe of righteousness,
      As a bridegroom decks himself with ornaments,
      And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.
       11 For as the earth brings forth its bud,
      As the garden causes the things that are sown in it to spring forth,
      So the Lord GOD will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth before all the nations.1 For Zion’s sake I will not hold My peace,
      And for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest,
      Until her righteousness goes forth as brightness,
      And her salvation as a lamp that burns.
       2 The Gentiles shall see your righteousness,
      And all kings your glory.
      You shall be called by a new name,
      Which the mouth of the LORD will name.
       3 You shall also be a crown of glory
      In the hand of the LORD,
      And a royal diadem
      In the hand of your God.
       4 You shall no longer be termed Forsaken,
      Nor shall your land any more be termed Desolate;
      But you shall be called Hephzibah, and your land Beulah;
      For the LORD delights in you,
      And your land shall be married.
       5 For as a young man marries a virgin,
      So shall your sons marry you;
      And as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride,
      Soshall your God rejoice over you.
 1 Arise, shine;
      For your light has come!
      And the glory of the LORD is risen upon you.
       2 For behold, the darkness shall cover the earth,
      And deep darkness the people;
      But the LORD will arise over you,
      And His glory will be seen upon you.
       3 The Gentiles shall come to your light,
      And kings to the brightness of your rising.
       4 “ Lift up your eyes all around, and see:
      They all gather together, they come to you;
      Your sons shall come from afar,
      And your daughters shall be nursed at your side.
       5 Then you shall see and become radiant,
      And your heart shall swell with joy;
      Because the abundance of the sea shall be turned to you,
      The wealth of the Gentiles shall come to you.
       6 The multitude of camels shall cover your land,
      The dromedaries of Midian and Ephah;
      All those from Sheba shall come;
      They shall bring gold and incense,
      And they shall proclaim the praises of the LORD.
       7 All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together to you,
      The rams of Nebaioth shall minister to you;
      They shall ascend with acceptance on My altar,
      And I will glorify the house of My glory.
       8 “ Who are these who fly like a cloud,
      And like doves to their roosts?
       9 Surely the coastlands shall wait for Me;
      And the ships of Tarshish will come first,
      To bring your sons from afar,
      Their silver and their gold with them,
      To the name of the LORD your God,
      And to the Holy One of Israel,
      Because He has glorified you.
       10 “ The sons of foreigners shall build up your walls,
      And their kings shall minister to you;
      For in My wrath I struck you,
      But in My favor I have had mercy on you.
       11 Therefore your gates shall be open continually;
      They shall not be shut day or night,
      That men may bring to you the wealth of the Gentiles,
      And their kings in procession.
       12 For the nation and kingdom which will not serve you shall perish,
      And those nations shall be utterly ruined.
       13 “ The glory of Lebanon shall come to you,
      The cypress, the pine, and the box tree together,
      To beautify the place of My sanctuary;
      And I will make the place of My feet glorious.
       14 Also the sons of those who afflicted you
      Shall come bowing to you,
      And all those who despised you shall fall prostrate at the soles of your feet;
      And they shall call you The City of the LORD,
      Zion of the Holy One of Israel.
       15 “ Whereas you have been forsaken and hated,
      So that no one went through you,
      I will make you an eternal excellence,
      A joy of many generations.
       16 You shall drink the milk of the Gentiles,
      And milk the breast of kings;
      You shall know that I, the LORD, am your SaviorIsaiah 61:10-62:5; Isaiah 60:1-16

9 I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. 10 The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly. 11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. 12 But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. 13 The hireling flees because he is a hireling and does not care about the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. 15 As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.” 19 Therefore there was a division again among the Jews because of these sayings. 20 And many of them said, “He has a demon and is mad. Why do you listen to Him?”
John 10:9-19.

 1 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You are permitted to speak for yourself.” 12 “While thus occupied, as I journeyed to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, 13 at midday, O king, along the road I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me and those who journeyed with me. 14 And when we all had fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me and saying in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ 15 So I said, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And He said, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 16 But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you. 17 I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now[a] send you, 18 to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.’  19 “Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance. Acts 26:1, 12-20

 1 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. 2 But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice; and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.” 6 Jesus used this illustration, but they did not understand the things which He spoke to them.  7 Then Jesus said to them again, “Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All who ever came before Me[a] are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. 9 I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. John 10:1-9.


Quote
2 And he cried mightily with a loud voice, saying, "Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and has become a dwelling place of demons, a prison for every foul spirit, and a cage for every unclean and hated bird! (Rev 18:2 NKJ)

Yes the sign of Jonah was given and the seat of Jerusalem's enemies became the throne of Christ

The All Wise Kings, Constantine to the Right, Justinian to the Left
" they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him" Matthew 2:10
« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 02:44:13 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags: Septuagint Perssonism Masoretic heresy LXX 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  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 0.336 seconds with 72 queries.