OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 25, 2014, 09:59:41 PM *
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 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why believe in the Old Testament?  (Read 2538 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pericles
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Archdiocese of Thyateira & Great Britain.
Posts: 178



WWW
« on: February 08, 2013, 09:16:36 AM »

What we call the OT is of course the sacred text of another completely distinct religion, Judaism. I understand from a Christian perspective the OT is a prelude to the NT but conversely from a Jewish perspective it clearly isn't. From a Jewish perpective Jesus was not the Messiah and certainly not God. It takes a quantum leap of the imagination to percieve any real continuity between the two testaments. Granted it would be difficult to contextualise the origin of Christianity without knowing what preceeded it but it certainly wouldnt be impossible without the OT.

I'm not advocating that Orthodox abandon the OT, that would be impossible, although it's worth noting that the canon has never been universally authorised by any ecumenical council. What I am suggesting is a difference of stress and importance place on each testament and the way we read the Holy Bible. On the basis that the Gospel was offered to the Greek world because it was rejected by the Jews and that the Gospel is the primary truth for Christians. The Old Testament could be seen as holding a secondary canonical status.

After all considered alone and as a complete and comprehensive revelation of God the Tanakh is the holy book of a false religion, Judaism.
Logged

Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit.
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2013, 09:20:49 AM »



After all considered alone and as a complete and comprehensive revelation of God the Tanakh is the holy book of a false religion, Judaism.

Do you mean that Moses was also a false prophet then? He was the founder of Judaism.  Huh
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,816


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2013, 09:21:33 AM »

It takes a quantum leap of the imagination to percieve any real continuity between the two testaments.

No, not really.
Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Pericles
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Archdiocese of Thyateira & Great Britain.
Posts: 178



WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2013, 09:29:31 AM »

Do you mean that Moses was also a false prophet then? He was the founder of Judaism.  Huh
You mean if he he ever existed? Well if he did he was a murderer for a start and ultimately yes as a prophet of a religion that is false he certainly is a false prophet. Jews see God in the terms they understand Moses to have revealed himself to Moses, Christians understand God in the terms he revealed himself in Christ. They are two different notions of God one belongs to the realm of myth and fantasy and the other is the true and living God.
Logged

Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit.
Pericles
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Archdiocese of Thyateira & Great Britain.
Posts: 178



WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2013, 09:30:11 AM »

No, not really.
Oh yes, really Wink
Logged

Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,816


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2013, 09:30:52 AM »


No, really.
Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2013, 09:32:14 AM »

Do you mean that Moses was also a false prophet then? He was the founder of Judaism.  Huh
You mean if he he ever existed? Well if he did he was a murderer for a start and ultimately yes as a prophet of a religion that is false he certainly is a false prophet. Jews see God in the terms they understand Moses to have revealed himself to Moses, Christians understand God in the terms he revealed himself in Christ. They are two different notions of God one belongs to the realm of myth and fantasy and the other is the true and living God.

Then why did Jesus talk of Moses? Did He want to deceive us by making us believe in a false prophet that did not actually exist? Why did Jesus converse with a false prophet on the mount when His appearance was transfigured?
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Pericles
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Archdiocese of Thyateira & Great Britain.
Posts: 178



WWW
« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2013, 09:38:49 AM »

No, really.
Really Cheesy
Logged

Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,816


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #8 on: February 08, 2013, 09:40:40 AM »


Well no, not really  Wink
Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Pericles
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Archdiocese of Thyateira & Great Britain.
Posts: 178



WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 08, 2013, 09:47:09 AM »

Then why did Jesus talk of Moses? Did He want to deceive us by making us believe in a false prophet that did not actually exist? Why did Jesus converse with a false prophet on the mount when His appearance was transfigured?
Surely the transfiguration is the real point to be made, that Christ is God and that the transfiguration occurred in the presence of prophets of the people that had rejected him and who wanted to kill him in the name of those prophets. No one reported any information on the conversation and John who was supposed to have been there according to Mathew, never saw fit to mention any of it in his Gospel!


« Last Edit: February 08, 2013, 09:49:47 AM by Pericles » Logged

Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit.
Pericles
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Archdiocese of Thyateira & Great Britain.
Posts: 178



WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 08, 2013, 09:47:39 AM »

Well no, not really  Wink
Oh yes yes yes Grin
Logged

Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,816


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #11 on: February 08, 2013, 09:51:13 AM »

Well no, not really  Wink
Oh yes yes yes Grin

But why then is the OT full of references to Christ?
Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #12 on: February 08, 2013, 09:57:31 AM »

Surely the transfiguration is the real point to be made, that Christ is God and that the transfiguration occurred in the presence of prophets of the people that had rejected him and who wanted to kill him in the name of those prophets. No one reported any information on the conversation and John who was supposed to have been there according to Mathew, never saw fit to mention any of it in his Gospel!

Thus, God made an illusion to make a theological point! Interesting!  Roll Eyes

What if John did not talk of the transfiguration? He was also the only Evangelist to state in the introduction to his Gospel that the Law was given by Moses. He endorsed Moses and his prophetic mission to prove that Jesus brought grace and truth.  Grin
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Pericles
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Archdiocese of Thyateira & Great Britain.
Posts: 178



WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 08, 2013, 09:58:32 AM »

But why then is the OT full of references to Christ?
It isn't, at least not Christ as we understand him. Firstly the true Jews (Sadducees) wern't expecting a messiah and rejected the prophets only the fringe theology of the Separatists (Pharisees) looked for a messiah and he was to come as a political liberator and overthrow the Romans. They got it wrong and they missed him when he came, consequently the messiah as seen by the Pharisees does not exist and is not Christ.
Logged

Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit.
alanscott
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant
Jurisdiction: Wesleyan
Posts: 309



« Reply #14 on: February 08, 2013, 10:08:09 AM »

I am neither Orthodox nor a theologian of any sort. Thus my reply is as much a question as an answer perhaps...

I have been taught to see the OT and the NT as one book if you will. Isn’t that necessary for theology as a whole? I would think the connection between the OT and NT begins with Genesis and the fall of mankind. Obviously that establishes the need for God to take the form of flesh and blood and the coming atonement. The book of Isaiah comes to mind as the most obvious connection in the form of prophecy but certainly there are other examples as well.
 
Another thought for a direct connection might be in the words of Christ our Lord: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill."
Logged

There are heathens that live with more virtue than I. The devil himself believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Neither of these things truly makes me Christian.
TheMathematician
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: American
Posts: 1,545


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #15 on: February 08, 2013, 10:14:32 AM »

What we call the OT is of course the sacred text of another completely distinct religion, Judaism. I understand from a Christian perspective the OT is a prelude to the NT but conversely from a Jewish perspective it clearly isn't. From a Jewish perpective Jesus was not the Messiah and certainly not God. It takes a quantum leap of the imagination to percieve any real continuity between the two testaments. Granted it would be difficult to contextualise the origin of Christianity without knowing what preceeded it but it certainly wouldnt be impossible without the OT.

I'm not advocating that Orthodox abandon the OT, that would be impossible, although it's worth noting that the canon has never been universally authorised by any ecumenical council. What I am suggesting is a difference of stress and importance place on each testament and the way we read the Holy Bible. On the basis that the Gospel was offered to the Greek world because it was rejected by the Jews and that the Gospel is the primary truth for Christians. The Old Testament could be seen as holding a secondary canonical status.

After all considered alone and as a complete and comprehensive revelation of God the Tanakh is the holy book of a false religion, Judaism.

Except we are the Jews of the OT, and these Scriptures are our own, both the OT and the NT. This "Jewish perspective of modern Judaism" is meaningless, since it started after Christ came into the world. It also can be argued that it takes a quantum leap to assume that the references are not about Christ
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,816


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #16 on: February 08, 2013, 10:16:05 AM »

But why then is the OT full of references to Christ?
It isn't

It is. Read psalm 2.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2013, 10:16:14 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Karaleighmum
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (catechumen)
Jurisdiction: Russian
Posts: 41


I am a partaker of The Divine Nature.


« Reply #17 on: February 08, 2013, 10:32:33 AM »

I am neither Orthodox nor a theologian of any sort. Thus my reply is as much a question as an answer perhaps...

I have been taught to see the OT and the NT as one book if you will. Isn’t that necessary for theology as a whole? I would think the connection between the OT and NT begins with Genesis and the fall of mankind. Obviously that establishes the need for God to take the form of flesh and blood and the coming atonement. The book of Isaiah comes to mind as the most obvious connection in the form of prophecy but certainly there are other examples as well.
 
Another thought for a direct connection might be in the words of Christ our Lord: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill."


these are things that also come to mind when I read this thread(funny eh Scott?) Anyhow I would love if someone with more education on the subject matter would reply as this seems very relevant to our Faith in my opinion which is but a fools.
Logged
Pericles
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Archdiocese of Thyateira & Great Britain.
Posts: 178



WWW
« Reply #18 on: February 08, 2013, 10:41:15 AM »

I have been taught to see the OT and the NT as one book if you will. Isn’t that necessary for theology as a whole? I would think the connection between the OT and NT begins with Genesis and the fall of mankind. Obviously that establishes the need for God to take the form of flesh and blood and the coming atonement. The book of Isaiah comes to mind as the most obvious connection in the form of prophecy but certainly there are other examples as well.
Well they are distinct and separated for a reason, the relative emphasis people put on each and the relationship between the two determines the overall picture of revelation held by any individual Christian. One example of this would be Gnosticism which held that the Jewish God was a flawed creator ignorant of the true God. Marcionites on the other hand totally rejected the OT and it's God. Again Ebionites rejected the divininity of Christ and only used the Gospel of Mathew. Within mainstream Christianity you get Christians that are almost Jewish in their regard for the OT and see Christ in light of the OT and conversely you get Christians that see the OT as myth and fable but a useful tool for background information.
 
Another thought for a direct connection might be in the words of Christ our Lord: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill."
The effects are the same, we don't keep the law anymore, regardless of whether its destroyed or fulfilled

Logged

Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit.
Pericles
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Archdiocese of Thyateira & Great Britain.
Posts: 178



WWW
« Reply #19 on: February 08, 2013, 10:43:17 AM »

It is. Read psalm 2.
Nothing there...
Logged

Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit.
Pericles
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Archdiocese of Thyateira & Great Britain.
Posts: 178



WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 08, 2013, 10:46:03 AM »

Except we are the Jews of the OT, and these Scriptures are our own, both the OT and the NT. This "Jewish perspective of modern Judaism" is meaningless, since it started after Christ came into the world.
In the real world we're actually the Greeks not the Jews, you can only say we're 'spiritual Israel' in a poetic and allegorical sense.

It also can be argued that it takes a quantum leap to assume that the references are not about Christ
It isn't argued very well though is it.
Logged

Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,816


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #21 on: February 08, 2013, 10:48:45 AM »

It is. Read psalm 2.
Nothing there...

You mean that the page between psalm 1 and 3 is missing?
« Last Edit: February 08, 2013, 10:48:56 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,081


"My god is greater."


« Reply #22 on: February 08, 2013, 10:55:09 AM »

Either the OT is all about Christ or the NT is full of lies.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Karaleighmum
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (catechumen)
Jurisdiction: Russian
Posts: 41


I am a partaker of The Divine Nature.


« Reply #23 on: February 08, 2013, 10:59:48 AM »

"Luke 24:44
Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”"

thats what Christ said, how can it be denied?
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,081


"My god is greater."


« Reply #24 on: February 08, 2013, 11:04:20 AM »

"Luke 24:44
Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”"

thats what Christ said, how can it be denied?

I guess Pericles hasn't bothered reading either testament.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Pericles
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Archdiocese of Thyateira & Great Britain.
Posts: 178



WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 08, 2013, 11:25:10 AM »

You mean that the page between psalm 1 and 3 is missing?

Its missing any prophecy conclusive about Christ, just a vague poem about a King that people interprete variously because of that.
Logged

Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit.
Pericles
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Archdiocese of Thyateira & Great Britain.
Posts: 178



WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 08, 2013, 11:25:33 AM »

I guess Pericles hasn't bothered reading either testament.
you wish  Grin
Logged

Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit.
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #27 on: February 08, 2013, 11:28:01 AM »

Its missing any prophecy conclusive about Christ, just a vague poem about a King that people interprete variously because of that.

Despite your anti-Jewish sentiments (hatred), you sound very much like the followers of Rabbinical Judaism when you make this statement about Psalm 2.  Grin
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,402


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #28 on: February 08, 2013, 11:28:43 AM »

You mean that the page between psalm 1 and 3 is missing?

Its missing any prophecy conclusive about Christ, just a vague poem about a King that people interprete variously because of that.

This doesn't ring any bells?
Quote
Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

What do you think about Psalm 22 then?
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,081


"My god is greater."


« Reply #29 on: February 08, 2013, 11:29:14 AM »

I guess Pericles hasn't bothered reading either testament.
you wish  Grin

Yes, I do wish you would read them. Give it a try please.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,816


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #30 on: February 08, 2013, 11:29:26 AM »

You mean that the page between psalm 1 and 3 is missing?

Its missing any prophecy conclusive about Christ, just a vague poem about a King that people interprete variously because of that.

Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee...
« Last Edit: February 08, 2013, 11:29:46 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #31 on: February 08, 2013, 11:39:37 AM »

I guess Pericles hasn't bothered reading either testament.
you wish  Grin

Yes, I do wish you would read them. Give it a try please.

He should read Acts 4:25-26 first. The apostles considered Psalm 2 Messianic and taught that it was fulfilled through Christ's death. If Pericles denies Psalm 2, he must deny Acts 4:25-26 too.  laugh
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Pericles
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Archdiocese of Thyateira & Great Britain.
Posts: 178



WWW
« Reply #32 on: February 08, 2013, 11:42:12 AM »

Despite your anti-Jewish sentiments (hatred), you sound very much like the followers of Rabbinical Judaism when you make this statement about Psalm 2.  Grin
Anti-Judaic not anti-Jewish, shame on you for playing the race card, foul Anyway they have a point and also Muslims see it as a prophecy about Muhammed. I note your implicit agreement that its inconclusive.
Logged

Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,816


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #33 on: February 08, 2013, 11:43:41 AM »

Anyway they have a point and also Muslims see it as a prophecy about Muhammed. I note your implicit agreement that its inconclusive.

Why should we care what Jews and Mohammedans think? Why should we prefer them to the Apostles?
Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,081


"My god is greater."


« Reply #34 on: February 08, 2013, 11:45:46 AM »

Despite your anti-Jewish sentiments (hatred), you sound very much like the followers of Rabbinical Judaism when you make this statement about Psalm 2.  Grin
Anti-Judaic not anti-Jewish, shame on you for playing the race card, foul Anyway they have a point and also Muslims see it as a prophecy about Muhammed. I note your implicit agreement that its inconclusive.

So you believe the writers of the New Testament misinterpreted the passage. So your real question is, "Why believe in either the Old or New Testaments?"
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #35 on: February 08, 2013, 11:54:50 AM »


Anti-Judaic not anti-Jewish, shame on you for playing the race card, foul Anyway they have a point and also Muslims see it as a prophecy about Muhammed. I note your implicit agreement that its inconclusive.

Jewish primarily denotes religious affiliation. I did not say anti-Israeli or anti-Hebrew.  Grin

No sane Muslim claims that this is a prophecy about Muhammad. Muhammad is never called the anointed or al-Masih in the Qur'an and Islamic tradition.
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #36 on: February 08, 2013, 11:57:11 AM »

Despite your anti-Jewish sentiments (hatred), you sound very much like the followers of Rabbinical Judaism when you make this statement about Psalm 2.  Grin
Anti-Judaic not anti-Jewish, shame on you for playing the race card, foul Anyway they have a point and also Muslims see it as a prophecy about Muhammed. I note your implicit agreement that its inconclusive.

So you believe the writers of the New Testament misinterpreted the passage. So your real question is, "Why believe in either the Old or New Testaments?"

He thinks the Jews are right to blame the apostles and the Church for misinterpreting the Tanakh.  Roll Eyes
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Pericles
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Archdiocese of Thyateira & Great Britain.
Posts: 178



WWW
« Reply #37 on: February 08, 2013, 12:06:31 PM »

The apostles considered Psalm 2 Messianic and taught that it was fulfilled through Christ's death. If Pericles denies Psalm 2, he must deny Acts 4:25-26 too.  laugh
Well I do regard the Pauline Epistles as the primary source of Christian teaching and only they hold absolute authority. Acts is not an eyewitness account and was written well after the events described and with an agenda. Granted Acts and the Gospels are much more valuable to Christians than the Tanakh but they need to be read in the historical context of their composition. With that in mind the quote in question is a nice piece of anti-Judaic rhetoric.
Logged

Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,816


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #38 on: February 08, 2013, 12:11:06 PM »

The apostles considered Psalm 2 Messianic and taught that it was fulfilled through Christ's death. If Pericles denies Psalm 2, he must deny Acts 4:25-26 too.  laugh
Well I do regard the Pauline Epistles as the primary source of Christian teaching and only they hold absolute authority. Acts is not an eyewitness account and was written well after the events described and with an agenda. Granted Acts and the Gospels are much more valuable to Christians than the Tanakh but they need to be read in the historical context of their composition. With that in mind the quote in question is a nice piece of anti-Judaic rhetoric.

 Roll Eyes
Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Pericles
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Archdiocese of Thyateira & Great Britain.
Posts: 178



WWW
« Reply #39 on: February 08, 2013, 12:12:08 PM »

So you believe the writers of the New Testament misinterpreted the passage. So your real question is, "Why believe in either the Old or New Testaments?"
They're sacred texts of the Christian faith and the written source of authority but a literal reading is fatal. Christ is the Word of God first and foremost.
Logged

Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,081


"My god is greater."


« Reply #40 on: February 08, 2013, 12:13:46 PM »

So you believe the writers of the New Testament misinterpreted the passage. So your real question is, "Why believe in either the Old or New Testaments?"
They're sacred texts of the Christian faith and the written source of authority but a literal reading is fatal.

It seems you're the one with the literalist mindset since it is the typological reading that reveals Christ in the Old Testament.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Jonathan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 810


WWW
« Reply #41 on: February 08, 2013, 12:16:38 PM »

Read "Search for the Messiah" ISBN 9367285078. You'll be surprised. Very helpful book on this topic.

Orthodoxy is the same religion as Abarahm's. The Fathers didn't view Christianity as a new religion. When we go to heaven ,we will understand much more than we understand here. That doesn't mean we'll have converted to a new religion, it just means we'll have moved to the next phase of it. But we'll be in the same relationship with the same God, just knowing Him more fully. Likewise, when Christ was incarnate and completed revelation, He did not start a new religion, but revealed more of the truth to those who follow Him. The fact that some rejected the truth and kept on worshipping the old way doesn't mean they're the old religion... the old religion was preparing them for His coming, and if they rejected Him when He came, they apostated and left the religion of their fathers which was anticipating Him. Those who remained faithful are the true Israel.

You won't accept this concept though because you don't see the unity of the two testaments. In part this is because we are lazy and don't know the Bible, in part this is because the MT that the KJV we all read came from was watered down centuries after Christ came to decrease the references to Him.

If you take the time to read Search for the Messiah, you will be surprised. He does a great job of showing simply how the OT did point to Him, and how the people were expecting Him. Expectation of the coming of the Messiah was at an all-time high when Christ came, because they knew when he would come, from Daniel. The whole OT prepares the way for Him and speaks of Him, if we will study diligently and open our eyes, we'll see it.
Logged
Pericles
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Archdiocese of Thyateira & Great Britain.
Posts: 178



WWW
« Reply #42 on: February 08, 2013, 12:19:45 PM »

It seems you're the one with the literalist mindset since it is the typological reading that reveals Christ in the Old Testament.
Nice one  Wink but you know  Grin
Logged

Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit.
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #43 on: February 08, 2013, 12:23:23 PM »

Well I do regard the Pauline Epistles as the primary source of Christian teaching and only they hold absolute authority. Acts is not an eyewitness account and was written well after the events described and with an agenda. Granted Acts and the Gospels are much more valuable to Christians than the Tanakh but they need to be read in the historical context of their composition. With that in mind the quote in question is a nice piece of anti-Judaic rhetoric.

Pauline epistles are not an eyewitness account either. Paul met Jesus and the apostles after the Resurrection, not before.  Grin
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,067


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #44 on: February 08, 2013, 12:24:39 PM »

It takes a quantum leap of the imagination to percieve any real continuity between the two testaments.
That's why it's so important to have both.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #45 on: February 08, 2013, 12:27:30 PM »

So you believe the writers of the New Testament misinterpreted the passage. So your real question is, "Why believe in either the Old or New Testaments?"
They're sacred texts of the Christian faith and the written source of authority but a literal reading is fatal. Christ is the Word of God first and foremost.

Who says that? Only John. According to your personal criteria, the Gospel of John is not as authoritative as the Pauline epistles.

Besides, why the need to take this designation literally? Maybe John meant that Jesus only appeared to be the Word of God.  laugh
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Pericles
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Archdiocese of Thyateira & Great Britain.
Posts: 178



WWW
« Reply #46 on: February 08, 2013, 12:29:24 PM »

Pauline epistles are not an eyewitness account either. Paul met Jesus and the apostles after the Resurrection, not before.  Grin
Exactly my point, Paul met the risen Christ. That's the starting point of real and historically verifiable Christianity, an encounter with the living God. All else is secondary.
Logged

Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit.
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #47 on: February 08, 2013, 12:31:33 PM »

Pauline epistles are not an eyewitness account either. Paul met Jesus and the apostles after the Resurrection, not before.  Grin
Exactly my point, Paul met the risen Christ. That's the starting point of real and historically verifiable Christianity, an encounter with the living God. All else is secondary.

Encounter with the living God? Do you mean the apostles who had met Jesus before Paul had met the dead God?  laugh
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,402


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #48 on: February 08, 2013, 04:32:46 PM »

Pauline epistles are not an eyewitness account either. Paul met Jesus and the apostles after the Resurrection, not before.  Grin
Exactly my point, Paul met the risen Christ. That's the starting point of real and historically verifiable Christianity, an encounter with the living God. All else is secondary.

Dude, this ain't Burger King, you can't pick and choose which scriptures you like.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #49 on: February 08, 2013, 05:03:51 PM »

What we call the OT is of course the sacred text of another completely distinct religion, Judaism. I understand from a Christian perspective the OT is a prelude to the NT but conversely from a Jewish perspective it clearly isn't. From a Jewish perpective Jesus was not the Messiah and certainly not God. It takes a quantum leap of the imagination to percieve any real continuity between the two testaments. Granted it would be difficult to contextualise the origin of Christianity without knowing what preceeded it but it certainly wouldnt be impossible without the OT.

I'm not advocating that Orthodox abandon the OT, that would be impossible, although it's worth noting that the canon has never been universally authorised by any ecumenical council. What I am suggesting is a difference of stress and importance place on each testament and the way we read the Holy Bible. On the basis that the Gospel was offered to the Greek world because it was rejected by the Jews and that the Gospel is the primary truth for Christians. The Old Testament could be seen as holding a secondary canonical status.

After all considered alone and as a complete and comprehensive revelation of God the Tanakh is the holy book of a false religion, Judaism.

Orthodoxy does not view Judaism as a false religion.  We see ourselves as the fulfillment of Judaism.  If not for the OT, how would we know that Jesus is who he says he is?  Lots of people today claim to be God or the second coming of Christ or whoever.  If not for the prophets and everythign written in the OT, there really is no basis for us to know that Jesus is indeed the Son of God.

Judaism isn't false.  Although today they are not THE true faith because the fulfillment of their faith has come in Christ.  That does not make them false, perhaps "incomplete" would be a better word to use.
Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,877


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #50 on: February 08, 2013, 05:23:57 PM »

Judaism...perhaps "incomplete" would be a better word to use.

Which Judaism are we talking? Because I'm staunchly convinced that modern-day Judaism--at least the Reformed and Conservative sects--is not the same Judaism as the Judaism during the time of the Old Testament. Finding a direct continuation of Judaism after the time of Christ is actually very confusing and complex, seeing the various sects that it branched off into.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Symeon77
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 102


'with fear and trembling work out your salvation.'


« Reply #51 on: February 08, 2013, 05:53:08 PM »

The apostles considered Psalm 2 Messianic and taught that it was fulfilled through Christ's death. If Pericles denies Psalm 2, he must deny Acts 4:25-26 too.  laugh
Well I do regard the Pauline Epistles as the primary source of Christian teaching and only they hold absolute authority. Acts is not an eyewitness account and was written well after the events described and with an agenda. Granted Acts and the Gospels are much more valuable to Christians than the Tanakh but they need to be read in the historical context of their composition. With that in mind the quote in question is a nice piece of anti-Judaic rhetoric.

It's embarrassing to have to re-iterate this, but applying your own standard of regarding only the Pauline corpus as authoritative, how do you exegete 2 Timothy 3:16, bearing in mind the context that the 'scriptures' spoken of could not possibly have referred to the Gospels, let alone St. Paul's letters which were still being written?

Not sure of your religious affiliation, but if you are inquiring into Orthodoxy, you will have to make peace with the religion of the Prophets and the idea of the O.T. as sacred scripture. The patristic exegesis of the O.T. is predicated on the idea that the Theophanies therein were the appearance of the Pre-incarnate Christ. For instance:

Quote
“Moses, therefore, that blessed and faithful servant of God, declares that the one who was seen by Abraham at the oak of Mamre was God, ac­companied by two angels, who were sent, for the condemnation of Sodom, by another, namely by the One who always remains above the heavens, who has never been seen by any human being, and who of himself holds converse with none, whom we term the Creator of all things, and the Father”.

St. Justin Martyr, Dial. 56

Seek out Fr. Eugen Pentiuc's "Jesus the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible.'
Logged

Where Christianity disappears, greed, envy, and lust invent a thousand ideologies to justify themselves.~ Nicolás Gómez Dávila

Abba Anthony said, "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us.'"
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #52 on: February 08, 2013, 05:57:24 PM »

Judaism...perhaps "incomplete" would be a better word to use.

Which Judaism are we talking? Because I'm staunchly convinced that modern-day Judaism--at least the Reformed and Conservative sects--is not the same Judaism as the Judaism during the time of the Old Testament. Finding a direct continuation of Judaism after the time of Christ is actually very confusing and complex, seeing the various sects that it branched off into.

Perhaps.  But the same accusation is being hurled against Christians, that is why some Protestant groups try to guess what First Century worship is like and claim to conform to it.  Even Orthodoxy has gone through a lot of development and an outsider may not accept our claim that we have preserved the essential elements faithfully.
Logged
Karaleighmum
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (catechumen)
Jurisdiction: Russian
Posts: 41


I am a partaker of The Divine Nature.


« Reply #53 on: February 08, 2013, 06:18:33 PM »

The apostles considered Psalm 2 Messianic and taught that it was fulfilled through Christ's death. If Pericles denies Psalm 2, he must deny Acts 4:25-26 too.  laugh
Well I do regard the Pauline Epistles as the primary source of Christian teaching and only they hold absolute authority. Acts is not an eyewitness account and was written well after the events described and with an agenda. Granted Acts and the Gospels are much more valuable to Christians than the Tanakh but they need to be read in the historical context of their composition. With that in mind the quote in question is a nice piece of anti-Judaic rhetoric.

What type of Christian do you consider yourself? I am genuinely curious, not at all being sarcastic. Just like, what denomination do you consider your faith?
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #54 on: February 09, 2013, 12:04:29 AM »

What we call the OT is of course the sacred text of another completely distinct religion, Judaism. I understand from a Christian perspective the OT is a prelude to the NT but conversely from a Jewish perspective it clearly isn't. From a Jewish perpective Jesus was not the Messiah and certainly not God. It takes a quantum leap of the imagination to percieve any real continuity between the two testaments. Granted it would be difficult to contextualise the origin of Christianity without knowing what preceeded it but it certainly wouldnt be impossible without the OT.

I'm not advocating that Orthodox abandon the OT, that would be impossible, although it's worth noting that the canon has never been universally authorised by any ecumenical council. What I am suggesting is a difference of stress and importance place on each testament and the way we read the Holy Bible. On the basis that the Gospel was offered to the Greek world because it was rejected by the Jews and that the Gospel is the primary truth for Christians. The Old Testament could be seen as holding a secondary canonical status.

After all considered alone and as a complete and comprehensive revelation of God the Tanakh is the holy book of a false religion, Judaism.

Maybe you should just join the Marcionites.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,204


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #55 on: February 09, 2013, 12:06:01 AM »

I am often surprised at how often the early Church Fathers use the Old Testament in their writings, and how well they knew it.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #56 on: February 09, 2013, 12:06:28 AM »

I guess Pericles hasn't bothered reading either testament.
you wish  Grin

Yes, I do wish you would read them. Give it a try please.

First, he has to empty his head of heretical notions.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #57 on: February 09, 2013, 12:07:46 AM »

The apostles considered Psalm 2 Messianic and taught that it was fulfilled through Christ's death. If Pericles denies Psalm 2, he must deny Acts 4:25-26 too.  laugh
Well I do regard the Pauline Epistles as the primary source of Christian teaching and only they hold absolute authority. Acts is not an eyewitness account and was written well after the events described and with an agenda. Granted Acts and the Gospels are much more valuable to Christians than the Tanakh but they need to be read in the historical context of their composition. With that in mind the quote in question is a nice piece of anti-Judaic rhetoric.

Were you baptized by the History Channel?
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Sieur_Mglcamo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 9


Constantinople......


« Reply #58 on: February 09, 2013, 12:27:46 AM »

Back to the question,
The Old Testament to me is as important to me as the NT is as they both include valuable interlocking connections about the messiah and the story and history of the NT,which make the overall understanding of the bible as a whole more fulfilling.


Logged

Mount And Blade Warband ~Nord Invasion~
http://www.nordinvasion.com/
Sieur_Mglcamo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 9


Constantinople......


« Reply #59 on: February 09, 2013, 12:29:14 AM »

@Shanghaiski , Where you baptised by the history channel  Wink Good one.
Logged

Mount And Blade Warband ~Nord Invasion~
http://www.nordinvasion.com/
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,436


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #60 on: February 09, 2013, 01:11:24 AM »

The *nature* of the OT writings is, of course, another question, but Christ Himself is the key to many of the questions we ask about the canonicity of the proto-canon and some of the deuterocanon of the Old Testament long before the early fathers presumed upon the question; the latter did not diverge at all from the teachings of Christ as reported in the New Testament documents as e.g. Marcion the heretic and others did (not before mid second century).

Frequently we find on the lips of Jesus the phrase “it stands written”; it is multiply attested and occurs in parallel passages of the earliest New Testament sources; it indicates that appeal to scripture formed a central characteristic of his ministry. Jesus’ view of what for him constituted Old Testament scripture presupposes the New Testament attestation to Jesus’ view of the OT is reliable; it is not necessary to assume the New Testament as scripture to establish Jesus’ view of the Old Testament.

Jesus’ high view of scripture is evidenced throughout the Gospels, e.g.:Matthew 5:17-19: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”; Matthew 22:29: “But Jesus answered and said to them, ‘You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God’”; Jn 10:35: “the scripture cannot be broken”; Luke 24:44-45: all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled. Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures” is a post-resurrection pericope which clearly reflects the central message of the earliest Christian kerygma, which can be firmly established within a very short period after the resurrection on firm historical-critical grounds. These are just selected examples.

Shorthand for the OT in early Judaism and Christianity: Law and the Prophets; Law, Writings and Prophets; Law, Writings, Prophets and Psalms.
“The Law and the Prophets”: The earliest division of the OT was a twofold division known as the Law and the Prophets. This terminology goes back to the OT itself: “Law of Moses” (Dan 9:11, 13); “prophets” (Dan 9:6); The Law of Moses as “Thy Law” (Neh 9:29); God also “admonished them by Thy Spirit through Thy prophets” (Neh 9:30); “the law and …the former prophets” (Zech 7:12); “the law and the prophets” (2 Macc 15:9); “law and the prophets” (Manual of Discipline I.3; VIII.15; IX.11).

A twofold division of the Law and the Prophets was spoken of by Jesus (e.g. Matt 5:17; 7:12; 22:40; Lk 16:16, 29, 31; 24:27; Acts 13:15; 26:22). A two-fold division is multiply attested in ancient Judaism. The “Law and the Prophets” (Mt 5:17; Lk 16:16), referred to as “all the scriptures” (Lk 24:27) were said to contain “everything written” about Christ (Lk 24:44). “All the Scriptures” (e.g. Lk 24:27: “And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures”). Josephus lists 24 books of the OT (Against Apion I.Cool and refers there the two-fold division of the Law and the Prophets. Paul said he believed “everything laid down by the law or written in the prophets” (Acts 24:14; cf. 26:22). Portions of the OT later classified as “Writings” by the Talmud (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Daniel) were earlier included within the two-fold division “Law and Prophets” (cf. Matt 24:15; Lk 4:8-11; Jn 10:34; 1 Cor 3:19). There are also NT references to parts of the Deuterocanon (which topic I will leave aside for another thread); the entirety of the DC not yet having been completed.

Other Divisions of the OT canon: threefold and fourfold schematic divisions are attested after the twofold division scheme; the contents of the OT canon are unaffected by this division. Threefold Division: “prophets” divided into “the prophets and the writings” giving the threefold Law (Torah), Prophets (Nebhiim), and Writings (Kethubhim). The Fourfold scheme is reflected in the LXX: Law, History, Poetry, and Prophecy; Jerome’s Vulgate and English translations of the Bible follow this arrangement. Philo spoke of “the laws and oracles delivered through the mouth of the prophets, and psalms, and anything else which fosters perfect knowledge and piety” (De Vita Contemplativa III.25). Luke presents Jesus as saying “everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled” (Lk 24:44).

An attempt to present the historical Jesus, who all contemporary scholars regard as *Jewish* -as at radically at odds with the Old Testament, is not really credible on even radical premises of historical critical reconstruction given the nature and mulitiplicity of attestation. Any attempt to suppose Paul held such a view is completley out of the question. Any notion of Orthodox Christianity without an Old Testament canon is also completely out of the question; the same is true of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. At best we are on the extreme fringe -with reasonable warrant well beyond what we might reasonably call Christendom and haunted by some of the more infamous heretics of old on such a hypothesis of excising the Old Testament from the Christian faith.



« Last Edit: February 09, 2013, 01:22:18 AM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,877


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #61 on: February 09, 2013, 01:18:10 AM »

Did the Council of Jamnia really happen, or is it false? I've seen several pre-21st century sources stating that it happened, whereas now in modern times, it seems like several sources are stating that it never happened, or accuse it of being an "anti-Semitic" conspiracy etc. Is this true? Or just revisionist lies propogated by Reformed pork-eating Jews?
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #62 on: February 09, 2013, 01:21:15 AM »

What we call the OT is of course the sacred text of another completely distinct religion, Judaism. I understand from a Christian perspective the OT is a prelude to the NT but conversely from a Jewish perspective it clearly isn't. From a Jewish perpective Jesus was not the Messiah and certainly not God. It takes a quantum leap of the imagination to percieve any real continuity between the two testaments. Granted it would be difficult to contextualise the origin of Christianity without knowing what preceeded it but it certainly wouldnt be impossible without the OT.

I'm not advocating that Orthodox abandon the OT, that would be impossible, although it's worth noting that the canon has never been universally authorised by any ecumenical council. What I am suggesting is a difference of stress and importance place on each testament and the way we read the Holy Bible. On the basis that the Gospel was offered to the Greek world because it was rejected by the Jews and that the Gospel is the primary truth for Christians. The Old Testament could be seen as holding a secondary canonical status.

After all considered alone and as a complete and comprehensive revelation of God the Tanakh is the holy book of a false religion, Judaism.
Learn Hebrew Gematria, read Isaiah 53, and then re-assess the question.

EDIT: forgot to mention John 4:22
« Last Edit: February 09, 2013, 01:28:05 AM by pmpn8rGPT » Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,436


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #63 on: February 09, 2013, 01:49:29 AM »

Did the Council of Jamnia really happen, or is it false? I've seen several pre-21st century sources stating that it happened, whereas now in modern times, it seems like several sources are stating that it never happened, or accuse it of being an "anti-Semitic" conspiracy etc. Is this true? Or just revisionist lies propogated by Reformed pork-eating Jews?
OT books were definitely discussed at Jamnia; the older claim that the canon was "officially closed" at an "official council" there, however, is unconfirmed and no longer in favor. There are arguments still offered in favor of it, but they are inductive, e.g.

Quote from: Albert Sundberg
Cross has offered what appears to be incontrovertible evidence that the Pharisaic canon was not closed until after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. His proposal concerning the process of canonization, however, has exchanged the question of place for the question of parties in the formation of the canon. What, however, should be the answer if we would ask for the venue of Cross' proposal? Are there alternatives to Jamnia (or later Usha)? As we have seen, it was at Jamnia that the tradition says the Hillelites gained the ascendancy over the house of Shammai. It was the school at Jamnia that became a substitute for the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem. It was at Jamnia that the third section of the Hebrew canon was first named. It was the Jamnia decisions that, while not "official," came to be generally accepted in post-destruction Judaism. It may be that we have followed too quickly after Lewis in his attack upon Jamnia in order to foster his belief in a Hebrew canon from pre-Christian times. But that case, as we have seen, is confounded by numerous difficulties. With the time of canonization of the Hebrew tripartite canon now probably fixed between 70 and 135 C.E., and as a triumph of the Hillelite Pharisee in post-destruction Judaism, what alternatives are there to Jamnia as the venue? (Albert Sundberg, in T. Sienkewicz and J. Betts, eds., Festschrift in Honor of Charles Speel (Monmouth, 1997).

« Last Edit: February 09, 2013, 01:56:59 AM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,204


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #64 on: February 09, 2013, 02:25:50 AM »

I would largely agree with this...

OT books were definitely discussed at Jamnia; the older claim that the canon was "officially closed" at an "official council" there, however, is unconfirmed and no longer in favor.

Except I am less willing to say that there was definitely a council at all.
Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,436


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #65 on: February 09, 2013, 02:31:15 AM »

+1  There is no definitive evidence of one.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2013, 02:42:19 AM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #66 on: February 09, 2013, 10:19:33 AM »

+1  There is no definitive evidence of one.

There is no definitive evidence for a lot of things that actually happened. For most things, actually.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,436


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #67 on: February 09, 2013, 03:31:17 PM »

This is exactly so also, Shanghaiski. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence either and the lack of definitive evidence is a sword that should cut both ways. Unproven cannot simply be taken for disproven without presuming something unproven as an axiom.

And even beyond all that -for another thread perhaps- Enlightenment-style foundationalist rationalism is itself dead in the waters; there is nothing more naive today than the notion that one must not, or does not continually, hold things without provability at very fundamental levels, even the whole methodological edifice of the prover. Metaphysics buries its gravediggers, and we Orthodox understand there are some things, like God, and what scripture is meant to convey, that cannot be known apart from love.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2013, 03:37:02 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,613



« Reply #68 on: February 09, 2013, 05:55:52 PM »

The apostles considered Psalm 2 Messianic and taught that it was fulfilled through Christ's death. If Pericles denies Psalm 2, he must deny Acts 4:25-26 too.  laugh
Well I do regard the Pauline Epistles as the primary source of Christian teaching and only they hold absolute authority. Acts is not an eyewitness account and was written well after the events described and with an agenda. Granted Acts and the Gospels are much more valuable to Christians than the Tanakh but they need to be read in the historical context of their composition. With that in mind the quote in question is a nice piece of anti-Judaic rhetoric.

Were you baptized by the History Channel?

*ZING* You back are on one of your many rolls!
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,613



« Reply #69 on: February 09, 2013, 05:57:25 PM »

The *nature* of the OT writings is, of course, another question, but Christ Himself is the key to many of the questions we ask about the canonicity of the proto-canon and some of the deuterocanon of the Old Testament long before the early fathers presumed upon the question; the latter did not diverge at all from the teachings of Christ as reported in the New Testament documents as e.g. Marcion the heretic and others did (not before mid second century).

Frequently we find on the lips of Jesus the phrase “it stands written”; it is multiply attested and occurs in parallel passages of the earliest New Testament sources; it indicates that appeal to scripture formed a central characteristic of his ministry. Jesus’ view of what for him constituted Old Testament scripture presupposes the New Testament attestation to Jesus’ view of the OT is reliable; it is not necessary to assume the New Testament as scripture to establish Jesus’ view of the Old Testament.

Jesus’ high view of scripture is evidenced throughout the Gospels, e.g.:Matthew 5:17-19: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”; Matthew 22:29: “But Jesus answered and said to them, ‘You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God’”; Jn 10:35: “the scripture cannot be broken”; Luke 24:44-45: all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled. Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures” is a post-resurrection pericope which clearly reflects the central message of the earliest Christian kerygma, which can be firmly established within a very short period after the resurrection on firm historical-critical grounds. These are just selected examples.

Shorthand for the OT in early Judaism and Christianity: Law and the Prophets; Law, Writings and Prophets; Law, Writings, Prophets and Psalms.
“The Law and the Prophets”: The earliest division of the OT was a twofold division known as the Law and the Prophets. This terminology goes back to the OT itself: “Law of Moses” (Dan 9:11, 13); “prophets” (Dan 9:6); The Law of Moses as “Thy Law” (Neh 9:29); God also “admonished them by Thy Spirit through Thy prophets” (Neh 9:30); “the law and …the former prophets” (Zech 7:12); “the law and the prophets” (2 Macc 15:9); “law and the prophets” (Manual of Discipline I.3; VIII.15; IX.11).

A twofold division of the Law and the Prophets was spoken of by Jesus (e.g. Matt 5:17; 7:12; 22:40; Lk 16:16, 29, 31; 24:27; Acts 13:15; 26:22). A two-fold division is multiply attested in ancient Judaism. The “Law and the Prophets” (Mt 5:17; Lk 16:16), referred to as “all the scriptures” (Lk 24:27) were said to contain “everything written” about Christ (Lk 24:44). “All the Scriptures” (e.g. Lk 24:27: “And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures”). Josephus lists 24 books of the OT (Against Apion I.Cool and refers there the two-fold division of the Law and the Prophets. Paul said he believed “everything laid down by the law or written in the prophets” (Acts 24:14; cf. 26:22). Portions of the OT later classified as “Writings” by the Talmud (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Daniel) were earlier included within the two-fold division “Law and Prophets” (cf. Matt 24:15; Lk 4:8-11; Jn 10:34; 1 Cor 3:19). There are also NT references to parts of the Deuterocanon (which topic I will leave aside for another thread); the entirety of the DC not yet having been completed.

Other Divisions of the OT canon: threefold and fourfold schematic divisions are attested after the twofold division scheme; the contents of the OT canon are unaffected by this division. Threefold Division: “prophets” divided into “the prophets and the writings” giving the threefold Law (Torah), Prophets (Nebhiim), and Writings (Kethubhim). The Fourfold scheme is reflected in the LXX: Law, History, Poetry, and Prophecy; Jerome’s Vulgate and English translations of the Bible follow this arrangement. Philo spoke of “the laws and oracles delivered through the mouth of the prophets, and psalms, and anything else which fosters perfect knowledge and piety” (De Vita Contemplativa III.25). Luke presents Jesus as saying “everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled” (Lk 24:44).

An attempt to present the historical Jesus, who all contemporary scholars regard as *Jewish* -as at radically at odds with the Old Testament, is not really credible on even radical premises of historical critical reconstruction given the nature and mulitiplicity of attestation. Any attempt to suppose Paul held such a view is completley out of the question. Any notion of Orthodox Christianity without an Old Testament canon is also completely out of the question; the same is true of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. At best we are on the extreme fringe -with reasonable warrant well beyond what we might reasonably call Christendom and haunted by some of the more infamous heretics of old on such a hypothesis of excising the Old Testament from the Christian faith.





Why do you slum around here?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,613



« Reply #70 on: February 09, 2013, 06:06:22 PM »

This is exactly so also, Shanghaiski. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence either and the lack of definitive evidence is a sword that should cut both ways. Unproven cannot simply be taken for disproven without presuming something unproven as an axiom.

And even beyond all that -for another thread perhaps- Enlightenment-style foundationalist rationalism is itself dead in the waters; there is nothing more naive today than the notion that one must not, or does not continually, hold things without provability at very fundamental levels, even the whole methodological edifice of the prover. Metaphysics buries its gravediggers, and we Orthodox understand there are some things, like God, and what scripture is meant to convey, that cannot be known apart from love.

The whole lack of evidence for canon per council is a non-starter for me. There is no canon as such cause it never rose to such a degree of disagreement that it warranted one.

The Enlightenment gets a bad a rap. And I am one to pile on, but often for different reasons. I just don't think even someone thoroughly rooted in a foundationalist hermeneutic would require some string of authoritative witnesses to establish the legitimacy of the canon(s). A glance at the reasons for the councils and the evidence of silence on the issue of canonicity seems persuasive enough to set the argument aside.

Other problems of the canons might be interesting to pursue and I wonder if some specialized such research isn't yanked out of context to create such popular arguments as seen above. I really don't know anything about the state of research on the development of the canon(s) of Scripture and where the problems of interest lie, nor do I really care.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,436


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #71 on: February 09, 2013, 07:08:54 PM »

I just don't think even someone thoroughly rooted in a foundationalist hermeneutic would require some string of authoritative witnesses to establish the legitimacy of the canon(s). A glance at the reasons for the councils and the evidence of silence on the issue of canonicity seems persuasive enough to set the argument aside.

Other problems of the canons might be interesting to pursue and I wonder if some specialized such research isn't yanked out of context to create such popular arguments as seen above. I really don't know anything about the state of research on the development of the canon(s) of Scripture and where the problems of interest lie, nor do I really care.
NT scripture was used qua scripture before there was an "official canon" -for a few centuries in fact (the first "official list" actually came from a heretic, Marcion). This is also what we see regarding OT writings for an even longer period. As with many things NT scripture qua scripture is rooted in the living faith and practice of a vibrant community.[1] With eschewing a foundationalist hermeneutic for NT canon I agree with you, though we do continue to see a foundationalist current within Protestantism and Roman Catholicism (natural theology, natural law, and papal infallibility being the clearest examples of the latter; F. F. Bruce's "self attesting" scriptures being an example of the former). I do, however, think of Christ's view of the OT as foundational for the patristic understanding of the Old Testament (as argued above), and the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church as "foundational" (not in the sense of classical epistemological foundationalism) for the latter, albeit I think this is not a matter that can be understood strictly on the horizontal level of reason (or "faith" in the sense it was re-interpreted in medieval nominalism for that matter).

The notion of some later Magisterial pronouncement/canonical pronouncement "creating" scripture via some sort of horizontal authority in Judaism or Christianity is something I regard as a myth. This myth is seen in both proponents and opponents of Christianity (Bart Ehrman being by his own admission an example of the latter).
___________
[1] Using the function of NT documents as scripture before canon as an example, “Statistical studies of the frequency of citation (relative to length) of early Christian writings demonstrates that from the second century onward, the Gospels, and the principal Pauline letters were cited with very high frequency, that the other books eventually included in the canon were much less often called into service, and that books ultimately excluded from the canon were used very little (Stuhlhofer, Der Gebrauch der Bibel von Jesus bis Euseb: Eine statistisch Untersuchung zur Kanongeschichte (Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1988)… Thus the NT canon that finally took shape appears fairly to reflect which writings had in the earlier period consistently claimed the attention of the church and proven most useful in sustaining and nurturing the faith and life of the Christian communities. To this extent the canonization of early Christian writings did not so much confer authority on them as recognize or ratify an authority that they had long enjoyed, making regulative what had previously been customary. The catalogs of the fourth and fifth centuries are for the most part articulations of a consensus of usage that had arisen through the practices of the preceding centuries, and they are aimed to exclude rather than to include” (H. Gamble, “Canonical Formation in the New Testament” in Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter, Dictionary of New Testament Background (2000), p. 192).
« Last Edit: February 09, 2013, 07:30:19 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #72 on: February 09, 2013, 11:01:49 PM »

I just don't think even someone thoroughly rooted in a foundationalist hermeneutic would require some string of authoritative witnesses to establish the legitimacy of the canon(s). A glance at the reasons for the councils and the evidence of silence on the issue of canonicity seems persuasive enough to set the argument aside.

Other problems of the canons might be interesting to pursue and I wonder if some specialized such research isn't yanked out of context to create such popular arguments as seen above. I really don't know anything about the state of research on the development of the canon(s) of Scripture and where the problems of interest lie, nor do I really care.
NT scripture was used qua scripture before there was an "official canon" -for a few centuries in fact (the first "official list" actually came from a heretic, Marcion). This is also what we see regarding OT writings for an even longer period. As with many things NT scripture qua scripture is rooted in the living faith and practice of a vibrant community.[1] With eschewing a foundationalist hermeneutic for NT canon I agree with you, though we do continue to see a foundationalist current within Protestantism and Roman Catholicism (natural theology, natural law, and papal infallibility being the clearest examples of the latter; F. F. Bruce's "self attesting" scriptures being an example of the former). I do, however, think of Christ's view of the OT as foundational for the patristic understanding of the Old Testament (as argued above), and the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church as "foundational" (not in the sense of classical epistemological foundationalism) for the latter, albeit I think this is not a matter that can be understood strictly on the horizontal level of reason (or "faith" in the sense it was re-interpreted in medieval nominalism for that matter).

The notion of some later Magisterial pronouncement/canonical pronouncement "creating" scripture via some sort of horizontal authority in Judaism or Christianity is something I regard as a myth. This myth is seen in both proponents and opponents of Christianity (Bart Ehrman being by his own admission an example of the latter).
___________
[1] Using the function of NT documents as scripture before canon as an example, “Statistical studies of the frequency of citation (relative to length) of early Christian writings demonstrates that from the second century onward, the Gospels, and the principal Pauline letters were cited with very high frequency, that the other books eventually included in the canon were much less often called into service, and that books ultimately excluded from the canon were used very little (Stuhlhofer, Der Gebrauch der Bibel von Jesus bis Euseb: Eine statistisch Untersuchung zur Kanongeschichte (Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1988)… Thus the NT canon that finally took shape appears fairly to reflect which writings had in the earlier period consistently claimed the attention of the church and proven most useful in sustaining and nurturing the faith and life of the Christian communities. To this extent the canonization of early Christian writings did not so much confer authority on them as recognize or ratify an authority that they had long enjoyed, making regulative what had previously been customary. The catalogs of the fourth and fifth centuries are for the most part articulations of a consensus of usage that had arisen through the practices of the preceding centuries, and they are aimed to exclude rather than to include” (H. Gamble, “Canonical Formation in the New Testament” in Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter, Dictionary of New Testament Background (2000), p. 192).

I really like your posts, and not just because you include footnotes, use the word "qua," have an interesting tag and juxtapose intellectuality next to a rollerblader.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,436


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #73 on: February 11, 2013, 04:13:26 PM »

I really like your posts, and not just because you include footnotes, use the word "qua," have an interesting tag and juxtapose intellectuality next to a rollerblader.
Thanks, that's extremely kind of you.

It could also be a sign of encroaching madness.[1]  Wink

Actually that is Parkour/freerunning. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fouvwilGWc
__________
[1] Either I or the entire world has gone completely mad.


Logged

Silly Stars
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #74 on: February 11, 2013, 04:38:58 PM »

I really like your posts, and not just because you include footnotes, use the word "qua," have an interesting tag and juxtapose intellectuality next to a rollerblader.
Thanks, that's extremely kind of you.

It could also be a sign of encroaching madness.[1]  Wink

Actually that is Parkour/freerunning. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fouvwilGWc
__________
[1] Either I or the entire world has gone completely mad.




St. Anthony the Great said, "A day will come when the whole world will go mad, and they will say to those who are not mad, 'You are mad, you are not like us.'"
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Sieur_Mglcamo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 9


Constantinople......


« Reply #75 on: February 12, 2013, 03:02:14 AM »

is St Anthony the Great also known as Anthony the Abbot as i have hear him called two things?
Logged

Mount And Blade Warband ~Nord Invasion~
http://www.nordinvasion.com/
Sieur_Mglcamo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 9


Constantinople......


« Reply #76 on: February 12, 2013, 03:04:21 AM »

@xariskai
 
Heard real good things about parkour except some bad things about Planking/Snailing Grin
Logged

Mount And Blade Warband ~Nord Invasion~
http://www.nordinvasion.com/
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #77 on: February 12, 2013, 11:56:30 AM »

is St Anthony the Great also known as Anthony the Abbot as i have hear him called two things?

I believe they are the same. Feast day Jan. 17, place of residence Egypt.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,436


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #78 on: February 12, 2013, 01:32:01 PM »

@xariskai
 
Heard real good things about parkour except some bad things about Planking/Snailing Grin
I think it's cute when a dog plays dead (not in the road though), and I do sometimes enjoy a good nap.

Other than that I don't know much about planking, but maybe it would be a good use for me.


« Last Edit: February 12, 2013, 01:40:01 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,204


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #79 on: February 12, 2013, 01:47:28 PM »

Other than that I don't know much about planking, but maybe it would be a good use for me.

It's of little use in exercising, of even less use in the youtube sense...
Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,436


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #80 on: February 12, 2013, 02:02:29 PM »

Other than that I don't know much about planking, but maybe it would be a good use for me.

It's of little use in exercising, of even less use in the youtube sense...
That's true, though I was thinking not of planking's usefulness, but mine.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2013, 02:25:52 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Jason.Wike
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,046


« Reply #81 on: February 12, 2013, 03:20:03 PM »

Quote
What we call the OT is of course the sacred text of another completely distinct religion, Judaism.

It belongs just as much to Christianity as it does modern Judaism. Both go back organically to ancient Judaism. Modern Judaism and Jews cannot claim any unique ownership of the Tanakh either on religious descent (because both religions come directly from it) nor as cultural ownership or biological inheritance (because nearly everyone in Europe and most of Asia has Jewish ancestry whether they are aware of it or not. People don't realize how much people got around in the past.).
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,613



« Reply #82 on: February 12, 2013, 03:21:38 PM »

Other than that I don't know much about planking, but maybe it would be a good use for me.

It's of little use in exercising, of even less use in the youtube sense...

Um, if you can plank as well I can, then you will be in better shape than you are now.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Jason.Wike
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,046


« Reply #83 on: February 12, 2013, 03:21:57 PM »

Do you mean that Moses was also a false prophet then? He was the founder of Judaism.  Huh
You mean if he he ever existed? Well if he did he was a murderer for a start and ultimately yes as a prophet of a religion that is false he certainly is a false prophet. Jews see God in the terms they understand Moses to have revealed himself to Moses, Christians understand God in the terms he revealed himself in Christ. They are two different notions of God one belongs to the realm of myth and fantasy and the other is the true and living God.

Are you even really Christian? You seem to know nothing about Christianity. I'm pretty sure you've just committed an automatic excommunication by rejecting the prophets.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2013, 03:24:43 PM by Jason.Wike » Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,930



« Reply #84 on: February 12, 2013, 03:23:34 PM »

But why then is the OT full of references to Christ?
It isn't, at least not Christ as we understand him. Firstly the true Jews (Sadducees) wern't expecting a messiah and rejected the prophets only the fringe theology of the Separatists (Pharisees) looked for a messiah and he was to come as a political liberator and overthrow the Romans. They got it wrong and they missed him when he came, consequently the messiah as seen by the Pharisees does not exist and is not Christ.

Pericles--This is an official request. Please tell us your status in the Church: are you an inquirer, cathechumen or communicant? I would appreciate a prompt answer. Thanks, Carl Kraeff (second Chance)
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,613



« Reply #85 on: February 12, 2013, 03:23:55 PM »

Other than that I don't know much about planking, but maybe it would be a good use for me.

It's of little use in exercising, of even less use in the youtube sense...
That's true, though I was thinking not of planking's usefulness, but mine.

If you are really into playing parkour, I can't see the incredible merits of practicing planking as such. Really, it has been quite sad to see what has become of parkour as it has been moved from its situationalist beginnings into the world of "sport".



Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,204


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #86 on: February 12, 2013, 03:27:14 PM »

Other than that I don't know much about planking, but maybe it would be a good use for me.

It's of little use in exercising, of even less use in the youtube sense...

Um, if you can plank as well I can, then you will be in better shape than you are now.

Oh I can plank...

Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,613



« Reply #87 on: February 12, 2013, 03:31:28 PM »

Other than that I don't know much about planking, but maybe it would be a good use for me.

It's of little use in exercising, of even less use in the youtube sense...

Um, if you can plank as well I can, then you will be in better shape than you are now.

Oh I can plank...



Weirdo.

When you can mayurasana get back at me.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 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 0.253 seconds with 115 queries.