OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 29, 2014, 09:11:03 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: Changes in liturgy since the Apostolic times  (Read 5563 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #45 on: June 29, 2005, 03:08:29 PM »

Quote
Show me the original, unaltered text

There is no original text, nor is this point of any significance; this is simply another cop-out. The onus is on you to prove substantial alteration pertaining to the verses in question, else you continue to evidently have no case. It is bad enough that you deceptively revise history; now you want to presume corruption? How desparate the skeptic is in his satanic quest to undermine the clear and blatant truth!

Christ institutes the Eucharist in a sacrificial context; the apostles of Christ account for it in a sacrificial context; St Paul elucidates upon its sacrificial nature; the earliest extra-Biblical Church documents attest to its sacrificial nature; such extra-Biblical attestation is unanimous and universal; these are all facts that have been proven. Every point you have made in a futile attempt to negate these facts has been based on absurd and unwarranted presuppositions, assumptions, and outlandish conjecture. I pity you; not as a man of faith in the true God, nor as a member of the True Orthodox Church, but as a man of reason and objectivity.

Peace.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2005, 03:09:45 PM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
jmell
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142

OC.net


« Reply #46 on: June 29, 2005, 03:11:19 PM »

There is no original text, nor is this point of any significance; this is simply another cop-out. The onus is on you to prove substantial alteration pertaining to the verses in question, else you continue to evidently have no case. It is bad enough that you deceptively revise history; now you want to presume corruption? How desparate the skeptic is in his satanic quest to undermine the clear and blatant truth!

Christ institutes the Eucharist in a sacrificial context; the apostles of Christ account for it in a sacrificial context; St Paul elucidates upon its sacrificial nature; the earliest extra-Biblical Church documents attest to its sacrificial nature; such extra-Biblical attestation is unanimous and universal; these are all facts that have been proven. Every point you have made in a futile attempt to negate these facts has been based on absurd and unwarranted presuppositions, assumptions, and outlandish conjecture. I pity you; not as a man of faith in the true God, nor a member of the True Orthodox Church, but as a man of reason and objectivity.

Peace.

It is not a cop-out Here is as close as you can get to orignial:
Quote
Codex Hierosolymitanus (1056 CE)

This manuscript, usually designated H, was discovered in 1873 by Philotheos Bryennios, the Metropolitan of Nicomedia, in the library of the Jerusalem Monastery of the Holy Sepulchre at Constantinople. It was written by a scribe, Leo, in 1056. A photographic facsimile was published by J. Rendel Harris in 1887. The manuscript contains the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, I Clement, II Clement, and the long form of the Ignatian letters.

There is no way to prove these are anyway accurate. I can write a letter 1000 years after the fact an say it's accurate as well.
I do not presume corruption. These are man made documents, I expect corruption
« Last Edit: June 29, 2005, 03:13:05 PM by jmell » Logged
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #47 on: June 29, 2005, 03:12:42 PM »

Show me the original, unaltered text

If you claim as fact that the text was changed, and you are challenging the Orthodox notion that it has not, then show us the original altered text to prove your case.
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
jmell
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142

OC.net


« Reply #48 on: June 29, 2005, 03:20:21 PM »

[quote author=Νικολάος Διάκονος link=topic=6533.msg85176#msg85176 date=1120072362]
If you claim as fact that the text was changed, and you are challenging the Orthodox notion that it has not, then show us the original altered text to prove your case.
[/quote]

I cannot show you the original of these document. No one can. You can do some research into NT corruption of scripture. Look into the field of textual criticism of the NT. You'll see for yourself what I am talking about. I am challening the Orthodox notion that scripture as we have it today is authentic, as it is not. As I stated before out of the 5000 surviving text no two are the same. Some of these text do contridict Orthodox teaching. I'm not going to do your research for you, but there is plenty out there.
Logged
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #49 on: June 29, 2005, 03:25:09 PM »

I cannot show you the original of these document. No one can. You can do some research into NT corruption of scripture. Look into the field of textual criticism of the NT. You'll see for yourself what I am talking about. I am challening the Orthodox notion that scripture as we have it today is authentic, as it is not. As I stated before out of the 5000 surviving text no two are the same. Some of these text do contridict Orthodox teaching. I'm not going to do your research for you, but there is plenty out there.

If YOU are making the claim and saying it is UNDENIABLE FACT, it is up to YOU to provide the proof.
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #50 on: June 29, 2005, 03:26:21 PM »

The true "Word" is inside of us
Logged
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #51 on: June 29, 2005, 03:26:51 PM »

Quote
There is no way to prove these are anyway accurate.

We don't have to prove anything; stop copping out by attempting to make it out as if the onus is on us. YOU are the one making the claim, thus the onus is on YOU to prove this assumed corruption or inaccuracy, otherwise you have nothing but conjecture. Is this really so hard for you to understand? If you think a 1000 year time span between the the period of earliest discovered text and the purported original text proves your case, then you are obviously applying pre-school history. In fact you might as well go down to your local library and burn down all the works of Caesar, Plato, Livy, Aristotle, Herodotus, Tacitus etc. etc.

If you would like to analyse the historical merit of a document and arrive at a reasonable and objective conclusion, I suggest you apply the standard criterion that secular historians employ when studying secular texts of antiquity - a criterion which does not presume inaccuracy or corruption of a text based on a 1, 000 year time span period between earliest copy and original copy. Go to your library and get C.S. Sanders' Introduction to Research in English Literary History. When you have done so and read it, I would like you to apply the standard principles of historiography to the facts in relation to the epistle in question, and compare your conclusions with those drawn by secular historians in relation to ancient secular texts. When you can prove that your conclusion is based on some reasonable standard and not just the result of arbitrary presumptions, then we can talk. Until then, you remain without a case.

Peace.
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #52 on: June 29, 2005, 03:29:55 PM »

Quote
You can do some research into NT corruption of scripture. Look into the field of textual criticism of the NT.

I Challenge you to debate textual criticism with me; I will enjoy the slaughter. Just give me reason that you're worth my time; for I have asked you 10 times now to substantiate your conjecture, and 10 times you have copped out. Let's see how you respond to my previous post.

Peace.
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
jmell
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142

OC.net


« Reply #53 on: June 29, 2005, 03:32:32 PM »

I understand most ancient works have been altered, as I have learned. But the early Christian document are unique in this case because they stand to be altered because of agendas. Aristole's writing are not religious documents that can be used to control. These documents are the most likely to be altered. Please stop talking down to me like I am uneducated, as you do not even know me.

Answer me a question, are you EO or OO

Logged
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #54 on: June 29, 2005, 03:36:47 PM »


This is accurate today, but this is the way it was. You cannot say this was never a normal event. There were no priest.
Actually the burden of proof is on you to prove there was no clergy-laity disctincion.  The Bishops (episcopos or "overseers")were specifically appointed by the apostles and their associates to lead the local churches.  "Priest" is actually derived from "prest" a shortened form of "presbyter" (or "elder") as any English dictionary will demonstrate.  It Seems you are trying to read certain radical reformation views back into history.
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #55 on: June 29, 2005, 03:40:33 PM »

I understand most ancient works have been altered, as I have learned. But the early Christian document are unique in this case because they stand to be altered because of agendas. Aristole's writing are not religious documents that can be used to control. These documents are the most likely to be altered. Please stop talking down to me like I am uneducated, as you do not even know me.



Sounds like you've "learned" an interesting spin on history. Grin
« Last Edit: June 29, 2005, 03:40:50 PM by Doubting Thomas » Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
jmell
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142

OC.net


« Reply #56 on: June 29, 2005, 03:42:42 PM »

[quote author=Νικολάος Διάκονος link=topic=6533.msg85179#msg85179 date=1120073109]
If YOU are making the claim and saying it is UNDENIABLE FACT, it is up to YOU to provide the proof.
[/quote]

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/texte/Papyri-list.html

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore/html/txtcrt.htm

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195102797/qid=1120073920/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-6994551-1765608?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195141830/ref=pd_sim_b_1/002-6994551-1765608?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1564592251/ref=cm_bg_d/002-6994551-1765608?v=glance
Here are some thing to check out
Logged
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #57 on: June 29, 2005, 03:50:27 PM »

Quote
I understand most ancient works have been altered, as I have learned.

Alteration as evident in variant documents does not negate the accuracy or reliability of the ultimate text. You really have no understanding of basic histiography whatsoever do you.

Quote
But the early Christian document are unique in this case because they stand to be altered because of agendas.


For the life of me, PROVE IT. How many times do we have to ask you for proof before you realise how stupid you look each time ignore the request?

Quote
Please stop talking down to me like I am uneducated, as you do not even know me.

I'm sorry, but that is the truth of the matter. You conclude inaccuracy from the mere observation of a 1000 year time span - what are you 12 years old? Do you believe in the accessibility of history at all? Show me one credible historian who supports your pre-school reasoning. Please go down to your local library and read the work I referred you to, educate yourself so we can have a good discussion, you're ignorance is boring.

Quote
Answer me a question, are you EO or OO

Why do you ask? Is it because you have been forced into a corner, such that you now want to distract and divert the issues at hand? Sorry we wont be played.

Peace.
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #58 on: June 29, 2005, 03:52:47 PM »


Here are some thing to check out
Ahhh....I see.  You may want to balance some of your reading.  JND Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines is good as is the Five volume series by Jaroslav Pelikan, another church historian.  NT Wright is pretty good as well.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2005, 03:55:18 PM by Doubting Thomas » Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
jmell
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142

OC.net


« Reply #59 on: June 29, 2005, 03:55:38 PM »

Ahhh....I see.  You may want to balance some of your reading.  JND Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines is good as is the Five volume series by Jaroslav Pelikan, another church historian.  NT Wright is pretty good as well.

I've got a copy of Ecclesiastical History to keep that balance, I think that's fair weight on both sides
Logged
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #60 on: June 29, 2005, 03:57:41 PM »

Quote
Here are some thing to check out

What a joke; you refer to Bart Ehrman works, yet the fact of the matter is that Bart Ehram does not support your conclusions. Here is the evidence, based on Bart Ehrman's own words:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html#ehrman

Peace.
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #61 on: June 29, 2005, 04:10:17 PM »

Just incase you're afraid to access the above link, just to discover that you are referencing the works of authors who clearly don't agree with your conclusions; allow me to quote the eminent Dr. Ehrman, and then I will provide you with quotations of other credible Biblical Scholars on the issue:

Dr Ehrman states:

Quote
I do not think that the "corruption" of Scripture means that scribes changed everything in the text, or even most things. The original texts certainly spoke at great length about Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. The issues involved in the corruption of the text usually entail nuances of interpretation. These are important nuances; but most of the New Testament can be reconstructed by scholars with reasonable certainty -- as much certainty as we can reconstruct *any* book of the ancient world.

With exactly how much certainty can we reconstruct the New Testament text?

“The resulting text is 99.99 percent accurate, and the remaining questions do not affect any area of cardinal Christian doctrine.” (Gary R. Habermas, "Why I Believe the New Testament Is Historically Reliable," in Why I Am A Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe, edited by Norman L. Geisler and Paul K. Hoffman, 2001)

“only about one eighth of all variants [have] any weight, as most of them are merely mechanical matters such as spelling or style. Of the whole, then, only about one sixtieth rise above 'trvialities,'...mathematically this would compute to a text which is 98.3% pure.”  (Geisler, Norman. L. and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, 1968, page 365)

“Next to the New Testament, there are more extant manuscripts of the Iliad (643) than any other book. Both it and the Bible were considered 'sacred' and both underwent textual changes and criticism of their Greek manuscripts. The News Testament has about 20,000 lines...the Iliad [has] about 15,600. Only 40 lines (or 400 words) of the New Testament are in doubt whereas 764 lines of the Illiad are questioned. This 5% textual corruption compares with one and a half percent of similar emendations in the New Testament...” (Geisler, A General Introduction to the Bible, 1968, pages 366-37)

And with regards to that approx. 1% textual corruption, what do the learned men have to say?

Phillip Schaff says of the variations, that not a single one of them altered “an article of faith or a precept of duty which is not abundantly sustained by other and undoubted passages, or by the whole tenor of Scripture teaching” (Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version, 1960, page 177)

Warfield boldly declares that the facts show that the great majority of the New Testament “has been transmitted to us with no, or next to no, variation; and even in the most corrupt form in which it has ever appeared, to use the oft-quoted words of Richard Bentley, 'the real text of the sacred writers is competently exact...nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost. choose as awkwardly as you will, choose the worst by design, out of the whole lump of readings.” (Introduction toÂÂ  to Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 1907, page 14)

Enjoy, there is plenty more where that came from.

Peace.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2005, 04:11:33 PM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #62 on: June 29, 2005, 04:30:24 PM »

Quote

In relation to the above referenced book, it is debunked here:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/wheless/wheless_intro.htm

And here:

http://www.tektonics.org/uz/whelessj01.html

Come on jmell, wouldn't it just be more honest of you to directly deal with the issues as opposed to copping out by throwing around links of those who a) do not support your arguments and b) who are Biblically and historically illierate?

Peace.
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #63 on: June 29, 2005, 04:48:25 PM »

Keep 'em coming, EA. : Cool
« Last Edit: June 29, 2005, 04:50:13 PM by Doubting Thomas » Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #64 on: June 30, 2005, 10:25:52 AM »

Keep 'em coming, EA. : Cool

<Stepping in for Bogo and Ania>

Ahem.

Yes, you can keep engaging in this debate, but seriously, this is a warning for this thread.ÂÂ  We get any more labels like "satanic" and insulting questions like, "what are you, 12?" and this thread is closed.ÂÂ  So you don't agree with jmell.ÂÂ  Fine.ÂÂ  Neither do I, for that matter.ÂÂ  But kindly cool it, k?ÂÂ  It's one thing to instruct and debate, another to lecture and insult.

Thanks.

Pedro


jmell...Do you have any citations for your assertions that the early church was lay-run and that such a clerical takeover happened?ÂÂ  I refer not to books we'd have to buy, but citations we'd be able to read here?ÂÂ  When one makes such claims as you're making, it's up to that person to provide citations, references, etc. which are immediately available for discussion.ÂÂ  Your claims are pretty radically different from what most of us adhere to, so you'll need to offer more than two-line posts that state your belief and then leave it at that.ÂÂ  Where can we see for ourselves that this corruption and takeover occurred?ÂÂ  For us, the continuity between the Apostles in the NT and the Fathers of the first few centuries is pretty plain.

DT -- NICE REFERENCES, man.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2005, 10:27:36 AM by Pedro » Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #65 on: June 30, 2005, 11:22:30 AM »

Quote
But kindly cool it, k?


 Cool
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #66 on: June 30, 2005, 12:11:14 PM »


DT -- NICE REFERENCES, man.
Thanks.
(Congrats on the new baby, BTW--I've been keeping up with your blog.  Smiley )
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
DennyB
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 218


Moving Toward Orthodoxy


« Reply #67 on: July 09, 2005, 12:59:42 AM »

I haven't posted in awile, read all the threads,this Jmell is a hard nut to crack!!,I'm  worn out just reading all of this.

Maybe I could get in on this a little bit.

How are you Doubting Thomas?,we haven't conversed in awile.
Logged
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #68 on: July 10, 2005, 01:33:41 PM »

How are you Doubting Thomas?,we haven't conversed in awile.
I'm doing alright, just trying to fight off a cold.  Hope you are well. Smiley
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Tags: modernists GreekIsPagan communion Protestant Christianity 
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 0.085 seconds with 50 queries.