Orthodox Old Testament
PF2253
LXX published by Oxford Uni, with Eng Trans by side, but it is only the text of
the wesstern OT-ie none of what the Wst calls the Apocrypha, although it keeps
the LXX recension of Jeremiah.
I went into my local Christian bookshop today and loooked at a Catholic edition
of the New RSV, which appeared to be as close as I could find. The bloke in te
shop did not have a Jerusalem Bible.
Any suggestions?
Paul
Church of the Holy Transfiguration, Nottingham
Nick Theodorakis
There is some work being done on a new English translation, see:
There was also the version by Brenton from the 19th cent (is that the
one you have already?), see:
<http://www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/>
In XC,
Nick
--
Nick Theodorakis
nicholas_t...@urmc.rochester.edu
http://www.stjohnsroch.org/
Stradivari1688
>one you have already?), see:
I have this Brenton LXX translation and like it very much. Are there plans to
publish a complete Bible with the Brenton LXX translation and an NT translation
using similar language?
Which leads me to another question--is Brenton's work copyrighted?
Danward44
Unworthy
Danward44 wrote:
Check outCheck out
http://www.orthodoxlight.homestead.com/APOCRYPHA.html
Articles Mainly for Protestants: Orthodox Christian Information Center
Stradivari1688
>Check out http://www.orthodoxlight.homestead.com/APOCRYPHA.html
I did, and I couldn't agree with you more. Quoting from that page:
"The apocryphal books consist of wisdom books (such as Sirach), religious
romances (such as Tobit), history (such as Maccabees) and additions to other
books of the Old Testament (such as Bel and the Dragon, added to the book of
Daniel). While Protestants consider them useful for useful for historical
purposes in understanding the times in which they were written, they do not
consider them to be scripture for the reasons cited above. In so far as the
books promote false doctrines, such as the possibility of praying for the dead
or purchasing eternal life, the apocryphal books go beyond history and become
dangerous to persons seeking to obtain eternal life."
Now quoting from "Catechism of the Orthodox Church" (St. Tikhon's Press, S.
Canaan, PA):
"Q: Why is there no notice taken in this enumeration of the books of the Old
Testament of the book of Wisdom of the Son of Sirach, and of certain others?"
"A: Because they do not exist in the Hebrew."
"Q: How are we to regard these last named books?"
"A: Athanasius the Great says that they have been appointed of the fathers by
proselytes, who are preparing for admission into the Church."
Furthermore, it is a well-known fact that the Septuagint was the version of the
OT used as Scripture by the early Christians, and the writers of the books of
the New Testament who composed their work in Greek.
My question had nothing to do with the canonicity of the Apocrypha; whether I
regard it as canonical or not has nothing to do with my preference for the
Septuagint as THE authoritative version of the OT, given that it was THE
version used by the Apostles and their disciples in composing the various books
of the NT.
PF2253
>From: stradiv...@aol.comwpoeuf89 (Stradivari1688)
>Date: 10/03/02 17:46 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <20020310124637...@mb-fk.aol.com>
For once Stradi Im in full agreement with you
Paul
PF2253
>>LXX published by Oxford Uni, with Eng Trans by side, but it is only the text
>of
>>the wesstern OT-ie none of what the Wst calls the Apocrypha, although it
>keeps
>>the LXX recension of Jeremiah.
Actually looking at it again it is publisehd by Bagster>There was also the
version by Brenton from the 19th cent (is that the
>one you have already?), see
dont know no one is credited
Paul
Stradivari1688
>For once Stradi Im in full agreement with you
>
>Paul
(scratching my head)
When weren't you in full agreement with me? Sorry for my short memory!
If it's about my conservative rantings, remember that both you and I want to
help make the world better, but we have different ideas about how to go about
doing that!
In any case, thanks.
Lee Malatesta
> Check out http://www.orthodoxlight.homestead.com/APOCRYPHA.html
To which Unworthy replied:
> Check out Articles Mainly for Protestants: Orthodox Christian
> Information Center
The URI would be: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_protestants.htm
Kyralessa
in Scripture; it's whether the rest of the books should be. Your website
says:
"The sixty-six canonical books of the Bible as originally written were
inspired of God, hence free from error. They constitute the only infallible
guide in faith and practice."
But why do you believe this? If you're like most Protestants, you just take
it for granted. Because if you really tried to find a good, solid
foundation for this belief...well, then you'd probably end up Orthodox like
a lot of us, because you'd discover that there isn't any basis for this
belief that doesn't end up either 1) at the Church, or 2) going in a circle
("The Bible is inspired; we know this because the Bible says so.").
--
"Danward44" <danw...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020309144058...@mb-cu.aol.com...
> Check out
> http://www.orthodoxlight.homestead.com/APOCRYPHA.html
Danward44
Greetings! I wrote:
<<"The sixty-six canonical books of the Bible as originally written were
inspired of God, hence free from error. They constitute the only infallible
guide in faith and practice.">>
You wrote
<<But why do you believe this? If you're like most Protestants, you just take
it for granted. Because if you really tried to find a good, solid
foundation for this belief...well, then you'd probably end up Orthodox like
a lot of us, because you'd discover that there isn't any basis for this
belief that doesn't end up either 1) at the Church, or 2) going in a circle
("The Bible is inspired; we know this because the Bible says so.").>>
The reasons why one should believe the Bible is inspired are many. First, the
Bible predicts the future. There are many prophecies in the Bible that are
coming true today (like the Is. 11:11 prophecy on the return of Israel to
palestine). Second, the Bible is archaeologically correct as much research
shows and as ongoing research confirms regularly. Third, the Bible is
scientifically correct, as passages like Job 26:7 (God suspended the earth on
nothing) shows. Fourtth, the Bible is historically correct. Fifthly, the
Bible has proven itself correct subjectively in practical applicaiton by
millions of Christians. We do not accept the Bible because a denomination says
it is so, as currently there are many religions and many Christian
denominations. We cannot accept something just because someone says, "This is
the world of God." Hindus, Muslims, etc., say the same thing about their holy
books. If you were to say that we should accept the testimony of the Orthodox
denominations about the Bible because they were "there first" I would have to
say that the Orthodox church as we know it today bears little resemblance to
the early church of the apostles. The icons, the prayer to saints, baptism of
infants, veneration of relics, all are proven to be additions to the faith that
came hundreds of years after the apostles. Of that there is little doubt, as
your own historical research will show you, I am sure.
Dan
Unworthy
Lee Malatesta wrote:
Did the link work? Because when I drag it into my message that's the way it
puts it. My friends never complained it didn't work.
Bari Stepanovich
>Dear Ryan,
>Greetings! I wrote:
><<"The sixty-six canonical books of the Bible as originally written were
>inspired of God, hence free from error. They constitute the only infallible
>guide in faith and practice.">>
>
> You wrote
><<But why do you believe this? If you're like most Protestants, you just take
>it for granted. Because if you really tried to find a good, solid
>foundation for this belief...well, then you'd probably end up Orthodox like
>a lot of us, because you'd discover that there isn't any basis for this
>belief that doesn't end up either 1) at the Church, or 2) going in a circle
>("The Bible is inspired; we know this because the Bible says so.").>>
>
>The reasons why one should believe the Bible is inspired are many. First, the
>Bible predicts the future. There are many prophecies in the Bible that are
>coming true today (like the Is. 11:11 prophecy on the return of Israel to
>palestine).
Dan, why do you assume that is the prophecy's interpretation?
> Second, the Bible is archaeologically correct as much research
>shows and as ongoing research confirms regularly. Third, the Bible is
>scientifically correct, as passages like Job 26:7 (God suspended the earth on
>nothing) shows. Fourtth, the Bible is historically correct. Fifthly, the
>Bible has proven itself correct subjectively in practical applicaiton by
>millions of Christians. We do not accept the Bible because a denomination says
>it is so, as currently there are many religions and many Christian
>denominations.
But only ONE Church.
You spend much of your free time here striving against it.
> We cannot accept something just because someone says, "This is
>the world of God." Hindus, Muslims, etc., say the same thing about their holy
>books. If you were to say that we should accept the testimony of the Orthodox
>denominations about the Bible because they were "there first" I would have to
>say that the Orthodox church as we know it today bears little resemblance to
>the early church of the apostles.
And I would say to you, "prove it".
> The icons, the prayer to saints, baptism of
>infants, veneration of relics, all are proven to be additions to the faith that
>came hundreds of years after the apostles.
Prove that too, while you're at it......
Or should we just take your word for it?
Scripture, history, the Patristics, and Holy Tradition ALL show you to
be in error Dan.
> Of that there is little doubt, as
>your own historical research will show you, I am sure.
>Dan
The very extensive historical research I did while still a protestant
like you, led me to the exact opposite of what you propose here.
How, Dan?
How did all of the sources you provide as an argument AGAINST the One,
Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, rather lead me INTO it?
As to the thread topic:
How do you know which books are canonical and which are not?
The reasons you cite above are not possible ways. Try again.
In XC,
Bari Stepanovich
*****************************************************************************
IC XC
--+-- "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner."
NI KA
Bob Mounger
>
> >danw...@aol.com (Danward44) wrote:
>
> >Check out http://www.orthodoxlight.homestead.com/APOCRYPHA.html
>
> Testament of the book of Wisdom of the Son of Sirach, and of certain others?"
>
> "A: Because they do not exist in the Hebrew."
>
> "Q: How are we to regard these last named books?"
>
> "A: Athanasius the Great says that they have been appointed of the fathers by
> proselytes, who are preparing for admission into the Church."
>
Note that in St. Athanasios' paschal letter that deals with this
subject
& is available online in the CCEL, "certain others" includes the book of
Esther &
anything else that is Aramaic only...
Cordially,
--
Bob Mounger
Chris
danw...@aol.com says...
> I would have to
> say that the Orthodox church as we know it today bears little resemblance to
> the early church of the apostles. The icons, the prayer to saints, baptism of
> infants, veneration of relics, all are proven to be additions to the faith that
> came hundreds of years after the apostles. Of that there is little doubt, as
> your own historical research will show you, I am sure.
Icons and iconic imagery- found in almost *every* Jewish synagogue
ever excavated excavated in archaeological sites from the 2nd Temple
period in Palestine and particularly Galilee, thereby predating
Christianity. Refer to the Biblical Archaeology Review.
NEXT!!!
Prayers to Saints- The Book of Maccabees describes this. While you may
not accept the books as scripture, they do show what Jewish practice was
*prior* to the advent of Christianity. As a result, Christianity
incorporated an *existing* jewish practices and concepts from the time
period.
NEXT!!!
Baptism of infants- no evidence of adult only baptism in the
historical record of the first few centuries. Scripture itself is silent
on the issue. However, theologians as renowned as John Calvin, Martin
Luther, and John Wesley approved of infant baptism. Frankly Dan when it
comes to baptismal theology you can't even begin to hold a candle to the
likes of John Wesley. Come to think of it Wesley wrote a book defending
the title of Mother of God for Mary. Of couse that's for another
topic. Gotta love those Methodists and the Wesley's!!
NEXT!!!
Veneration of relics- first descriptions in the historical record occur
approximately 100 years after the crucifixion. That hardly qualifies as
"centuries" Dan
Next????
Chris
>
> > "Q: Why is there no notice taken in this enumeration of the books of the Old
> > Testament of the book of Wisdom of the Son of Sirach, and of certain others?"
> >
> > "A: Because they do not exist in the Hebrew."
> >
Isn't it also true that parts of the OT accepted in the Jewish canon
exist only in Aramaic, such as parts of Daniel and Amos?
Kyralessa
> The reasons why one should believe the Bible is inspired are many.
First, the
> Bible predicts the future. There are many prophecies in the Bible that are
> coming true today (like the Is. 11:11 prophecy on the return of Israel to
> palestine).
We'll just have to look at that in context, I suppose. Please read
carefully, then see the comments at the end:
-----------------------------
(Isaiah 11:1-12:6)
There shall come forth a Rod from the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall
grow out of his roots. The Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon Him, the
Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the
Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD. His delight is in the fear
of the LORD, and He shall not judge by the sight of His eyes, nor decide by
the hearing of His ears; but with righteousness He shall judge the poor, and
decide with equity for the meek of the earth; He shall strike the earth with
the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He shall slay the
wicked. Righteousness shall be the belt of His loins, And faithfulness the
belt of His waist.
"The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with
the young goat, the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a
little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze; their young
ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The
nursing child shall play by the cobra's hole, and the weaned child shall put
his hand in the viper's den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy
mountain, for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the
waters cover the sea. And in that day there shall be a Root of Jesse, who
shall stand as a banner to the people; for the Gentiles shall seek Him, and
His resting place shall be glorious."
It shall come to pass in that day that the LORD shall set His hand again the
second time to recover the remnant of His people who are left, from Assyria
and Egypt, from Pathros and Cush, from Elam and Shinar, from Hamath and the
islands of the sea. He will set up a banner for the nations, and will
assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah
from the four corners of the earth. Also the envy of Ephraim shall depart,
and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off; Ephraim shall not envy Judah,
and Judah shall not harass Ephraim. But they shall fly down upon the
shoulder of the Philistines toward the west; Together they shall plunder the
people of the East; they shall lay their hand on Edom and Moab; And the
people of Ammon shall obey them. The LORD will utterly destroy the tongue
of the Sea of Egypt; with His mighty wind He will shake His fist over the
River, and strike it in the seven streams, And make men cross over dry-shod.
There will be a highway for the remnant of His people who will be left from
Assyria, as it was for Israel In the day that he came up from the land of
Egypt.
And in that day you will say: "O LORD, I will praise You; though You were
angry with me, Your anger is turned away, and You comfort me. Behold, God
is my salvation, I will trust and not be afraid; 'For YAH, the LORD, is my
strength and song; He also has become my salvation.' " Therefore with joy
you will draw water from the wells of salvation. And in that day you will
say: "Praise the LORD, call upon His name; declare His deeds among the
peoples, make mention that His name is exalted. Sing to the LORD, for He
has done excellent things; this is known in all the earth. Cry out and
shout, O inhabitant of Zion, for great is the Holy One of Israel in your
midst!"
-----------------------------
Now does this really sound like a prophecy fulfilled by the modern nation of
Israel? "They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain, for the
earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as waters cover the sea."
Given the headlines we see every day, I'd say there's still quite a bit of
time to go before we can consider this prophecy fulfilled. And this can be
said for other parts of Isaiah as well, such as Isaiah 2:1-4.
> Second, the Bible is archaeologically correct as much research
> shows and as ongoing research confirms regularly.
Why would the fact that a book is archaeologically correct prove that it
comes from God?
> Third, the Bible is
> scientifically correct, as passages like Job 26:7 (God suspended the earth
on
> nothing) shows.
Why would the fact that a book is scientifically correct prove that it comes
from God?
> Fourtth, the Bible is historically correct.
Why would...well, you know what I'm about to say.
> Fifthly, the
> Bible has proven itself correct subjectively in practical applicaiton by
> millions of Christians.
One can say this about any holy book; it proves nothing.
> We do not accept the Bible because a denomination says
> it is so, as currently there are many religions and many Christian
> denominations. We cannot accept something just because someone says, "This
is
> the world [sic] of God." Hindus, Muslims, etc., say the same thing about
their holy
> books.
On this, at least, I can agree with you...
> If you were to say that we should accept the testimony of the Orthodox
> denominations about the Bible because they were "there first" I would have
to
> say that the Orthodox church as we know it today bears little resemblance
to
> the early church of the apostles. The icons, the prayer to saints, baptism
of
> infants, veneration of relics, all are proven to be additions to the faith
that
> came hundreds of years after the apostles. Of that there is little doubt,
as
> your own historical research will show you, I am sure.
Actually, Dan, my historical research showed me quite the opposite. This is
why I became Orthodox.
Back in high school, I had some friends who were LDS (Mormons). The LDS
church claims to be the one true church, which is not a claim Protestant
denominations generally make (they claim to be just part of the one true
church, for instance). So it seemed a claim worth investigating.
Mormonism looks nice from the outside: they believe in Jesus, they're very
family-oriented and friendly, they seem to have pretty stable families and
relationships and be successful. But what I found is that the more I
studied it, the more bizarre it got, from their "extra" Scriptures to odd
beliefs about Jesus and Satan being brothers to strange initiation
ceremonies and all sorts of other stuff which you can read for yourself in a
number of books.
Years later I began to study the Orthodox Church, another church which makes
the claim of being the one true church. And what I found was quite the
opposite of my experience with Mormonism. Up front, the Orthodox Church
looked quite bizarre to me. But the more I studied it, the more things made
sense and fell into place.
I could give detailed examples of this, Dan, but it's kind of tedious. I'd
spend an hour here typing and you wouldn't read it, or you'd read it and
ignore it, because you're not here to learn; you're just here to proselytize
without knowing much about the Church you're trying to convert people out
of. Anyhow others have done quite a bit of writing on this whole subject,
as you can see if you happen to follow the links others have recommended.
One final note: You haven't really answered the question. Why do you
believe the Bible is of God? None of the reasons you've listed make the
Bible unique in any way; there's no reason to believe that a book is of God
just because it can manage to avoid errors. If this week's TV Guide manages
to avoid any errors, does that mean it's divinely inspired?
This is a big issue to wrestle with, Dan, and if you don't think it is, that
merely shows that you don't fully understand it yet. Biblical inspiration
(usually in the context of "inerrancy") is the big Protestant assumption on
which the whole house of cards rests; some Protestants even have the notion
that if one could prove an error in the Bible, then God would no longer
exist and the universe would crumble. So I'll prove one right now and we'll
see what happens.
Genesis 6:6
And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved
in His heart.
1 Samuel 15:28-29
So Samuel said to him, "The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you
today, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you. And
also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent. For He is not a man,
that He should relent.
Now on the face of it, these don't seem to have much in common, though other
translations make it clearer. (These are from NKJV.) But when we look at
the Hebrew, we find a common root: NHM. In the Niphal pattern this verb
means to repent, reconsider, or change one's mind. NHM in the Niphal is
used in Genesis 6:6: "And the LORD was sorry (NHM, Niphal) that He had made
man on the earth..." NHM in the Niphal is also used in 1 Samuel 15:29:
"For He is not a man, that He should relent (NHM, Niphal)."
Same verb, same verb pattern. One verse says that the Lord did this; the
other one says that the Lord does not do this, but only men do. So which is
right? Now we could talk about sources and whatnot, but as an evangelical,
Dan, I imagine you don't believe in all that crap. This is the _Bible_, for
Pete's sake. So what you will proceed to do now is explain how, through
some tortured attempt at logic, one of those verses just doesn't mean what
it says. Here's another couple examples for you:
Exodus 32:14
So the LORD relented (NHM, Niphal) from the harm which He said He would do
to His people.
Num 23:19
God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should
repent (NHM, Niphal). Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken,
and will He not make it good?
If you know Hebrew, Dan, read it for yourself. It's very simple; some
verses say God will not ever NHM because only man does that. Other verses
say that God did in fact NHM.
The reason evangelicals think the Bible is inerrant and has no
contradictions is because they explain it to a point where nothing could
ever be a contradiction. If I say I saw one man, but my friend says he saw
two, well, we're both right, cause I just didn't happen to mention the other
man. If my friend says this fellow said one thing, but I say he said
another thing, well, we can assume he said both, and each of us is just
remembering selectively. This sort of absurdity goes on and on; but I can
personally attest that there's a great feeling of freedom when you finally
allow your brain to break out of it.
I understand why you posted your inerrancy litany, Dan; many of us who are
now Orthodox also believe in it at one time. That was because we'd heard a
lot of preaching to the choir; we'd never been forced to seriously examine
our own presuppositions and assumptions and realize where our faith rested.
I hope you'll allow yourself to go through this same period of questioning;
it may disrupt your life, but you'll find your faith the better for it.
Stradivari1688
>exist only in Aramaic, such as parts of Daniel and Amos?
I don't know, but to clarify things a bit, the Orthodox catechism lists the 39
protocanonical books as part of the OT, and the books not existing "in the
Hebrew" are the so-called Apocrypha (deuterocanon).
So, doesn't anyone have an answer to my first question?
Is there (in a single volume) a translation of the LXX together with the NT in
language similar to the KJV or Douay Bible? The Brenton translation comes very
close, but I can't find it anywhere as part of a complete Bible.
Lee Malatesta
> First of all, Jesus never referred to them, and they are not
> quoted in the New Testament scriptures.
Jesus teaching about the fruit of a tree being evidence of its roots
is from Son of Sirach 17:6. Romans 1:19-25 clearly alludes to Wisdom
12 and 13. Hebrews 11:35 is a verbatim quotation from 2 Maccabees 7.
Also see James Akin's list of New Testament references to the Apocrpha
at: http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm
Regards,
Lee
Chris
stradiv...@aol.comwpoeuf89 says...
>
> Is there (in a single volume) a translation of the LXX together with the NT in
> language similar to the KJV or Douay Bible? The Brenton translation comes very
> close, but I can't find it anywhere as part of a complete Bible.
No such volume exists as far as I know.
Chris
ryan_...@SPAMLESShotmail.com says...
>
> Mormonism looks nice from the outside: they believe in Jesus, they're very
> family-oriented and friendly, they seem to have pretty stable families and
> relationships and be successful. But what I found is that the more I
> studied it, the more bizarre it got, from their "extra" Scriptures to odd
> beliefs about Jesus and Satan being brothers to strange initiation
> ceremonies and all sorts of other stuff which you can read for yourself in a
> number of books.
Don't be to sure about LDS's. As a shrink who has practiced in many
regions of the country with a wide variety of people, let me tell you,
there appears to be a direct relationship between fundamentalist religion
and psychiatric illness. Those "stable" Mormon families are probably not
as healthy as you might imagine just by looking on the outsie.
K
"Danward44" <danw...@aol.com> wrote
> You wrote
> <<But why do you believe this? If you're like most Protestants, you just
take
> it for granted. Because if you really tried to find a good, solid
> foundation for this belief...well, then you'd probably end up Orthodox
like
> a lot of us, because you'd discover that there isn't any basis for this
> belief that doesn't end up either 1) at the Church, or 2) going in a
circle
> ("The Bible is inspired; we know this because the Bible says so.").>>
>
> The reasons why one should believe the Bible is inspired are many.
First, the
> Bible predicts the future. There are many prophecies in the Bible that are
> coming true today (like the Is. 11:11 prophecy on the return of Israel to
> palestine).
The church is Israel. And when Jerusalem was destroyed by the pagan Romans
in 70AD, the Christians did return and it was a Christian city.
Stradivari1688
>there appears to be a direct relationship between fundamentalist religion
>and psychiatric illness.
Well, Doc, it all started when I was.....
Stradivari1688
>> Is there (in a single volume) a translation of the LXX together with the NT
>in
>> language similar to the KJV or Douay Bible? The Brenton translation comes
>very
>> close, but I can't find it anywhere as part of a complete Bible.
>
>No such volume exists as far as I know.
Anyone know if the Brenton translation is copyrighted?
Maybe I could put them together myself.
Chris
stradiv...@aol.comwpoeuf89 says...
fundamentalism. While it happen everywhere, with any religious
tradition, here in the USA the more extreme forms of protestantism seem
to generate alot of emotional scarring and deep pain because of the very
nature of the religion. I can't begin to tell you the number of women and
men who have told me "In public my father was an upstanding
deacon/preacher/evangelist who was prominant in *insert name of generic
fundamentalist church* whom everyone respected; but behind closed doors
he did unspeakable things to me in secret ...." It isn't just the RC
Church which has a problem with sexual and emotional abuse. It occurs in
silence, in families from protestant evangelical backrounds in a *much*
higher percentage than among the "unchurched" or among non-Christians.
I believe it all boils down to the pervasive repression and denial one
sees in such evangelical protestant churches. Also involved is the way
fundamentalists only seem to be able to give inane and simplistic answers
to the complex questions inherent in life. Ask our buddy Dan or many
other right-wing evangelical protestant who trolls online about the
purpose of existence and I am sure you will get an answer whose banality
will astonish. Ask St. Seraphim of Sarov or the Desert Fathers the same
question and the difference is will strike wonder in your heart. The
great thing about the EOC is the fact we have different and better
answers and better tools as well. For example, the mystery of Confession
is a wonderful tool for healing, but the evangelical protestant has no
such outlet and so they must repress and repress and deny and deny until
the sad day when control is lost, and then damage to another person is
done.
Danward44
Danward44
Note the following quote from the web site:
<<I get a lot of requests for a list of the references the New Testament makes
to the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament. Unfortunately, giving a
list is not such a simple affair since it is not always obvious whether
something is a genuine reference. >>
Danward44
Let me try that again re icons:
In "A History of the Iconoclastic Controversy," (Edward James Martin,
D.D, 1930, reprint 1978 by Macmillan) Dr. Martin notes of icons that, "No
record of any of them can be traced earlier than the fourth century, and the
sixth century is the period in which they really became significant. The
attempt to establish an apostolic tradition by such a list of pictures
definitely breaks down. The earliest authentic examples of distinct Christian
pictures are those described by 4th-century writers like Gregory of Nyssa and
St. John Chrysostom. Pictures of Christ are very rare among them.
By far the majority still represented stories of the saints and symbolical
Old Testament scenes like the sacrifice of Isaac. The appeal to authority
does not help the Orthodox case much, while the appeal to tradition only
carries it to the fourth century."
Similarly, in "The Early Church," (E. Glenn Hinson, Abingdon Press,
1996), the author notes that "the earliest Christian vault and wall mosaics
discovered thus far are located in a small mausoleum under St. Peter's in
Rome. Built during the second century for the Ulii family, the mosaics
probably date from the middle of the third century and after. A mosaic in
the center of the vault depicts Christ as the unconquered sun driving his
chariot across the sky, with the nimbus around his head shooting out like the
arms of the cross and bearing in his left hand an orb. The pagan sun god has
been transformed into the risen Christ, triumphant over death and Lord of the
Universe. Church art in this period did not achieve the splendor it attained
in the next two centuries, but at Constantine's urging it improved rapidly."
(page 244)
In response to some who say that Christ was painted by Luke, the
assistant to the Apostle Paul, Protestants note that there is no evidence
that Luke ever painted Christ. Luke was a Greek, and ministry to the Greeks
did not start until after Christ had ascended. Luke was evidently saved
through the ministry of Paul many years after Christ had ascended to heaven
and before Peter and Paul had begun ministry to the Greeks. It is very
unlikely that he ever ever saw the Lord.
The fact that many of the paintings of Jesus are similar is also not an
evidence that they show what Christ looked like, Protestants believe. This is
because these paintings are all of a handsome Christ, but the Bible says in
Isaiah 53:2 (NIV) that: "He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him."
Danward44
You mentioned you had done research and that led you to become Orthodox. Well I
don't want to comment on your research skills, but read the following regarding
just one of the areas in which the facts show that Orthodoxy has added many
practices hundreds of years after the apostles:
This is from www.orthodoxlight.homestead.com
Kyralessa
Fourth century, mid third-century... So we're getting earlier. Note that
this is when the mosaics "probably" date from. We're not dealing with
carbon dating here (which I doubt Dan believes in anyway). This sort of
dating is subjective to a degree, and would depend to some extent on how
early one believes Christians would have used imagery. But this is not the
most important point; for that, see below.
> In response to some who say that Christ was painted by Luke, the
> assistant to the Apostle Paul, Protestants note that there is no evidence
> that Luke ever painted Christ. Luke was a Greek, and ministry to the
Greeks
> did not start until after Christ had ascended. Luke was evidently saved
> through the ministry of Paul many years after Christ had ascended to
heaven
> and before Peter and Paul had begun ministry to the Greeks. It is very
> unlikely that he ever ever saw the Lord.
Actually, the Orthodox Tradition is that the first icon was created by
Christ Himself for King Agbar of Edessa. You can read about in these
places:
http://www.udayton.edu/mary/resources/icon.html
http://www.northwestartgallery.com/iconhistory.htm
The second icon, painted by St Luke, was not of Christ alone; rather it was
of the Virgin Mary with Christ (as a child) in her arms. (Clearly, Dan, you
haven't overexerted yourself researching this area.)
It should be quite obvious that Luke could have had a chance to meet the
Virgin Mary before her death and assumption into heaven. Whether this in
fact happened is obviously something we will never be able to prove one way
or the other by empirical methodology, though we should consider that the
Virgin Mary is the probably source of certain unique parts of Luke's Gospel
such as the Magnificat and the story of the birth of St John the Forerunner.
So for Luke to have depicted the Virgin Mary requires no miraculous
intervention. As for depicting Christ, we may reasonably suppose that Luke
was guided by those who had known Christ, such as the apostles and the
Virgin Mary. For that matter, to Protestants who believe that the Holy
Spirit guides the hands of the NT writers as they wrote Scripture, it
shouldn't seem unreasonable to conjecture that the Holy Spirit guided the
hands of Luke as they wrote the icon of the Virgin Mary and the Savior.
They may debate whether the Holy Spirit _would_ have done this; but there
can be no doubt that the Holy Spirit _could_ have done this.
(You can read more about St Luke the Evangelist here:)
http://www.stlukeorthodox.com/html/stluke.htm
But there are two important issues in regards to iconography. One is: When
did it arise? The second is: Should it have arisen?
The answer to the first is difficult; we need to remember that absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence. We may only have icons dating back to
the third or fourth century; this does not mean that no icons existed
beforehand. We only have scrolls and manuscripts of the Old Testament
dating back to the first century; does this mean that no prior manuscripts
existed, and everything was passed down orally until the time of Christ? Of
course, we are told that scrolls were used long before that, but if we don't
have the actual scrolls, we can't be sure, can we? By the same token, we're
told that icons go back to the first century. This doesn't prove that they
do, but it seems foolish to conclude that they do not merely because we
possess no icons of such antiquity.
Further, considering that the Church passed through two major periods of
iconoclasm, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that we don't possess many
early icons, and none before a certain time period. We're fortunate to
possess the preiconoclasm icons that we do have, as most of them were
destroyed.
The fact remains that we'll probably never be able to "prove" whether there
were icons around in the time of the apostles. Which means that the
Protestants can't use that as an argument against icons; nor can the
Orthodox use it as an argument for them. Instead, we need to consider the
theology of icons and the nature of Christianity to understand whether we
should have icons or not.
Who was the first iconographer?
You've most likely got an answer in your head to that question now, and your
answer is wrong. There was another iconographer before that, one who dared
to depict the divine nature in material form, and Scripture tells us of
this:
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For
by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth,
visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or
powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before
all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body,
the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all
things He may have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in Him
all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to
Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made
peace through the blood of His cross."
(Colossians 1:15-20)
Can one depict the divine nature through material? In fact, God Himself did
this. The Bible itself tells us that Jesus Christ was the ikonon, the
image, of the invisible God. If the Orthodox are audacious in daring to
depict the divine nature, they are only so because God Himself led the way.
There are many arguments against iconography; but none of the arguments are
new. All of the Protestant arguments against icons were used back the days
of iconoclasm, and back then they were answered. One good source for such
answers is the writings of St John of Damascus. You can find one such work
here:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/johndamascus-images.html
In this newsgroup we could hash out again the arguments and their answers,
but it would seem simpler to ask Dan to read the work linked above, and then
let us know where he disagrees and why, or if he has further questions.
Bari Stepanovich
>Whoops
>Let me try that again re icons:
>
>In "A History of the Iconoclastic Controversy," (Edward James Martin,
>D.D, 1930, reprint 1978 by Macmillan) Dr. Martin notes of icons that, "No
>record of any of them can be traced earlier than the fourth century, and the
>sixth century is the period in which they really became significant. The
>attempt to establish an apostolic tradition by such a list of pictures
>definitely breaks down. The earliest authentic examples of distinct Christian
>pictures are those described by 4th-century writers like Gregory of Nyssa and
>St. John Chrysostom. Pictures of Christ are very rare among them.
>By far the majority still represented stories of the saints and symbolical
>Old Testament scenes like the sacrifice of Isaac. The appeal to authority
>does not help the Orthodox case much, while the appeal to tradition only
>carries it to the fourth century."
How nice.
>Similarly, in "The Early Church," (E. Glenn Hinson, Abingdon Press,
>1996), the author notes that "the earliest Christian vault and wall mosaics
>discovered thus far are located in a small mausoleum under St. Peter's in
>Rome. Built during the second century for the Ulii family, the mosaics
>probably date from the middle of the third century and after. A mosaic in
>the center of the vault depicts Christ as the unconquered sun driving his
>chariot across the sky, with the nimbus around his head shooting out like the
>arms of the cross and bearing in his left hand an orb. The pagan sun god has
>been transformed into the risen Christ, triumphant over death and Lord of the
>Universe. Church art in this period did not achieve the splendor it attained
>in the next two centuries, but at Constantine's urging it improved rapidly."
>(page 244)
I'm sure Jack Chick would agree with you.
>In response to some who say that Christ was painted by Luke, the
>assistant to the Apostle Paul, Protestants note that there is no evidence
>that Luke ever painted Christ.
There's no physical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth ever walked upon
this Earth either, Dan.
Are you going to appeal to man's "scholarship" for that too?
Or are you just as subjective with the application of your "research"
methods as you are with your interpretations of Scripture?
> Luke was a Greek, and ministry to the Greeks
>did not start until after Christ had ascended. Luke was evidently saved
>through the ministry of Paul many years after Christ had ascended to heaven
>and before Peter and Paul had begun ministry to the Greeks. It is very
>unlikely that he ever ever saw the Lord.
Might as well discard his gospel, then too. Since he never "saw the
Lord" how could he write about his life in such great detail.
Same for the book of Matthew, too.
Your "research" methods just eliminated two of the synoptics, Dan.
You are now truly walking in the footsteps of your protestant
forbears.
I find it absolutely hilarious how you appeal to "experts" like Martin
and Hinson, (whoever they are) but you show nothing but contempt for
the Patristics, men who, in some cases, had the very words of the
Apostles "ringing in their ears".
But when one has an agenda to deceive, as you do Dan, facts and
especially Truth, mean little.
Bari Stepanovich
I see by the timestamp on your posts you spent less than three minutes
there.
Should I be surprised?
Nah.........
ma...@frog-net.com
what about all the scores of examples he provides?
Lee Malatesta
So did you compare any of the references from the New Testament to the
Apocryphal books? Also, why did you leave out mention of the
indisputable reference to Maccabees in the book of Hebrews?
Regards,
Lee Irenaeus Malatesta
Lee Malatesta
> Anyone know if the Brenton translation is copyrighted?
To the best of my knowledge, it is not. Calvin College's Christian
Classic Ethereal Library (http://www.ccel.org/) has begun scanning it,
running it through OCR, and putting it online. I believe they are
still in Genesis.
Also, lxx.org details the ongoing efforts for a modern translation
from the Septuagint as part of the ongoing Orthodox Study Bible
project. I believe that the expected date of completion is sometime
next year (2003).
My only large complaint obout the OSB is that for the New Testament
they chose the New King James Version. Have you ever read the the NKJV
aloud? The sentences are long and dangling and hard to keep track of
when reading aloud, let alone when listening to.
Regards,
Lee Irenaeus Malatesta
Chris
danw...@aol.com says...
A 30 year old reprint of a 70 year old work. This is scholarship??
I think not.
I note you still have not addressed the issue of extensive *Jewish*
iconogrpahy which has been uncovered in ruins of synagogues throughout
Israel which date from the second Temple period. Some of these *predate*
Christianity. The main synagogue of Sephorris, about a 35 minute walk
from Nazareth was covered in such imagery. Since it dates to about 20 BC,
and Sephorris was the hometown of the Virgin Mary, this building was
probably the actual place she and her family worshipped in. Jesus himself
undoubtedly worshiped in that very building at one point in his life. The
walls and floors of synagogues of the period were covered in biblical
imagery in mosaic and fresco work. Yet we hear not one word of criticism
from scripture.
Theology can be castles in the air built from clouds. Archeology is rock
solid and these findings can not be ignored.
Stradivari1688
>sees in such evangelical protestant churches. Also involved is the way
>fundamentalists only seem to be able to give inane and simplistic answers
>to the complex questions inherent in life. Ask our buddy Dan or m
So how do we get them out of this rut????
Kyralessa
news:20020312172100...@mb-bh.aol.com...
Have them major in biblical languages at a conservative Christian college.
Have them spend a couple summers in Romania working with missionaries there,
where the number of churches in the land will make their eyes bug out, and
then make them wonder exactly what message they're there to spread.
Send them to Greece for a semester, along with visits to Turkey and Israel,
audiences with two Patriarchs, and a visit to Mt Athos.
Have them study at least three years of Greek, especially with a good course
on the Synoptic Gospels which will make them question their preconceived
notions about biblical inspiration and inerrancy.
Also have them occasionally delve into works of theology quite accidentally,
like wondering what an OT scholar would write about religion and thereby
picking up James Barr's _Beyond Fundamentalism_. (Have them read this book
and gradually ask themselves incredulously: "_I'm_ a fundamentalist!?")
To top it all off, send them, upon graduation, to a Reform Jewish graduate
school!
Once there, tell them to start visiting churches of different brands, but
start with an Orthodox church.
Have the priest there give them a free book (_The Orthodox Church_, by
Timothy (Bishop Kallistos) Ware). Have them read the whole thing through
and come back with more questions, and have them then start reading so much
on Orthodoxy that they eventually quit grad school because they're
forgetting to study.
This is a method I highly recommend! But it does take a while. I can
personally attest that it's _extremely_ difficult to get a fundamentalist
Protestant out of a rut.
T254
It seems like people who are searching for the truth will eventually find it if
it's that important to them.
Last time I heard, ORU has produced seven current Orthodox priests. And,
conversions to Orthodoxy from ORU are at an all time high.
Quite a difference from the days when Pat Robinson gave a speech stating that
accepting Orthodoxy was like putting live chickens under a dead hen. Which
was personally told to me by and ex ORU professor who is now a devout Orthodox.
I understand from a friend who lives in Tulsa that ORU was saying that the only
two religions with a future were Orthodoxy and Protestantism. Quite a change
from the 'chickens under a dead hen' days.
Because of the percentage of students joining Orthodoxy ORU is now back to
degrading us. However, the truth will continue to be found by those who seek
it.
Perhaps there are some of those former ORU students who are now Orthodox postng
here as there are in some of the other Orthodox discussion groups that can
share their stories.
Bob
Bob Tallick
Dushevno
>record of any of them can be traced earlier than the fourth century, and the
>
the Roman catacombs, 2nd-3rd centuries. Dr. Martin is mistaken.
Danward44
My dear friend, you obviously are not looking for any answers as you feel you
have found them all. However, you need to be aware that what you believe and
defend with such tenacity simply does not bear up under objective scrutiny.
You offered no answers to the research I proffered (well-documented by experts
in their field) other than to refer to it sarcastically as "research." Where
is your research? I take it you have none. Note just one more quote from the
Encyclopedia Britannica. I trust that that meets your standard of "research.":
(article under "Icons", page 237, volume 6, 1987): "In the early church, the
making and veneration of portraits of Christ and the saints were consistently
opposed. The use of icons, nevertheless, steadily gained in popularity,
especially in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire. Toward the end of the
6th century and in the 7th, icons became the object of an officially
encouratged cult, often implying a superstitious believe in their
animation...."
Wake up and smell the coffee Bari.
Danward44
Thank you for your note. You said it is impossible to prove the existence of
icons at an early date. However, the evidence is as follows:
1) No icons the first century.
2) A small amount of religious illustrations the third century on tombs.
3) A gradual progression from religious illustrations to pictures of Christ
4) Development of personal or family pictures of Christ beginning in the fourth
and fifth century and rapidly gaining popularity.
This is what the evidence points to, and this is the most logical understanding
of how the church, which had a strong teaching against images from the
apostles, could be gradually led in the other direction.
Check out the article on icons at
http://www.orthodoxlight.homestead.com/INDEPTH.html
Unworthy
Danward44 wrote:
>
> In "A History of the Iconoclastic Controversy," (Edward James Martin,
> D.D, 1930, reprint 1978 by Macmillan) Dr. Martin notes of icons that, "No
> record of any of them can be traced earlier than the fourth century, and the
> sixth century is the period in which they really became significant.
Can you trace your family roots 100 times removed? If no, then does this mean that
your descendants do not exist? But even if it is a fact that the Church began using
icons sometime after the apostolic age, does this mean that the Church couldn't
change its mind with a later but more clearer understanding for the use of these
icons in its worship? Was the Church complete at the time of the apostles? Were the
apostles delivered into all truth? If yes then how come they didn't know ahead of
time that the subject of circumcision would arise between the Jews and Gentiles?
This was divine providence that allowed them to bring this into council and make a
decision for the betterment of the Church. This would set a future precedence and
practice of the church to decide for the health and life of the Church in council.
>
> In response to some who say that Christ was painted by Luke, the
> assistant to the Apostle Paul, Protestants note that there is no evidence
> that Luke ever painted Christ.
The icon you are referring to is hanging in a monastery on Mount Athos. Luke was a
physician trained in a Greek university and at the time anyone who learned any
skill in a Greek university was required to learn art.
> Luke was a Greek, and ministry to the Greeks
> did not start until after Christ had ascended. Luke was evidently saved
> through the ministry of Paul many years after Christ had ascended to heaven
> and before Peter and Paul had begun ministry to the Greeks. It is very
> unlikely that he ever ever saw the Lord.
Luke and Mark were among the disciples who left the Lord over the controversy of
the eating of the flesh of Christ. They were later to be brought back in by Paul
and Peter, respectively.
>
> The fact that many of the paintings of Jesus are similar is also not an
> evidence that they show what Christ looked like, Protestants believe. This is
> because these paintings are all of a handsome Christ, but the Bible says in
> Isaiah 53:2 (NIV) that: "He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
> nothing in his appearance that we should desire him."
No icons are exact representations of the features of Christ or saint they depict.
That is not an accident. It is intentional to portray the holiness of the prototype
rather than a more natural looking one.
>
> This is from www.orthodoxlight.homestead.com
Fr James.
> Check out the article on icons at
>http://www.orthodoxlight.homestead.com/INDEPTH.html
Your article is misleading in several points.
You attempt to strain an incorrect point that Bishops at the Seventh
wrongly delineated between Proskueneo and Latreia (worship and Divine
service). You attempt to build a case implying that the Bible does not
make this distinctgion, thus the Bishops erred when they did.
However, you err.
St Augustine wrote of the difference between proskueneo and latreia
centuries before the Seventh and the Greek Septuagint most definitely
draws the difference between divine service due only to God and
worship (ascribing worth) that could include creation as well as God.
The example cited IN THE SEVENTH COUNCILS NOTES in the series you
quoted brings this out quite clearly. I can only conclude therefore
that you have knowingly hidden this valuable information which
disputes and overthrows your false idea of no distinction between
worship and divine service which you have on your webpage. There is
even an example given of two circles with the same centre, one within
the other as an example. The outer circle being proskueneo which
includes God and creation, and the inner circle of latreia which only
ever denotes divine service to God.
I quote directly from the notes of the Seventh from the series you
refer to:
"But while it is true that in Hebrew of the Old Testament that there
is no word which refers alone to Divine Worship THIS IS NOT TRUE OF
THE GREEK SEPTUAGINT NOR OF THE GREEK OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, for in
both proskueneo has always its general meaning, sometimes applying to
the creature and sometimes to the Creator, but latreia is used to
denote Divine Worship alone, as St Augustine pointed out long ago.
This distinction comes out very clearly in the inspired translation of
the Hebrew found in Matthew 4:10, "Thou shalt worship (proskueneo) the
Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve (latreias)." Worship was
due indeed to God above all but not exclusively to Him, but latria is
to be given to 'Him only". p. 527, Vol. 14, N&PNF, II Nice.
However, here are some comments you make on your webpage regarding
this very issue:
"Protestants accordingly believe that the distinction between
"proskuneo" and "latreia" is an artificial one and is not useful.
However, the distinction is noted in the docuemnts you cite as being
BOTH Biblical AND historical. Yet YOU fail to mention these facts and
instead attempt to build a -false- idea that the Bishops of the
seventh invented or somehow artificially delineated between the two
when the difference is noted in both the Scriptures and the early
Church writings.
I therefore conclude you have been deliberately dishonest in this
matter by:
1) Failing to bring all the relevant information pertaining to the
matter, and
2) Attempting to confuse the ignorant and unlearned by this subtle
twist.
I could, however, be wrong and you may have simply -not read- the
Seventh's documents and notes (as you should have) and instead you
-may- have relied on some other persons reading for your now disproved
opinion. IF this is true and you are an honest man before God, then
you shall immediately fix up your public false teaching in this point
by removing the false inuendo, OR by editing the point to reflect the
-actual- history and distinction between proskueno and latreia on your
webpage.
I shall look for the adjustment over the ensuing days. :-)
If you do not, then this whole forum bares witness to your deliberate
promoting of false and imcomplete information with a view to drag
Christians away from the safety (of -truth-) in Christ Jesus our True
God.
If you consider yourself a Christian before God, then you are
-obligated- to either fix up the false straw man you have created
blaming the bishops of the Seventh for making a distinction, when that
distinction was clearly noted by Augustine centuries before as well as
the documents YOU CITE (seventh Council Nicene Fathers Series)
specifically refers to the distinction between the two words that you
attempt to marry into one.
I again ask you to be honest before God and these people. Your article
is not. Whether you deal with it or not will confirm where your heart
is for all here.
I also think you should include the above quote about the distinction
in the Greek Septuagint and Greek New Testament in the relevant
section.
Danward, St Paul once fought against Christ by persecuting the Church.
He believed he was serving God (latreia :-)), He wasn't. He was
fighting against Christ. You are doing the same. It is one thing to be
a protestant of faith and ignorant of truth. It is quite another to be
aware that one is spreading false information and yet continue to do
it. The latter is a very unsafe spiritual place to be.
The Lord give you wisdom.
Peace and grace,
Fr James.
St Athanasius Orthodox Mission,
Brisbane, QLD.
To reply via email remove NOSPAM from email addie.
Danward44
You wrote about the "indisputable reference" from the Apocrypha in Hebrews.
Perhaps you yourself have not checked it out, but I was able to and this is
what I found:
I went to the web site and checked out the "best" verse that according to the
writer, is quoted "verbatim" by Heb. 11:35 (which is "Women received back their
dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so
that they might gain a better resurrection.") Below is 2 Mac. 7 in its entirety
so you can see if you can find Heb. 11:35 here. I could not. It is interesting
that the author did not mention the verse, but only mentioned the chapter,
since there IS no verse here that is cited by Heb. 11:35. I rest my case that
there is no citation of the Apocrypha in the New Testament. Why is this
important? Because so many of the misleading doctrines that afflict Christians
today find their roots in the Apocrypha: paying money for forgiveness of sins,
prayers for the dead, salvation by works. If we admit these books into the
canon, then we are asking for more error to be injected into the church. It is
interesting that the word "canon" means a measuring stick. If we use an
inaccurate ruler, we will get wrong results, which is dangerous in engineering
just as it is in the spiritual world.
Below is 2 Macc. 7. One last point about that: Protestants accept 2 Macc. 7 as
a historical book (even though there are some evident errors in it.). The
author himself does not claim that it is scripture -- only a history book (read
the end of Maccabees, or see the article on the apocrypha at
http:www.orthodoxlight.homestead.com (indepth articles). Therefore, even if one
believes that Heb.11 is referring to the history account in Maccabees (however
vaguely and without a "verbatim" quote), one cannot say "ergo sum" that
Macccabees is scripture. It is just history, and the writer of Hebrews is just
as free to illustrate his points from history as Paul was to quote a pagan poet
in Titus to make his point. The pagan poems were not scripture any more than
Maccabees is.
2 Macc. 7:
1 It happened also that seven brothers and their mother were arrested and were
being compelled by the king, under torture with whips and cords, to partake of
unlawful swine’s flesh.
2 One of them, acting as their spokesman, said, "What do you intend to ask and
learn from us? For we are ready to die rather than transgress the laws of our
fathers."
3 The king fell into a rage, and gave orders that pans and caldrons be heated.
4 These were heated immediately, and he commanded that the tongue of their
spokesman be cut out and that they scalp him and cut off his hands and feet,
while the rest of the brothers and the mother looked on.
5 When he was utterly helpless, the king ordered them to take him to the fire,
still breathing, and to fry him in a pan. The smoke from the pan spread widely,
but the brothers and their mother encouraged one another to die nobly, saying,
6 "The Lord God is watching over us and in truth has compassion on us, as
Moses declared in his song which bore witness against the people to their
faces, when he said, ‘And he will have compassion on his servants.’"
7 After the first brother had died in this way, they brought forward the
second for their sport. They tore off the skin of his head with the hair, and
asked him, "Will you eat rather than have your body punished limb by limb?"
8 He replied in the language of his fathers, and said to them, "No." Therefore
he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done.
9 And when he was at his last breath, he said, "You accursed wretch, you
dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us
up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws."
10 After him, the third was the victim of their sport. When it was demanded,
he quickly put out his tongue and courageously stretched forth his hands,
11 and said nobly, "I got these from Heaven, and because of his laws I disdain
them, and from him I hope to get them back again."
12 As a result the king himself and those with him were astonished at the
young man’s spirit, for he regarded his sufferings as nothing.
13 When he too had died, they maltreated and tortured the fourth in the same
way.
14 And when he was near death, he said, "One cannot but choose to die at the
hands of men and to cherish the hope that God gives of being raised again by
him. But for you there will be no resurrection to life!"
15 Next they brought forward the fifth and maltreated him.
16 But he looked at the king, and said, "Because you have authority among men,
mortal though you are, you do what you please. But do not think that God has
forsaken our people.
17 Keep on, and see how his mighty power will torture you and your
descendants!"
18 After him they brought forward the sixth. And when he was about to die, he
said, "Do not deceive yourself in vain. For we are suffering these things on
our own account, because of our sins against our own God. Therefore astounding
things have happened.
19 But do not think that you will go unpunished for having tried to fight
against God!"
20 The mother was especially admirable and worthy of honorable memory. Though
she saw her seven sons perish within a single day, she bore it with good
courage because of her hope in the Lord.
21 She encouraged each of them in the language of their fathers. Filled with a
noble spirit, she fired her woman’s reasoning with a man’s courage, and
said to them,
22 "I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave
you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you.
23 Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and
devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back
to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws."
24 Antiochus felt that he was being treated with contempt, and he was
suspicious of her reproachful tone. The youngest brother being still alive,
Antiochus not only appealed to him in words, but promised with oaths that he
would make him rich and enviable if he would turn from the ways of his fathers,
and that he would take him for his friend and entrust him with public affairs.
25 Since the young man would not listen to him at all, the king called the
mother to him and urged her to advise the youth to save himself.
26 After much urging on his part, she undertook to persuade her son.
27 But, leaning close to him, she spoke in their native tongue as follows,
deriding the cruel tyrant: "My son, have pity on me. I carried you nine months
in my womb, and nursed you for three years, and have reared you and brought you
up to this point in your life, and have taken care of you.
28 I beseech you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see
everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of
things that existed. Thus also mankind comes into being.
29 Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death,
so that in God’s mercy I may get you back again with your brothers."
30 While she was still speaking, the young man said, "What are you waiting
for? I will not obey the king’s command, but I obey the command of the law
that was given to our fathers through Moses.
31 But you, who have contrived all sorts of evil against the Hebrews, will
certainly not escape the hands of God.
32 For we are suffering because of our own sins.
33 And if our living Lord is angry for a little while, to rebuke and
discipline us, he will again be reconciled with his own servants.
34 But you, unholy wretch, you most defiled of all men, do not be elated in
vain and puffed up by uncertain hopes, when you raise your hand against the
children of heaven.
35 You have not yet escaped the judgment of the almighty, all-seeing God.
36 For our brothers after enduring a brief suffering have drunk of everflowing
life under God’s covenant; but you, by the judgment of God, will receive just
punishment for your arrogance.
37 I, like my brothers, give up body and life for the laws of our fathers,
appealing to God to show mercy soon to our nation and by afflictions and
plagues to make you confess that he alone is God,
38 and through me and my brothers to bring to an end the wrath of the Almighty
which has justly fallen on our whole nation."
39 The king fell into a rage, and handled him worse than the others, being
exasperated at his scorn.
40 So he died in his integrity, putting his whole trust in the Lord.
41 Last of all, the mother died, after her sons.
42 Let this be enough, then, about the eating of sacrifices and the extreme
tortures.
Fr James.
Don't believe everything the Britanica says my friend. It also says
the Hoily trinity is an invented pagan doctrine.
Instead of using secular encyclopedias as your definitive authority on
what is and is not Christian. Why not try the Church? Since the
_BIBLE_ tells you it is the 'pillar and ground of truth."
Also I have no problem acknowledging that iconography as we now have
it is the end result of a developed -pre-existing- belief. That belief
is that matter is not evil, Christ took flesh, sanctified it and we
beheld His glory.
I also acknowledge that the images have caused very many to be tempted
to stumble when they have fallen for the 'little fox' of judging,
criticising, spiritual pride. So instead of sitting down and getting
to the bottom of it, rather presume to 'think' they have discovered a
';pagan ritual' in the Church and instead have railed against it
publically. You are not the first to do so, and you shall not be the
last.
As I said in my other post, your behaviour now in amending your false
information on your icons page will be a testament to all on this
forum as to whether you are a man of truth (Christ) or deceit (devil).
May a spirit of humility return to you in rather being a student of
those great Bishops of the Seventh, instead of presume to be their
teacher in matters Divine.
I will only be available for the next three days, after Cheesefare
Sunday I will not be on the internet to respond until after the
Orthodox feast of the resurrection of our Blessed Lord.
I will be watching your web page for the needed amendments re icons
though. :-)
Truth or deceit, which shall it be?
Fr James.
"You are not waging war against images, but against the saints
themselves." St John of Damascus, "On Divine Images" Ch. 20.
"If you speak of pagan abuses, these abuses do not make our veneration
of images loathsome. Blame the pagans who made images into gods!"
Ibid, Ch. 24.
"Instead of attacking the common understanding of them (images), we
ought to comprehend their sacred significance, and not despise their
divine origin or the sacred things which they portray, for they are
visible manifestations of hidden and marvellous wonders." St.
Dionysius the Areopagite (Letter to Titus).
""Not only do you long to call fervently upon his great name; but also
to look upon the image of his bodily form. What you do with his name
you also accomplish with his image. For everyone rejoices to put his
image everywhere, on rings, goblets, dishes and on bedroom walls, so
they can not only hear his holy discourses, but also gaze everywhere
on his bodily image..." St Meletius of Antioch. Bishop and Martyr,
speaking on one of the saints.
"On the third night of my fast, my body was already exhausted, but I
did not sleep, but was caught up in ecstasy during which a face was
revealed to me, which resembled the blessed apostle Paul, the same
face which was painted on the icon which showed him teaching so
wisely..." St Ambrose of Milan.
There are very many more quotes available.
Your argument (whether it comes from britanica or anywhere else) is
one of incorrect assumptions. Do not assume because it once appeared
in Britanica then thus it is as Scripture (this evil even the cultic
JW's use against the belief in the Holy trinity-of which one edition
of the Britannica taught was a later invented belief not known in
ancient days).
The facts are these. Ancient churches had images. Ancient Christian
burial places had images and bas relief all over. Ancient Christian
burials contain prayers to saints Peter and Paul in Rome that way
pre-date Constantine. The Jewish Temple had images, the Jewish Holy of
Holy had Golden Images. Ancient Jewish Synagogues even seem to have
had images.
The rejection of images rides a false theory that matter and
veneration are somehow evil. This obviously came into its own after
the emergence of Islam where we see the first Protestant influence of
anti-images brought over from Muhammed's ideas.
One of the tests to establish whether a practice is universal is to
see if it is held to and believed/practiced in every church commenced
by an apostle. Now Protestants may shun this test of Universality but
this has no bearing on what the Church does or believes. When we
observe all apostolic Churches we note that the Christiam images
exist, are held in the same light with the same history. When we
observe the Oriental Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches, both
who are seperated from the Eastern Orthodox in 1054 AD and 451 AD, we
also see the belief, use of and veneration of the sacred images.
In fact there is not one ancient apostolic Church (Eastern, Oriental,
Catholic or even Anglican) that does not contain within its history
the reception of images as an aspect of the life and worship of the
Christian Church.
Let the confused Protestants, whose religion is not based on -any-
ancient Christian warrant at all, rail all they wish to, it did not
affect the Church after the issue was decided at the Seventh and it
shall not affect it now.
What Orthodox exists who has not seen, been blessed by or received
holy Oil from these venerated images blessed by God Himself to even
cure the ills of His faithful?
Rather Protestants dig themselves into very deep false witness when
they claim Orthodox worship images as God. Orthodox know who God is,
they proclaim His Holy Name (+) every time they commence and finish
prayer. Icons are not God, nor worshipped as God by the Orthodox. Even
though this is continually told to those who bare false witness, their
hard hearts continue to dig pits, which they themselves fall into.
"And the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us, and we beheld His
glory, the glory of the Only-Begotten of the Father." St John.
ma...@frog-net.com
appear it did not happen. From this we can conclude that because the
protestant religion historically appeared 500 years ago, christianity
didn't exist in a "real" form before it. Religious art was common in
jewish hellenistic synagogues. The early church borrowed heavily from
jewish practice in liturgy and art. For the 1st 400 years more or less
christians had to hold a low profile. So even if we acept dan's cronology
below, what's the point? At very best it demonstrates that use of
anything appears in the historical record by some means of being
conserved. It says nothing about it's origin or about what was happening
before the conditions became effective in preserving them historically.
Did people speak greek before we had the works of homer and such preserved
in history? Did greeks make art before it was preserved in association
with public buildings? Can we "prove" that the old testiment wasn't
created before about 50 bc when we have actual fragments of examples of it
in the dead sea scrolls? At best the argument from silence says only "we
don't know" from preserved items what happened before they appeared.
>Dear Ryan,
>Thank you for your note. You said it is impossible to prove the existence of
>icons at an early date. However, the evidence is as follows:
>1) No icons the first century.
>2) A small amount of religious illustrations the third century on tombs.
>3) A gradual progression from religious illustrations to pictures of Christ
>4) Development of personal or family pictures of Christ beginning in the fourth
>and fifth century and rapidly gaining popularity.
>This is what the evidence points to, and this is the most logical understanding
>of how the church, which had a strong teaching against images from the
>apostles, could be gradually led in the other direction.
ma...@frog-net.com
> Re: Orthodox Old Testament
Is the web author lying? Why don't you ask him? I rest my case. If he
can show it to you, will you retract your conclusion?
>unlawful swineās flesh.
>2 One of them, acting as their spokesman, said, "What do you intend to ask and
>learn from us? For we are ready to die rather than transgress the laws of our
>fathers."
>3 The king fell into a rage, and gave orders that pans and caldrons be heated.
>4 These were heated immediately, and he commanded that the tongue of their
>spokesman be cut out and that they scalp him and cut off his hands and feet,
>while the rest of the brothers and the mother looked on.
>5 When he was utterly helpless, the king ordered them to take him to the fire,
>still breathing, and to fry him in a pan. The smoke from the pan spread widely,
>but the brothers and their mother encouraged one another to die nobly, saying,
>6 "The Lord God is watching over us and in truth has compassion on us, as
>Moses declared in his song which bore witness against the people to their
>faces, when he said, āAnd he will have compassion on his servants.ā"
>7 After the first brother had died in this way, they brought forward the
>second for their sport. They tore off the skin of his head with the hair, and
>asked him, "Will you eat rather than have your body punished limb by limb?"
>8 He replied in the language of his fathers, and said to them, "No." Therefore
>he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done.
>9 And when he was at his last breath, he said, "You accursed wretch, you
>dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us
>up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws."
>10 After him, the third was the victim of their sport. When it was demanded,
>he quickly put out his tongue and courageously stretched forth his hands,
>11 and said nobly, "I got these from Heaven, and because of his laws I disdain
>them, and from him I hope to get them back again."
>12 As a result the king himself and those with him were astonished at the
>young manās spirit, for he regarded his sufferings as nothing.
>13 When he too had died, they maltreated and tortured the fourth in the same
>way.
>14 And when he was near death, he said, "One cannot but choose to die at the
>hands of men and to cherish the hope that God gives of being raised again by
>him. But for you there will be no resurrection to life!"
>15 Next they brought forward the fifth and maltreated him.
>16 But he looked at the king, and said, "Because you have authority among men,
>mortal though you are, you do what you please. But do not think that God has
>forsaken our people.
>17 Keep on, and see how his mighty power will torture you and your
>descendants!"
>18 After him they brought forward the sixth. And when he was about to die, he
>said, "Do not deceive yourself in vain. For we are suffering these things on
>our own account, because of our sins against our own God. Therefore astounding
>things have happened.
>19 But do not think that you will go unpunished for having tried to fight
>against God!"
>20 The mother was especially admirable and worthy of honorable memory. Though
>she saw her seven sons perish within a single day, she bore it with good
>courage because of her hope in the Lord.
>21 She encouraged each of them in the language of their fathers. Filled with a
>noble spirit, she fired her womanās reasoning with a manās courage, and
>said to them,
>22 "I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave
>you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you.
>23 Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and
>devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back
>to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws."
>24 Antiochus felt that he was being treated with contempt, and he was
>suspicious of her reproachful tone. The youngest brother being still alive,
>Antiochus not only appealed to him in words, but promised with oaths that he
>would make him rich and enviable if he would turn from the ways of his fathers,
>and that he would take him for his friend and entrust him with public affairs.
>25 Since the young man would not listen to him at all, the king called the
>mother to him and urged her to advise the youth to save himself.
>26 After much urging on his part, she undertook to persuade her son.
>27 But, leaning close to him, she spoke in their native tongue as follows,
>deriding the cruel tyrant: "My son, have pity on me. I carried you nine months
>in my womb, and nursed you for three years, and have reared you and brought you
>up to this point in your life, and have taken care of you.
>28 I beseech you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see
>everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of
>things that existed. Thus also mankind comes into being.
>29 Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death,
>so that in Godās mercy I may get you back again with your brothers."
>30 While she was still speaking, the young man said, "What are you waiting
>for? I will not obey the kingās command, but I obey the command of the law
>that was given to our fathers through Moses.
>31 But you, who have contrived all sorts of evil against the Hebrews, will
>certainly not escape the hands of God.
>32 For we are suffering because of our own sins.
>33 And if our living Lord is angry for a little while, to rebuke and
>discipline us, he will again be reconciled with his own servants.
>34 But you, unholy wretch, you most defiled of all men, do not be elated in
>vain and puffed up by uncertain hopes, when you raise your hand against the
>children of heaven.
>35 You have not yet escaped the judgment of the almighty, all-seeing God.
>36 For our brothers after enduring a brief suffering have drunk of everflowing
>life under Godās covenant; but you, by the judgment of God, will receive just
Stradivari1688
>below is 2 Mac. 7 in its entirety so you can see if you can find Heb. >11:35
here.
Brother Dan,
It would be much more effective if you could (perhaps by posting on your
website) a copies of the verses in question in their original Greek form.
Comparing a translation to another translation is very ineffective.
With prayers that you will one day see the Orthodox Light.
Bari Stepanovich
>Dear Bari,
>My dear friend, you obviously are not looking for any answers as you feel you
>have found them all.
I have.
I have found that "Pearl of Great Price", and no one will deceive me
to squander it.
> However, you need to be aware that what you believe and
>defend with such tenacity simply does not bear up under objective scrutiny.
Oh, but it DOES, Dan.
You apparently have been blinded to it, and you instead serve your
intellect and pride rather than God.
>You offered no answers to the research I proffered (well-documented by experts
>in their field) other than to refer to it sarcastically as "research."
One man's "experts" are another's foolish cranks.
I couldn't care less for the wisdom of men, Dan.
Hell will be full of "experts" who were scoffers and railers against
the Faith.
> Where
>is your research?
I point you to the 2000 year living witness of the One, Holy, Catholic
and Apostolic Church; Holy Orthodoxy.
THAT is my source for the truth, Dan.
> I take it you have none.
None that you would likely accept.
1 Corinthians 3:19
19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it
is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
<snip irrelevance>
>Wake up and smell the coffee Bari.
I did.
That's why I left the heresies and false teachings of protestantism
for the "pillar and ground of the Truth" which is the One, Holy,
Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Wake up and smell the incense, Dan.....
Fr James.
> I rest my case that
>there is no citation of the Apocrypha in the New Testament.
Your case then has some -glaring- holes in it then.
1) By your false rule the some Books of the Old Testament (Esther and
Ruth for example) are also removed from the Canon. Clearly your rule
is wrong.
2) Christ the LORD GOD and His apostles DID quote from the Septuagint
Version Greek Old Testamnet. This version -contained- the Apocrypha.
Clearly your point is in error.
You really are the master of half facts Dan. Is this Christian?
That the New Testament quotes numerously from the Septuagint is a
given by scholars. This shows that Christ's Himself gave His approval
to the translation (which contained the deuterocanonicals).
We know who removed the Bible books. One man took it upon himself to
do it. He also wished to remove the Book of James if he were able to
and added the word -alone- to his German translation of the New
Testament. You have received an enemic and false (mans) tradition in
this regard based on unbelieving Jews of Jamnia circa 90 AD. Instead
of calling the church 'mother' and the saints 'fathers', rather you
have gone to the disobedient wife caught in harlotry and called her
'mother' and embraced her cup of wrath of rejections.
In this, like Saul of Tarsus, you fight against Christ as well.
I trust you will not make the -mistake- in denying that Christ and the
Apostles quoted the Septuagint and that there are other books of the
Hebrew Old Canon that are not quoted in the New Testament.
Kyralessa
As I pointed out in my lengthy post, which you seem to have found easier to
dismiss than to address at any length:
Absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence.
In other words, while the presence of icons from the first century would
prove that they were around then, the lack of icons from the first century
does not prove that they were not around then. You can harp on the lack of
icons all you want, but it doesn't prove they weren't around then. (As a
conservative, you ought to have learned from liberal biblical scholars what
danger there is in arguing from the absence of something, as archaeology has
often forced such scholars to revise their estimates of, say, the existence
of Israel.)
Furthermore, we do have evidence of two lengthy periods in which the
destruction of icons was pursued with a vengeance. Which at least gives a
potential alternate explanation of why we don't have any of them around
today.
As for your article, I already addressed many of its points in my post,
which you have not actually responded to. In particular, you seem to have
found it convenient to ignore the theological argument entirely.
--
"Danward44" <danw...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020314002854...@mb-md.aol.com...
Danward44
Note the word "verbatim quote" in the email. No matter how you work 2 Macc. 7
with the Greek you aren't going to find a verbatim quote that matches Heb. --
not even close. Whether you use a paraphrase or a literal translation, you
can't find something that isnt' there. That isn't scholarship -- it is
something else. I rest my case.
Dan
Bari Stepanovich
<snip>
Stop striving against the Holy Spirit, Dan.
wayner
You have "no case" (except in your own mind) Mr. Ward. What you do
have, however, is an obsession and the need for a life. Go find
yourself a life, Mr. Ward. Your endless points, your arguments, your
obsession with icons/saints/prayers for the dead/liturgical worship -
all of these "issues" in which you cannot find any peace have never
amounted to more than a hill of beans for the rest of us. Meat causes
you to choke, Mr. Ward. Stay on your Protestant evangelical milk and
stop bothering us. Go to your bible, bury yourself in your proof-texts
and bring yourself some peace. For it is apparent to all who have read
your posts over the years that you are a man without such. Having read
your "deceptive" website on so-called "o"rthodox light, I truly feel a
sense of revulsion as well as pity for a person like you.
mar...@frogger-net.com
was so convinced with the logic and learned knowledge of his religion that
the Christians were wrong, but God wasn't finished with him either.
Stradivari1688
Brother Dan, "verbatim quote" from where? Do you have a Greek LXX (from which 2
Maccabees 7 is taken) to compare to a Greek NT (from which the excerpt from
Hebrews is taken)?
>No matter how you work 2 Macc. 7 with the Greek
I'm not trying to "work" anything. I have a Greek LXX here that I will happily
scan and send over to anyone who wishes to take a look. I do not have a Greek
NT, however, so I can't verify anything unless someone else wants to do the
comparison.
What I am saying is that you certainly will not find a verbatim quote in ANY of
the commonly available Bible translations because none of these translate
Maccabees from the Greek.
Furthermore, I am not very good at transliterating Greek, and cannot reproduce
all the diacritical marks here. Comparing the two side by side in the original
language (Greek), however, if the assertion is true, there should be no
difference between the two.
My comparison is concrete. Get a copy of 2 Maccabees 7 from a Greek LXX and get
a copy of the verse in question from Hebrews in Greek. Put them side by side
and compare them letter by letter. If there is no difference, then one is
indisputably taken from the other. Got it? Hope so!
>you aren't going to find a verbatim quote that matches Heb.
If you don't have a copy of LXX, let me know and I'll e-mail you a scan (or fax
one to you if you'd prefer, e-mail me at stradiv...@aol.com). I hope you
have a Greek NT to make the comparison because I don't.
Let me know what you find and then we can debate this more. If there is a
difference (and I'm not taking about punctuation or diacritical marks unless
they alter the meaning of the verse), then you win.
Bari Stepanovich
>God isn't finished with Dan yet. Recall the life of St. Paul and how he
>was so convinced with the logic and learned knowledge of his religion that
>the Christians were wrong, but God wasn't finished with him either.
It *would* be ironic for Dan Ward to become an Orthodox Christian
after attacking the Faith here.
We should pray for it. :-)
T254
>after attacking the Faith here.
>
>We should pray for it. :-)
He won't be the first fundalmentalist protestant who has gone to an Orthodox
country to proseltyze and end up converting.
Some of the missionaries in the OCMC in Romania went originally as protestant
proseltyzers.
As I stated before, ORU is still producing Orthodox priests and converts.
Bob
Bob Tallick
Kyralessa
> Brother Dan, "verbatim quote" from where? Do you have a Greek LXX (from
which 2
> Maccabees 7 is taken) to compare to a Greek NT (from which the excerpt
from
> Hebrews is taken)?
>
> >No matter how you work 2 Macc. 7 with the Greek
>
> I'm not trying to "work" anything. I have a Greek LXX here that I will
happily
> scan and send over to anyone who wishes to take a look. I do not have a
Greek
> NT, however, so I can't verify anything unless someone else wants to do
the
> comparison.
I don't have an LXX, but I've got a couple Greek NTs. Send me your scan!
Take the SPAMLESS out of my address, of course. And let me know where I'm
supposed to look...
The reason I have these NTs is because I majored in biblical languages in
college. This involved mostly Greek and Hebrew, but I've also done Latin,
French, and Aramaic, as well as speaking fluent Romanian (learned, not by
birth).
How about you, Dan? I assume that your critique of the Orthodox Church
comes as a result of a great deal of study, as does my conversion to the
Orthodox Church. Tell us about the books you've studied and the languages
you've learned.
Stradivari1688
>I don't have an LXX, but I've got a couple Greek NTs. Send me your >scan!
Keep an eye out tomorrow for my e-mail!
mar...@frogg-net.com
instances. See first:
http://members.aol.com/johnprh/deuterocanonical2.html#ALLUSIONS
which is a link from a more general discussion of nt Deuterocanonical
references at:
http://www.cin.org/archives/cinapol/200006/0117.html
One topic we haven't asked dan about is the other side of the coin.
There are uses of material in the NT from books not accepted by any as
canonical such as enoch and even one use in paul from a secular
philospher. To use dan's logic, these works must then be included as
inspired because they are referenced by nt authors.
Lee Malatesta
> I don't have an LXX, but I've got a couple Greek NTs. Send me your scan!
> Take the SPAMLESS out of my address, of course. And let me know where I'm
> supposed to look...
Greek modules (Septuagint, Textus Receptus, Wescott/Hort) for the
Online Bible are freely available:
http://www.ccel.org/olb/tolbss/components/translations/greek.html
The Online Bible is a free-of-charge program for Windows.
If I can be bothered to reboot into Windows this weekend, I might try
to piece it together.
Regards,
Lee Irenaeus Malatesta
Bari Stepanovich
I read that post of yours.
Fascinating stuff. I hadn't heard that before.
T254
Yes it is. St Anthony's Antiochian Orthodox Church has quite a few converts
from ORU including its priest.
I understand they had a group who converted just this past year.
I'm very good friends with a former professor at ORU who is also a convert from
Protestantism. Have a very good friend who I consider almost a son who came
from Bulgaria to attend and graduate from ORU. After one entire year at ORU,
the first thing he did when he went back to Bulgaria for a six weeks vacation
was to get Baptised in the Orthodox Church! To this day he is one of the most
devout Orthodox I have ever met in spite of four years at ORU.
Bob
Bob Tallick
Lee Malatesta
> Note just one more quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica. I trust
> that that meets your standard of "research.": (article under "Icons",
> page 237, volume 6, 1987): "In the early church, the making and
> veneration of portraits of Christ and the saints were consistently
> opposed. The use of icons, nevertheless, steadily gained in popularity,
> especially in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire. Toward the
> in their animation...."
I'm quite surprised by this entry in Britannica. Virtually every early
Church building that has been excavated as well as the catacombs where
Christians worshipped in antiquity are filled with icons. Further, I
am not aware of any recorded opposition to icons until the time of the
iconoclast controversy.
Visit the web site for the catacombs of Rome:
http://www.catacombe.roma.it/
Better yet, visit your local library and check out a few books on the
art of Christian antiquity.
Regards,
Lee
PF2253
>devout Orthodox I have ever met in spite of four years at ORU.
Maybe not so strange, Fr Michael Harper-now Dean of the British Antiochian
Synod and once a leading British Charismatic, recalls in his book, 'The True
Light' how he came across an 'Orthodox Revival' whilst staying at ORU some
yeards befor he became interested in Orthodoxy
Paul, Ch of the Holy Transfiguration, Nottingham
Danward44
churches to attend Orthodox ones. It is hard to believe it is for doctrinal
reasons, as can be seen at www.orthodoxlight.homestead.com
Rather, as in the case of Franky Schaeffer, there are underlying reasons.
Franky's hostility toward his father, shown in his book he wrote against his
own father, seems a likely reason for his rejection of the faith of his father.
It is clear to me that those on this list who were formerly Protestant became
Orthodox not from a doctrinal position, but from some other reason, usually
emotional. That is why doctrine and scripture does not affect their conception
of Orthodoxy - it was not involved in the initial decision. They seek the
doctrinal support primarily after the fact, and to do so often ignore the plain
meaning of scripture and the record of history (e.g., the late advent of icons,
prayer to saints, infant baptism, preferring to believe that these were
practices of the apostles, despite the NT example to the contrary, etc.)
Danward44
Thank you for your comment. I would take issue with your points. First, there
are five reasons why Protestants do not accept the Apocrypha. The fact that
they are not cited in the New testament is just one of them. See
www.orthodoxlight.homestead.com
The other reasons are:
1) The Jews never accepted them as part of the OT
2) Many church fathers did not accept them.
3) They contradict the rest of the Bible.
4) And they have evident errors and even evident fraud (e.g. 3rd Ezra, never
written in Greek or Hebrew, only in Latin, and having no record of an
appearance until about 800 years after Ezra).
Second, the fact that the Septuagint is used as the standard source for Greek
quotes of the Old Testament in the Greek New Testament is not an endorsement of
this translation as without error or superior to the Hebrew original. It is
simply saying that there was no other translation of the Old testament into
Greek at that time. You either quoted from that or did without. It is not good
scholarship to assume that a translation is superior to the original. The
Apocrypha was included by the Jews only in the Greek translation of the Hebrew
OT and only in Egypt originally. The Jews in 90 AD rejected this inclusion as
an error, as should we all.Subject: Re: Orthodox Old Testament
From: fr_james...@yahoo.com.au (Fr James.)
Date: 3/14/02 1:40 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <3c91155c...@news.optusnet.com.au>
Stradivari1688
churches to attend Orthodox ones. It is hard to believe it is >for doctrinal
reasons, as can be seen at >www.orthodoxlight.homestead.com
It is just as interesting to speculate on the reasons Orthodox churches to
attend Protestant ones. The most common reasons I've encountered are:
1. The church is too strict.
2. It is boring.
3. Too mysterious.
4. Too much standing.
5. It's not lively enough.
None of which are the result of a systematic study of Scripture, or even
history, but borne of personal comfort and laziness.
(as for #5, I detest today's popular music (so often adapted to the Protestant
service), with its decadent harmonies, its ignorance of Classical counterpoint,
and its altogether untasteful dissonance).
I have never seen a Protestant adequately defend his/her disposition to label
Orthodox practice unscriptural or even worse, contrary to Scripture.
Rather, the seamless compatibility of Orthodoxy with the Holy Scriptures (no
doubt due in large part to the fact that the Holy Scriptures as we know them
are the result of the labors of those within Orthodoxy), is so difficult to
refute that Brother Dan has decided the Protestant attraction to Orthodoxy is
the result of emotion. He appeals to logic and concrete evidence as it supports
his cause, but rejects the foremost in Biblical and historical research when it
weakens his case.
I like to worship God, through His Consubstantial Son, in communion with the
saints departed and our living Christian brothers.
I prefer to save the seminars, lectures, and budget analyses for Coffee Hour.
So, Brother Dan, perhaps you'd like to discard your history books and believe
our great U.S.A. has been here since time immemorial.
On another note, do we accept Christ and live a Christian life solely because
we believe (Protestants are certain) there will be a reward after our time
here? Or do we accept Christ and attempt to live appropriately because we
believe with the firmest conviction that doing so is without argument the right
and proper thing to do, regardless of our fate after death????
I believe that God, in His infinite Knowledge, will decide whether our faith
was genuine, our works done with good intent. It is neither for me to know, nor
the pomaded "minister" on TBN from his gilt-plastic rococo throne to tell me
that if I pray with him, I will certainly be saved.
Danward44
You wrote that Orthodoxy is so "difficult to
refute that Brother Dan has decided the Protestant attraction to Orthodoxy is
the result of emotion."
My brother, it is not difficult to refute. It is quite easy. The problem is on
your end. It is difficult to accept the truth when one has committed publicly
to Orthodoxy as a minority religion in Protestant Catholic America. It is a
matter of pride for many here who have come out of Protestantism.
Secondly, the emotional appeal of Orthodoxy to many is obvious in their
conversion stories. They visited an Orthodox service and "felt I had come home"
I have heard this enough to see that it forms a pattern, which, I expect, you
would have to admit as well. The initial decision to become Orthodox was an
emotional one based on the attraction of the liturgy, icons, incense, chanting,
etc., also offering the benefits of kind of a rebellion against past hurts in
Protestant or Catholic churches. It offers the convert a uniqueness, and a
sense of superiority (e.g., "The only true religion that has remained unchanged
from the apostles.") . What it does not offer is scriptural Christianity, alas.
<<He appeals to logic and concrete evidence as it supports
his cause, but rejects the foremost in Biblical and historical research when it
weakens his case.>>
You know I just posted some evidence clearly showing the late advent of icons.
The first two book sources were rejected by some posters as "unknown authors".
So I followed with a quote from the Encyclopedia Brittanica (clearly more
auhtoritative) and was criticized by Rev. James for using a "secular" source.
it is clear that the refuting of evidence is more on your part than mine.
May the Lord help you to see the truth in His word, regardless of traditions,
Orthdoxy or Protestant.
This topic of discussion -- the faith of God -- is much too important to be
lost in arguments.
Blessings,
Dan
Danward44
Note that a religous illustration is not the same as an icon; may I
respectfully say you seem to be confusing the two. Mosaics on the floor
illustrating a Biblical scene is not the same thing as a painting to which
people pray, bow and kiss, one which they believe has a mystical power to do
miracles. The latter is an icon. They did not take effect until the fifth and
sixth century my brother. Orthodoxy is therefore not the "faith of the
apostles" but a Christianity with many late additions, which we protestants
woudl do without.
Danward44
Greetings.
1) I am not being dishonest, James my brother. Apparently you feel that anyone
who disagrees with you must be either deceived or dishonest. I am neither. It
2) Ryan, you have not responded to my posts worth a hoot and yet you are
telling me you are dissatisfied with my response to your post. I am sorry but
I didn't see anything there worth responding to. To say that the absence of
icons in the first 300-400 years of the church is due to their destruction by
iconoclasts is to ignore the witness of scripture and the early church fathers.
The Bible speaks against the use of images such as you do. Is it anywonder then
that the early church had none? It is not that they looked in every nook,
cranny and tomb to destroy them. Recall that iconoclasm was limited to the
eastern church. If icons were as widespread as you say, they would have been
everywhere. The facts are that they were not widespread, because they were a
new innovation, as the research shows consistently. The only ones who feel
differently are those who have an agenda, e.g., the Orthodox. Responsible
scholarship shows icon worship to have taken root in the fifth and sixth
century. Orthodoxy is not an ancient religion, but a new one.
PF2253
>sixth century my brother. Orthodoxy is therefore not the "faith of the
>apostles" but a Christianity with many late additions, which we protestants
>woudl do without.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Like all Protestans or mosr whom I ave met oyu are woefully lacjing in
knowledge of Church History, I suggest oyu read up the Iconclastic Period to
find out the reasons why no (or very few icons) predate 6th century. St
catherines monastry on Mt Sinai certainly has some
Paul
FTT
> Dear Ryan and Rev. James,
> Greetings.
What a hoot Dan coming from a fundamentalist Protestant
like you whose various denominations more often than not
look with askace (sp!) upon scholarship. But its nice to
pick and choose it a battle eh? All's fair in love and war... ?
>icon worship to have taken root in the fifth and sixth
century.
Neither did early Christianity venerate a book a la "sola scripitura"
like your ilk either .... it's something that happened in Reformation
Europe.
I actually heard an American Penetecostal Evangelist conducting
a "mission" here in Montreal many years ago at the "Evangel Pentecostal
Church" (on Closse Street near St. Catherine Street, ~ Montreal's main
drag ~ - it's still there) hold up the KJV version of the Bible and rail
against
the then recently published RSV version of Scritpure "preach" "The Word"
with an insane sreech " if this ~the KJV ~ was good enough for St. Paul it's
good
enough for me" amidst loud tand hunderous clapping and shouts of AMEN. AMEN
from the congrefation.....so much for scholarship....so much for
intelligence...
so much for truth.... So much for "true" religion ....
It was Veneration of an Icon, nonetheless. To venerate one need not bow and
kiss
the "object" of veneration. He help up for acclamation a "book" so their and
his
veneration took a real form of veneration of the "object" held up high by
him ....
looking for an obvious response in a verbal and physical clapping to show
their
veneration of "a" "book" .
If you want to be factual Dan, written Scritpure is ~not the Word of God~ it
is a
human written account ~of ~ (about) The Word of God. And of course it better
be KJV or else. It must be a "real" icon? Hmmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey Danny you're no differnt from the Orthodox you condemn - but of course
being
the true fundy prot you are Truth is defined as "my way "and "my way" is
correct
the correct way and all others are bogus.
> Orthodoxy is not an ancient religion, but a new one.
So don't talk Danny Boy .... using your own criteria to define the above
statement - so are you. You know the old saying "birds of a feather
flock together" well you arr just another bird of a different colour.Oh,
yes! a better colour!
Get real and by the way Danny get honest.
Come to think of it some birds flock around other flocks of birds to feed
off them eg vultures and scavangers (sea gulls) they deceive , steal, kill ,
eat and crap all over the place. Then leave.
Maybe its time for you Danny Boy to errr...ummm just "flock
off".......!!!!!
....so to speak.
Get the message. No ,of course you don't. You've got The Truth and of
course it ,according to warped fundy thinking, gives you~the saved~ the
right to do anything as bbbeing once saved always I am always saved
and a child of heaven - no matter what. Wellllllll you are in for a big
surprise.
MY ORTHODOX BROTHERS & SISTERS IN CHRIST -- HOLD FAST TO
THE RECEIVED TRUTH.
DANWARD DOES NOT TALK FOR THE MAINSTREAM OF WESTERN
REFORMED CHRISTIANITY. JUST FOR HIS LUNTIC "FUNDY" FRINGE.
IGNORE HIM.
HE HAS NOTHING TO SAY AND WHAT HE SAYS HERE AND ON
"ORTHODOXLIGHT" IS AN EXAMPLE OF HIS DISHONESTY
AND DECEIT.
REMEMBER OUR LORD TAUGHT THE THE ENEMY IS THE FATHER OF
LIES AND DECEIT AND OFTEN POSES AS LIGHT.
FTT
(Canadian Anglican Priest)
Polichinello
> Dear Strad,
> You wrote that Orthodoxy is so "difficult to
> refute that Brother Dan has decided the Protestant attraction to Orthodoxy is
> the result of emotion."
>
> My brother, it is not difficult to refute. It is quite easy. The problem is on
> your end. It is difficult to accept the truth when one has committed publicly
> to Orthodoxy as a minority religion in Protestant Catholic America. It is a
> matter of pride for many here who have come out of Protestantism.
>
> Secondly, the emotional appeal of Orthodoxy to many is obvious in their
> conversion stories. They visited an Orthodox service and "felt I had come home"
> I have heard this enough to see that it forms a pattern, which, I expect, you
> would have to admit as well. The initial decision to become Orthodox was an
> emotional one based on the attraction of the liturgy, icons, incense, chanting,
> etc., also offering the benefits of kind of a rebellion against past hurts in
> Protestant or Catholic churches. It offers the convert a uniqueness, and a
> sense of superiority (e.g., "The only true religion that has remained unchanged
> from the apostles.") .
This is rather funny considering that the Protestant religions are
based on "sole fide", which is itself completely irrational, and
detectable only through an emotional basis. It's hardly a useful
critique of the Orthodox, who do not deny the emotional side of man.
>What it does not offer is scriptural Christianity, alas.
Neither do you really when you come right down to it. Like them, all
you have is an interpretational Christianity. Unlike them, you don't
a unified version, but rather an atomized one, where every one plays
pope unto himself.
> <<He appeals to logic and concrete evidence as it supports
> his cause, but rejects the foremost in Biblical and historical research when it
> weakens his case.>>
>
> You know I just posted some evidence clearly showing the late advent of icons.
> The first two book sources were rejected by some posters as "unknown authors".
> So I followed with a quote from the Encyclopedia Brittanica (clearly more
> auhtoritative) and was criticized by Rev. James for using a "secular" source.
>
> it is clear that the refuting of evidence is more on your part than mine.
The problem with your evidence and your arguments is that they fail to
stand up theologically within the framework of the Incarnation. If
you accept the Incarnation, God's image being made manifest in the
shape of a man, then you cannot logically have a problem with icon
veneration.
> May the Lord help you to see the truth in His word, regardless of traditions,
> Orthdoxy or Protestant.
>
> This topic of discussion -- the faith of God -- is much too important to be
> lost in arguments.
In other words, forget all of this and favor MY emotion instead of
yours. Not a convincing argument.
Best,
Derek
Stradivari1688
and sixth century.
First of all, Brother Dan, it's not "icon worship." We don't worship icons,
although with the striking reverence I see many Protestants treating their
Bibles (in the physical sense), I am led to believe they come very close to
idolatry.
This is, however, beside the point. Last week you were saying the Church
introduced icons in the 3rd and 4th centuries. This week you claim (according
to "scholarly evidence") it wasn't until the 5th or 6th century.
Which one is it? How do you account for the Malabarese Church of Kerala,
India--a Church that has literally been shut out from the rest of Christendom
for nearly 16 centuries (ca. A.D. 50 - A.D. 1550)? They use icons, practice
infant baptism BY IMMERSION, and celebrate a liturgy not very different from
Orthodox usage. Explain that one.
>Orthodoxy is not an ancient religion, but a new one.
You're right. Approximately 2000 years new. Yours is even newer, but I think
it's time for you to trade it in.
Stradivari1688
painting to which people pray, bow and kiss, one which they >believe has a
mystical power to do miracles.
Brother Dan, your description of the Orthodox use of icons is grossly
misleading. I don't pray to icons, the Orthodox Church doesn't advocate the
practice--and I pity those who might.
No, the icon has no mystical power to do anything. I'll beat it to death as if
it were already a dead cow, but icons are "windows to heaven." The Holy Spirit
works miracles, and they are often manifested through these windows.
You don't make a deposit through the floor of the bank, do you?
Stradivari1688
Orthodoxy as a minority religion in Protestant Catholic America.
Well, I've committed publicly to Republicanism as a minority political
orientation in Liberal Progressive America. What's your point?
Brother Dan, out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the Roman Catholic
religion? You mention it often in passing, in a context that would indicate you
believe it to be a better alternative to Orthodoxy...
Chris
danw...@aol.com says...
>
> cranny and tomb to destroy them. Recall that iconoclasm was limited to the
> eastern church. If icons were as widespread as you say, they would have been
> everywhere. The facts are that they were not widespread, because they were a
> new innovation, as the research shows consistently. The only ones who feel
> differently are those who have an agenda, e.g., the Orthodox. Responsible
> scholarship shows icon worship to have taken root in the fifth and sixth
> century. Orthodoxy is not an ancient religion, but a new one.
>
They were VERY widespread.
Icons were and are found among the Malabar Christians of India and the
Ethiopians. The existence of Iconoclasm was due to the proximity of
militant Islam with a Christian Empire in Byzantium. Interesting, the
Coptic Christians of Egypt (under Arab rule) who have and had icons and
those Orthodox Christian under Arab rule at the time did not engage in
the Iconoclast controversy. Iconoclasm erupted primarily in the regions
ruled by the Byzantine Empire. Probably this controversy had economic
and political dimensions which fueled the theology. The restriction of
Iconoclasm to the Byzantine Empire means nothing in terms of Iconography
in general. Ergo, your analysis is flawed.
By the way, you STILL have not addressed my points about extensive
*prechristian* Jewish Iconography found in Israel from the second temple
period,
PF2253
>religion? You mention it often in passing, in a context that would indicate
>you
>believe it to be a better alternative to Orthodoxy...
>Brother Dan, out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the Roman Catholic
>religion? You mention it often in passing, in a context that would indicate
>you
>believe it to be a better alternative to Orthodoxy...
Strad do u really have to encourage him?
Polichinello
Your timeline is bit off, late third, early fourth century are more
accurate.
Regardless, your positivist approach is not exactly a good way to do
theology. Most of the iconodules were well aware of the physical
evidence. They argued their points based on the theology of the
incarnation. That is, salvation is a process of redeeming a fallen
world, thus relics and other related holy items as a means of
salvation were to be honored, or saluted. This a strong point that
you cannot simply walk away from, Dan. If you have a problem with
miraculous icons, then you have a problem with the miraculous
handkerchiefs Paul gave out to people in Acts. And going further
back, you have a problem with Elisha's bones bringing men back to
life. If you have a problem with artwork being honored, then you have
a problem with the Ark of the covenant and with Solomon's temple, both
of which not only used artwork, but featured Assyrian figures. You
cannot arbitrarily accept the one without explaining some kind of
logic for rejecting the other--and simply saying one is biblical while
the other is not will not work because the Bible is a product of the
Church, too.
For more history I've reproduced this passage from "Byzantine Style
and Civilzation" by Sir Steven Runciman
1975, re-printed 1990. Penguin Books p 17-8. Additional comments of
mine are in brackets.
Best,
Derek
"The earliest Christians took little interest in art. They were
largely influenced by the Stoics, towhom art was irrelevant, and they
were under th shadow of Mosaic Law, with its stern ban on idols and
graven images. In any case, a poor and often persecuted community
cannot afford ostentation. To decorate the meeting houses used by
the Christians would have been expensive and
would have drawn unwanted attention to them. But the human desire for
decoration is profound, and the human desire to wear a distinctive
badge is widespread. So while the early Church Fathers such as Clement
of Alexandria and Tertullian frimly forbade anything to that might be
considered to be an image, Clement allowed that Christians might wear
signet-rings on which were carved objects such as a dove, a ship, a
fish or a lyre, each of them a symbol of the Christian life but none
of them necessarily revealing the wearer
to be a Christian.
"Symbols were theologically permissable and politically safe; and the
taste for them grew. The phoenix rising from the ashes signified the
rebirth of the soul after purification. [Note: Clement used the
imagery
of the phoenix in his epistle to the Corinthians] The peacock
drinking
at the fountain was the incorruptible sourl attaining immortality at
the Fountain of Life. The lamb was the Lamb of God. Soon these
harmless bireds and beasts were joined by figures, by a lady
gloriously
attired whom pagans might mistake for an empress or a goddess but who
was in truth the Church, or a good sheperd, whom the pagan world knew
as a symbol of philanthropy or might believe to be Orpheus, but who
was
Christ himself. From there it was an easy step as Christians grew
more
self-confident, to want to have representations of Christ and his
mother and the saints. The Emporer Alexander Severus(222-35), who was
oecumenically minded, was said by a later and unreliable source to
have
had in his oratory statures of Orpheus, Moses, Christ and Apollonius
of
Tyana. [I believe the source was St. Jerome who also alleged that
Phillip the Arab was baptized] Legends are usually based on fact; and
the tale suggests that such images were available at the time.
[Athanasius also records Antony experiencing a religious revelation in
front of an image of the Theotokos. Again, historically unconfirmable
in specifics, but the generality supports what Runciman is saying.]
By
the following century portraits were on sale in Palestine.
Constantines Sister Constantia asked Bishiop Eusebius of Caesarea to
procure one fore here. But Eusebius, who belonged to the old school,
refused and rebuked her sharply for her idolatry.
"***by that time [early 4th century] the walls of most Christian
meeting-houses were covered with painted decoration, and the painters
were beginning to depict
Christ and the Saints***. The chief repositoriues of this art were
the
Roman catcombs, the underground chambers in which Christians were
buried. Many of the catacomb paintings belong to a later date, when
the chambers had become acknowledged shrines. But the surviving older
fragments show that the art was in the traditional pictorial style of
the Greco-Roman world, akin to the earlier but more sophisticated
paintings at Pompeii. In the provinces, especially in the East,
***there was a strong Jewish influence*** The paintings on the little
chapel at Dura on the Euphrates clearly owe a great deal in the large
nearby synagogue, whose rich congregation considered that the Mosaic
ban did not apply to pictorial art.
[At this point I am looking at illustration #10 which is a painting
from said synagogue. It is a representation of the Annointing of
David
with David standing in the foreground being anointed by Samuel.
Behind
David are, I am assuming, his older brothers who didn't make the cut
for kingship.
It has the main features of Orthodox iconography. Big Eyes, long thin
Nose, and little mouth. It looks strikingly similar to the Ravenna
mosaic of the Emperor Justinian and his court.
So what we have here is the symbolic art rising from Greco-Roman
styles
and images, but, in contrast, the detailed iconography arose from
Christian desires the only influence spoken of by Runciman on this art
in the East, aside from Neo-Platonic lighting, is a Jewish influence,
not pagan.]
Runciman then goes on to note the rising detail used, and the allegory
incorporated into the artwork for some more pages along with the
problem of statuary art in the East.
Then on p. 33
"Later Church Fathers, while they apporved of the symbolic
interpretation of holy scenes, began to find the sinle symbolic object
irrelevant. The Council in *i*Trullo*i*[italics original], meeting in
Constantinople in 691, tried to ban its use. ***It failed.***
Throughout the Byzantine centuries peacocks continued to drink from
the
Fountain of Life, dolphins to battle the ocean of eternity, the True
Vine to spread its tendrils, and stars to glimmer on the ceilings as
gems in the robe of the Church herself, the Woman of the Apocalypse."
[All *** emphasis*** is mine]
Stradivari1688
Did I really write that twice in the message? You know you've got problems when
you put the ice cream in the pantry....
Anyway, yes I do have to encourage him. He treats Orthodoxy as if it were some
awful disease.
Danward44
I commend you on a response that had more thought to it than most on this list
serve. However, I think you will find your concerns addressed at:
www.orthodoxlight.homestead.com. Click on the "indepth articles" link and
scroll down to the article on icons. It answers your concerns. Also look at
the article on relics for an explanation of Elisha's bones miracle.
Dan
Danward44
I am sorry but your violin is a bit out of tune here. Let me tell you why. I
was one day in Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow with an American friend
(tourist) who was and is ignorant of Orthodoxy. And maybe not the sharpest
knife in the drawer to boot. Well while we were standing there in the church
area (basement part) we were watching a woman bowing to an icon, lighting a
candle before it, and kissing it. I was talking to the other brother with us
(group of three of us) and mentioned that Orthodoxy was Christian. At this my
less-than-up-to-date friend expressed shock. "How can they be Christian when
they are worshipping idols!", he said. From the mouth of babes. He didn't
know anything about the theology of "windows to heaven". He saw something that
walked like a duck, talked like a duck, and thought it was a duck. He called
them as he saw them. So you may not worship, pray to, or whatever to Icons,
but a whole bunch of babushkas do. It is a stumbling block to those who don't
know any better. I remember one day I mentioned this to an Orthodox priest in a
list serv. He said it was no big deal if a person slipped into Idolatry while
praying or "honoring" an icon, confusing their proskuneo with their latreia. I
don't think it is that light of a thing. "Thou shalt make no grave image, to
bow down to it, for the Lord your God is a jealous God..." It is not a light
and casual thing to God and it should not be to us either. It is rather a
dangerous thing and God clearly warns us to stay away from it. "Touch no
unclean thing..."
Dan
Danward44
Orthodoxy. May the Lord have mercy on you.
Danward44
You are confusing two things: organizational antiquity, and doctrinal
antiquity. Protestants will never dispute that the Orthodox have an
organizational antiquity greater than Protestants, going back to the split with
the Catholics in 1054 A.D., or maybe to the iconoclastic controversy in 787,
when the last elements of Orthodox tradition were added to the teaching of the
apostles. So organizationally you are older, but doctrinally you are the new
kid on the block compared to evangelical protestants. The teaching of Christ
and the apostles cannot be improved on, and it is well represented by the New
Testament which says we are not to go "beyond what is written" (1 Cor. 4:6).
Traditions that do that, as in Orthodoxy, are clearly new. Hence the teaching
of those who hold to the superiorty of scripture over tradition will always
have the greater claim to antiquity.
Blessings on you as you seek Him,
Dan
Danward44
You wrote:
<<y the way, you STILL have not addressed my points about extensive
*prechristian* Jewish Iconography found in Israel from the second temple
period,>>
Well, get in line. I can't keep up with the correspondence here. So many
heretics, so little time! Well anyway: the fact that some mosaics in some
synagogues in pre-Christian Israel may have illustrated Biblical scenes is a
far cry from the modern practice of icon usage. Do you think these Jews were
praying to these mosaics and kissing them? Not likely. Also note that the Jews
at various times in their history were wholly given over to paganism, as in the
time of Elijah the prophets, when Elijah thought there were none left but him
in the whole nation who served the Lord. So one cannot point with certainty to
these things. The only thing that is certain is the word of God. And it is
clear on these issues. See www.orthodoxlight.homestead.com, "indepth articles"
link and then scroll to icons.
William R. Mosher
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.2 Thessalonians 2:15
--
In IC XC,
Alban
"Danward44" <danw...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020322132441...@mb-fi.aol.com...
Danward44
Well that is an interesting question (about my opinion of Catholicism). Yes I
do see Catholicism and Orthodoxy as quite different and at the same time very
similar. (And by the way thanks for the encouragement. I do really enjoy the
give and take of discussion here, even though we certainly don't agree on
everything.) I am a minister, and while pastoring in a small town down south I
was on the pastors council which consisted of the white Baptist pastor, the
black Baptist pastor, the Pentecostal Pastor, the Methodist pastor the Catholic
priest, and me. We had services each Thanksgiving by rotation in each others
churches. Twice while I lived there I was asked by my parishioners to do the
funeral of their Catholic relatives IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. The priests agreed
(two different parishes) and I did not rail against them for mariolatry or what
have you but simply preached the gospel and comforted the grieving. My point is
that I did not find there the vitriol I have found on this list serv nor the
arrogance of those like Franky Schaeffer who seem full of hate against
Protestants as if we were part of a vast conspiracy. I found instead men who
were seeking God and coming at it from different perspectives. I found the same
spirit at the Catholic conference on the Holy Spirit at Notre Dame where
priests and nuns unashamedly seek God, speaking in tongues and receiving the
Baptism of the Holy Spirit. I have not seen this hunger or desire among very
many Orthodox (some, I will grant you -- see the link on the helpful links
section of the web site for the charismatic Orthodox archimandrite.,
www.orthodoxlight.homestead.com). I think this difference in perspective is due
to the fact that most of those on this list serv are converted Protestants with
an ax to grind, who are touchy and cranky to boot. So I have fun pushing your
buttons. I realize that you don't represent Orthodoxy in total, yet at the
same time there is a real spirit in Orthodoxy that is much different than in
Catholicism. There is definitely a religious spirit at work in it, a sense of
superiority and unmasked arrogance that simply states that they are the true
way and the rest of us are likely on our way to hell. The fact that this
attitude is based on pretty slim doctrinal foundations is all the more
fascinating to me. SO there you have it. I think if Orthodoxy were to be a
little more flexible in their dealings with other faiths it might help. But in
the words of one Orthodox (Russian) priest, if they quit telling the people
that there is salvation only in the Orthodox church, their churches would empty
pretty quickly. I don't know if that is true, but that is what he told me. So
maybe a more ecumenical spirit might have some negative effects. It would be
nice to try regardless.
Dan
PF2253
anyhting any one here is telling you. What ever u and yr friends may think,
Orthodox Christians do NOT worship icons, how many times do we have to tell you
before it sinks in? I see from one of your postings, that you are from the
American South, it seems to me you are only confirming the stereotype of the
American Redneck, do you have problems understanding English? Orthodox
Christians worship the Undivided Trinity. When I told an American Evangelical
this on line recently she had no idea waht I meant by the Undivided Trinity
because she oinly worshipped Jesus. Tell me Dan do I conclude from this that
Evangelical Americans do not worship the God of the Bible and have dispensed
with the Father and the Holy Spirit? After all she is a representative of your
culture? I cant help wonder why you are so obsessed by Orthodoxy? Espcially as
it seems there are more 'heretics' within yr ranks than ours. Youi keep
throwing out URLs so if oyu want a good explanation of Orthodox Worship geared
to the non-Orthodox check out this site: www.nottingham.sourozh.org
Paul
Church of the Holy Transfiguration Nottingham England
FTT
> Boy, FTT, if you are an Anglican priest it is no wonder so many are
leaving for
> Orthodoxy. May the Lord have mercy on you.
>
He led me at an early age out
of conventional Protestantism into
Anglicanism.
FTT
Polichinello
Yes, as I pointed out to you in the e-mail, while these articles are
clever in their use of positivism, they do not answer the main
theological point. Also, they again use subjective, arbitrary
standards when dealing with counter-examples in the Bible, such as
admitting the use of statuary, but then saying "it is rare...". Not
something to build a theological house upon, as opposed to the the
work of the iconodules who argued from the Incarnation.
The Elisha bit is clever also; however, it is still based on the
arbitrary biblical standard I discussed earlier. If you have a
problem with these based on the fact that it's only the Church
promulgating the practice, then you should have a problem with the
Bible, too, as its compilation was directed by the Church. Also, you
have not dealt with the handkerchiefs distributed by Paul in Acts.
Would it not make sense that he would pass on this ability? If so,
then what's to stop anyone from blessing an icon, or having the icon
become miraculous, as is claimed for the items Paul blessed? The
early Christians obviously believed so, as is attested in the 2nd
century record of Polycarp's martyrdom.
Best,
Derek
Danward44
You wrote:
<<What ever u and yr friends may think,
Orthodox Christians do NOT worship icons, how many times do we have to tell you
before it sinks in?>>
It is not my opinion, nor my friends, nor the millions of Protestants
worldwide, nor the traditions of the church, but the opionion of the Lord that
matters in this case, wouldn't you agree?
Danward44
You wrote:
<<If you have a
problem with these based on the fact that it's only the Church
promulgating the practice, then you should have a problem with the
Bible, too, as its compilation was directed by the Church.>>
This argument is also dealt with on the web site. As you can see, the Bible was
in common use long before the council convened to discuss it. There was some
disagreement about a few books: Hebrews, James, Jude, as I recall. The council
did not give us the Bible. God did. It only confirmed the general practice of
the body of believers, which were no more "Orthodox" than they were
Episcopalean or Pentecostal.
<< Also, you
have not dealt with the handkerchiefs distributed by Paul in Acts. >>
Note that in the case of the handkerchiefs that there is no record of the
people praying to these handkerchiefs and enchrining them in gold and hanging
them some where for people to pray to. For us to put our faith in an object as
opposed to the Lord is always a mistake. These were a help to them to put their
faith in the Lord in much the same way as Jesus spit and made mud and smeared
it in a man's eyes. This is not to say that we need a relic of holy spit and
mud, although I don't doubt that if some Orthodox could find a bit of it they
would make one.
PF2253
>worldwide, nor the traditions of the church, but the opionion of the Lord
>that
>matters in this case, wouldn't you agree?
>It is not my opinion, nor my friends, nor the millions of Protestants
>worldwide, nor the traditions of the church, but the opionion of the Lord
>that
>matters in this case, wouldn't you agree?
Do you mean to say that the God thinks I worship icons when I in fact worship
the Undivided Trinity? Either God is stupid or you are arrogant enough to think
you have a monopoly on knowing what God thinks and no one else does. No wonder
you have problems with Roman Catholicism. You and John Paul have both got the
ear pf God that the rest of us mere mortals havent.
I suggest that you find dictionary and look up the word 'humility', it is a
concept that is very dear to the heart of God-check out the Bible. If you
really are a Christian-and I begin to wonder sometimes reading so many of your
postings-you might do well to begin to emulate our Lord and take on a teachable
spirit-Phillipians 2, espcially as we enter Lent when we remember what it cost
God to bring about Salvation
Paul
Stradivari1688
>on this list serv are converted Protestants with an ax to grind, who are
>touchy and cranky to boot. So I have fun pushing your buttons.
My friend, I have neither an "axe to grind" with Protestants, as you say, nor
do I *think* I'm touchy or cranky. I am not, however, particularly encouraged
by the misrepresentation of fact as pervades so many of your statements (be it
known I'm not trying to denigrate you) and become quite frustrated when proof
is presented and you fail to address it adequately. I am taking the time to
respond to you, and you've taken the time to respond to the messages and
rantings of many others, most of whom attempt to make the same point.
Since you have this time, do you not think it more effective to address
everyone as a whole, with a single refutation rather than redirecting us to
your website? My scanner isn't working, so the offer remains by other media. I
will fax or send you a copy of the Greek version of 2 Maccabees 7 for you to
compare with the supposed verse out of Hebrews in the Greek NT. If the quote
doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. Hey, you can even post the result on
www.orthodoxlight.com if you win...
>But in the words of one Orthodox (Russian) priest, if they quit telling the
>people that there is salvation only in the Orthodox church, their >churches
would empty pretty quickly.
They *would* empty pretty quickly, not because of any doubt there might be
salvation in Orthodoxy, but because it could be had more easily (notice I
avoided the word cheaply) elsewhere. That's the king of all "emotional" reasons
I can think of. If you can make $500,000 a year without lifting a finger as
opposed to putting in 12 hour days, 7 days a week with the same result, which
option would you choose. Same end, vastly different means.
>So maybe a more ecumenical spirit might have some negative effects.
Ecumenical spirit in the sense that you, Catholics, and mainstream Protestants
are still Christian brothers and need to come home. Not in the sense that there
are different paths to salvation, however. There aren't. There are false
Christians in the Orthodox Churches and true Christians in other Churches, but
the Orthodox Church is the best vehicle for experiencing the fulness of Gospel
Truth.
Stradivari1688
Easter, as most Western Christians celebrate, is of pagan origin. It even has a
pagan name. The dropping of the Saturday Sabbath and instead substitution of
Sunday as a day of rest in most Western churches, is a pagan innovation (as
opposed to the Orthodox notion of Sunday being a day of worship). Most of the
cherished Christmas traditions are pagan, should we throw them out as well?