Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
That's what I wrote in 8,263, except in Slavonic lukavago; your's is in Russian lukavogo.
It's a "nominative adjective," for the alck of a better word, an adjective turned into a proper name; i.e. the evil one is craftiness personified.
In Serbia, the evil one is referred to as djavo, satana (often spelled in lower case), or нечисти (nechisti), that is the unclean one, or нечастиви (nechastivi) — the dishonorable one, etc.
Ping 8321, sorry
Because we don't know what we need. St. John Chrysostom answers your very question:
For He knoweth," saith He, "what things ye have need of." And if He know, one may say, what we have need of, wherefore must we pray? Not to instruct Him, but to prevail with Him; to be made intimate with Him, by continuance in supplication; to be humbled; to be reminded of thy sins.
The Church prohibits simony: a purchase of a supernatural gift, such as forgiveness of sin, with natural means such as money. But as long as you understand, as you seem to, that charity does not earn salvation, your work of charity, even if transacted through a donation and not through direct application of labor, opens your heart for more grace and strengthens your faith, by which you are justified.
It is not an either-or. You are justified by grace through faith working through love.
This is correct but incomplete. Works of charity is what we are judged by, so we must do them or we won't be saved (Matthew 25, Apocalypse 22:12. Works are how we grow our faith (Luke 17:5-10).
Djavo is, of course, related to the Russian "dyavol" -- devil, the accuser. Here is a word I never came across in any other Slav language: "chyort", spelled "chert". I do not know the etymology.
"Actually I do believe you're correct about its rare usage."
Well, of course I am! :-) One of the reasons that I popped in on this discussion is that when I was memorizing the Lord's Prayer in Greek, years ago, I looked up all of the words in my Thayer's, and was interested to learn at that time of the uniqueness of the word, and I went on a bit of a tear at the time looking into this.
The fact that there are no quotations in the very thorough Liddel-Scott Lexicon, and that the word appears nowhere in the LXX of the NT (according to the exhaustive Hatch-Redpath concordance) means that it was drawn neither from classical Greek nor Hellenic-Jewish usage.
I didn't bring in the Thayer entry because it leans heavily on the questionable practice of speculating about what the Semitic word being translated into Greek was. We don't know if Christ spoke Greek as well as Aramaic/Hebrew, but we do know what language the NT is handed down to us in.
It is interesting that while there is one Greek word in both passages, St. Jerome translated it in two different ways in SS. Matthew and Luke, in light of St. Irenaeus's assertion that St. Matthew was written originally in Hebrew/Aramaic, while St. Luke was written in Greek. It is also interesting that St. Jerome makes reference to a Hebrew Gospel where the expression is the equivalent of "quod dicitur crastinus." I hadn't remembered that tidbit.
I think that we can agree that the word is an obscure one -- and thus the patristic commentaries become of great importance, since these are Greek-speakers living much closer to the time. St. John Chrysostom's exposition can leave little doubt that there could not have been a "plain meaning" plainer than the daily/sufficient meaning, nor could a Eucharistic reference be the primary plain reading, or even one of the plain meanings.
Secondary meanings and implications are dependent on theology. It is hardly unknown for Protestants to read their own preferred spiritual meanings into that particular word -- a well-known Reformed daily devotional book is called "Daily Bread." This reflects one of the meanings that St. Augustine saw in the phrase, since he says that it also refers to the word of God as our daily bread (of course, this has a double meaning in some of St. Augustine's passages, since Christ is the Word of God -- but in other passages, it is clear that he is talking about the Scriptures and other spiritual writings.)
For those of us who believe that when we approach the chalice we are receiving the Body of Christ and tasting the "fountain of immortality," it should hardly be surprising that we, along with St. Augustine, would inevitably see a reference to the "bread of life." It would be difficult *not* to see this as a deeper, layered meaning.
To refer to a Pez dispenser is, to put it mildly, irreverent. While it is not Eastern parish practice to have daily communion, since the full cycle of services culminating in the Divine Liturgy is a major undertaking that can be done on a daily basis only in monastic and very large cathedral settings, we would always consider this to be the ideal. Early writings indicate that the consecrated elements were at one time brought home from church and consumed daily, although this practice came to an end out of a concern that due reverence could not be assured, especially after the rapid growth of the Church in the 3rd and 4th centuries.
In the West, with its simpler liturgical structure, daily reception of communion has never been a particularly unreasonable attainment for a pious layman. While I am hardly fond of the concept of the 15 minute Mass, even these are far more reverent than your "Pez dispenser" comment might imply -- even taking hyperbole into consideration.
While the expositions of the Fathers in general support the daily/sufficient meaning as the primary one, one cannot deny that it takes a fair amount of etymological gymnastics to come to that meaning from the word itself (as the Thayer reference you post a link to shows.)
You would have to be asserting by "mistranslation," that the Apostles themselves mistranslated Christ's Aramaic word, and I have a real problem with that. And the word's very uniqueness and obscurity, when there were very plain words meaning "daily" or "necessary" that could have been chosen, militates against your assertion that there *cannot* be deeper references -- just as the patristic commentaries militate against any assertion that the Eucharist is what is plainly and primarily being referred to.
We HAVE RECEIVED mercy-past tense. We HAVE RENOUNCED the world because we now understand our shame.
We must persevere until the end-yes. We will persevere because of our Lord Jesus. Not because of anything WE can do.
I have nothing real to contribute here except that I think it's amazing an obscure debate over something the often unjustly ignored Erasmus may have uttered several hundred years ago could have generated so long a thread.
What would Donald Davidson or Allen Tate think about this? (iow, you're the guy that kept me from taking that screenname and I've finally found you).
Long live the green fields of Our Lord.
Now that's fascinating because the Greek word ponhroV actually means that, The Evil One, but with overtones of slyness, like a fox.
Yes, the Serbian "j" is equivalent to English "y" or Russian "й" (i kratkoye).
The "l" in dyavol has been lost in the eastern shtokavian dialect (spoken by the majority of Serbs), but remains in declentions, i.e. djavolu (to the devil), and in plural djavoli (the devils), etc. However, the "l" is preserved in the western (also know as yekavian) shtokavski spoken by all other Serb and Croats, thus djavol as in Russian.
As far as I know "чёрт" (chyort) is a uniquely Russian word, just as the usage of ë (yo) variation of "yat."
God saves us by His gace ... through our faith ... so as to produce works pleasing to God.
This is correct but incomplete. Works of charity is what we are judged by, so we must do them or we won't be saved (Matthew 25, Apocalypse 22:12. Works are how we grow our faith (Luke 17:5-10).
Our salvation is based upon ... whether or not our names are in the Lamb's book of Life ...Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Those which have a true Christian fathers will produce corresponding works ...John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
__________________________________________________________
John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
Finally, ... Luke 7:5-10 says nothing about works growing one's faith ...Luke 17:5 And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith.We grow our faith by the exercising of our faith ... as Jesus says in verse 6.
6 And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.
7 But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?
8 And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?
9 Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.
10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.
The remainder of the passage speaks to our positioning in the Kingdom of God. We are servants of the Most High God.
As His servants, it is our place to produce works according to His will.
Could be both. His Greek was very marginal and he is known to have made some conceptual errors based on his poor understanding and/or translation of Greek sources.
And when +Augustine makes an error, an entire section of western Christians falls into it because, to some, he is the only Church Father they follow.
Only God is immortal by nature -- or at least that is what I have always been taught in my life as an Orthodox Christian
St. John Chrysostomos writes:
and St. Gregory Palamas says the following:
"The soul of each man is also the life of the body that it animates...Yet the soul has life not as an activity [as animals do] but also as its essence, since it is self-existent; for it possesses a spiritual and noetic life that is evidently different from the body's...Hence when the body dissolves the human soul does not perish with it but it continues to exist immortally, since it is not manifest only in relation to something else, but possesses its own life as its essence. (St. Gregory Palamas, Philokalia, "Topics of Natural Science and Theological Science", #32).
Summarizing the Orthodox view:
Clearly, the immortality of the soul is tied to the after-life we associate with salvation. The soul continues to "live" after the body dies. For the repentant, the soul is safeguarded by the angels, and for the unrepentant...
The serpent in Gensis tells Eve "surely you will not die." This is the ultimate deception, for the soul will not die, but the "life" it will assume will be worse that being dead.
One thing remains unclear, however: if we are to retain our free will, there also must remain in us a potential to fall from grace (again). For the immortality which God desired for mankind is only a potential hinged on our right choices, based on our free will, and not on lack of it.
However, we are told that this will not happen, which can only mean that we will lose our free will and the whole paradigm falls apart. I am sure the Calvinists would find this "refreshing."
Indeed, the modern Serbian word лукав, лукави (lukav, lukavi) means sly.
This always gives me confidence that Slavonic texts (after all they have been devised by SS Cyrill and Mehtodius who spoke Slavonic as well as Greek), convey the true original Greek meaning and tense.
I too find it very interesting although I'm not convinced that our Lord Jesus simply made up a new word. That would be like Him telling the disciples, "Give us this day our xpwbosbuess bread." The apostles would have been scratching their heads over that one and certainly would need the Holy Spirit to interpert His message.
I'm not a linguist (nor do I play one on TV) so it's very difficult for me to say whether Thayer is or is not correct. Even if Thayer interpretation relies upon questionable practices, I would have to be an expert in the various languages to know the nuances to make a decision. Some people question Thayer's beliefs but there does seem to be an appreciation for his works since he has been around for a long time-so I don't think he's entirely discredited. I would agree with you that this is an obscure meaning and certainly a mystery; but it is interesting.
I can understand why Catholics and Orthodox might want to read more into this passage than is there. I don't think you can accuse Protestants of this simple because they are not reading the subtle nuance that some say is there. One can make the Bible say anything they wish if they try hard enough.
My reference to the Pez dispenser was not meant to be irreverent but rather to be more tongue-in-cheek given the interpretation. IF this was truly meant to refer to the Eucharist and IF this was to be done daily, then it simply begs the question why the disciples didn't dispense the Eucharist daily. Since they placed such a high regard on communion, then surely they would have thought about this conversation and come to the obvious conclusion that they must have communion daily. It also means the Church is not following through on a command they now believe to be there.
As I stated, I'm not a linguist to figure out how much "gymnastics" Thayer is doing. However, the entire context of Matthew 6 talks about not worrying about tomorrow and focusing on today. That seems to be consistent with this piece of scripture. The Eucharist wasn't dispense daily so you have a real historical problem trying to explain why the early church fathers broke this command. And some of them don't agree with the way you're interpreting this verse.
This goes back to my argument some time back that people pick the fathers they feel support their views and disregard the others. I'm not accusing you of this as you seem to be a tad bit more opened minded. But it is a danger people fall into.
Protestants believe that scripture must interpret scripture. If there is one part of scripture that is in isolation and cannot be interpreted by another piece, it is best to leave it alone for the ages. I think this is the case here, as interesting as it seems. To make any claims other than "our daily bread" is presumptuous.
The race for the rewards that are mentioned in that same chapter, an incorruptible crown.
There are actually five crowns that can be won (See 2Tim.4:8, Jas.1:12, 1Pet.5:4, and Rev.2:10) for the other four).
"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places" (Eph 6:12) Our struggle is not agianst flesh and blood? Our carnal nature?
We do not only fight against our flesh, we have a supernatural enemy as well (1Pe.5:8)
But against the powers and rulers, world forces of this darkness? Which specific darkness is he talking about?
Satanic ones.
Then he jumps to "spiritual forces" of wickedness in heavenly places. So, we are not really resisitng our carnal nature, but dark forces of the world (I presume he's talking about the earth), and wicked spirits in!?
No, we do not only resist our flesh but also the world system and Satanic forces who control it (Rom.12:2,2Cor.4:4)
First, he is painting a picture suggestive of dualism, rather than personal theosis, and then he reveals that there are — wicked spirits in heavenly places.
That is not dualism, those are Fallen Angels created by God, but who rebelled.(Ezek 28, Isa.14, Rev.12)
To be dualism, they would have to equal with God, which they are not.
This sure sounds Gnostic to me, especially the last part.
Well, you are very confused, as Peter said those would be who wrest the scriptures(2Pe.3:16)
If you are saying that the scriptures are the final authority and not the opinions of men, on that we can agree.
That has to do with our walk not our salvation.
Our walk (growth) is for the purpose of gloryfying God in time and we get crowns for them (1Cor.3:13-16, 1Cor.9, 1Tim.2, Jam.1:12, Phil.4:1 1Pet.5, Rev.3,)
You are confusing positional sanctification with progressive sanctification.
The race being run has to do with rewards not salvation. (1Cor.9:24-26) What is the one reward that Paul preaches about? Gold? material wealth? power? Of course not, His only mission was to spread the good news of salvation, that is the only reward that matters. Also, if we read a bit further in to Paul's letter, we see that he writes in verse 27 of the same book and chapter: "No, I drive my body and train it, for fear that , after having preached ot others, I myself should be disqualified".
Disqualified from what?
From not getting the rewards he talks about in 1Cor.3-13-16, and the crowns he writes about in 1Cor.9, 2Tim.2 (before his death), Phil.4:1 etc.
The final glorification has to do with our receiving our resurrection Body, not salvation (Rom.8). We don't hope for what is assured, do we.
We don't hope for we don't see but if we hope for what we see not, then we with patience wait for it (Rom.8:23-25)
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God, that ye may know that ye have eternal life (1Jn.5:13) Belief surpasses mere intellectual ascent, the belief that John writes is dynamic, transcendent and not easy to attain, many are called, few are chosen.
The belief that John writes about is for all men who have received Christ as their personal saviour and they should have the assurance that the are indeed new creatures in Christ (2Cor.5:17), born again (Jn.3:3) and therefore, heaven bound (Rom.8:29, 38-39)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.