Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
"While you and Kosta are very learned, you can't tell me that there aren't plenty of new or otherwise unlearned, English speaking Orthodox out there, whose English Bibles are so full of errors that they are virtually unusable." I wouldn't tell you that because what you say is true. English versions of the Bible are full of errors and therefore Orthodox people, learned or unlearned, cradle or convert know that the only safe way to understand the Bible is to read it in light of what The Church has always taught. If we read the Bible in Greek, we see the religion of The Apostles and The Fathers. Some posts back I set out a quote from John Kalomiros commenting that the problems about which we are speaking have their origins in language and culture. I have seen over my lifetime that Americans especially have a difficult time understanding that different cultures have very, very different views of how the world goes around. Anglophones have a difficult time understanding that not everything can be clearly expressed in English. The West's understanding of "sin" is simply not what the Greek means, now or when it was written. None of the foregoing means that there is some sort of universal salvation; none of the foregoing means that those who fail of their created purpose, choosing rather to reject God in favor of the self, will not suffer indescribable, flaming torment by being scourged with the love of God as those who have become like Christ will be embraced and comforted by that same love. There is no way to fully describe the horrors which await the damned, but there is no question but that their torment is a result of their own rejection of God, not God's rejection of them, and that which torments them is precisely what will mean bliss for those who have met the mark. "Now, excellent scholars can disagree on the definitions of Greek words, just as they can with English words. Hence, we have more than one reputable English dictionary. But the Orthodox do not recognize this fact at all. Comparatively, the Orthodox would say that the American Heritage Dictionary was full of lies because no one related to Noah Webster contributed to it, but Webster's Dictionary was 100% truth because only a Webster could ever understand English. Even the Latins resist this approach. Is it really intellectually honest to say that ONLY Orthodox scholars, throughout time, have ever understood the true Greek?" FK, neither Kosta nor I are saying that Webster's or the American Heritage are mis-defining English words. We are saying that "sin" as defined in English is not the same word as "Αμαρτια" in Greek. An English dictionary doesn't deal with that. I don't mean to make this any more complex than it already is, but there are a number of words used theologically where we see the same problem; the West thinks it has translated a Greek word into a Western word with the same meaning, but it hasn't and that leads to trouble. Arguably it has worked that way in the East too, with the schism with the Monophysites arising out of the non-congruence of Greek and Syriac. Finally, I think it is distinctly possible that the only people who have truly understood the NT, as far as we do understand it, are those who understand it in concordance with what the Orthodox Church teaches.
HD asked what "Αμαρτια" means. In English it is translated as "sin" with all the understood meanings of that word. The Greek word however means, as FK pointed out, a "missing of the mark", the "mark" being Christ. If you think about it for a minute, this meaning of "Αμαρτια" lies at the base of most of Eastern Christian theology while the Western misunderstanding of the word lies at the base of Western theology, especially the Protestant form of Augustinian theology. "While you and Kosta are very learned, you can't tell me that there aren't plenty of new or otherwise unlearned, English speaking Orthodox out there, whose English Bibles are so full of errors that they are virtually unusable."
I wouldn't tell you that because what you say is true. English versions of the Bible are full of errors and therefore Orthodox people, learned or unlearned, cradle or convert know that the only safe way to understand the Bible is to read it in light of what The Church has always taught. If we read the Bible in Greek, we see the religion of The Apostles and The Fathers. Some posts back I set out a quote from John Kalomiros commenting that the problems about which we are speaking have their origins in language and culture. I have seen over my lifetime that Americans especially have a difficult time understanding that different cultures have very, very different views of how the world goes around. Anglophones have a difficult time understanding that not everything can be clearly expressed in English. The West's understanding of "sin" is simply not what the Greek means, now or when it was written. None of the foregoing means that there is some sort of universal salvation; none of the foregoing means that those who fail of their created purpose, choosing rather to reject God in favor of the self, will not suffer indescribable, flaming torment by being scourged with the love of God as those who have become like Christ will be embraced and comforted by that same love. There is no way to fully describe the horrors which await the damned, but there is no question but that their torment is a result of their own rejection of God, not God's rejection of them, and that which torments them is precisely what will mean bliss for those who have met the mark.
"Now, excellent scholars can disagree on the definitions of Greek words, just as they can with English words. Hence, we have more than one reputable English dictionary. But the Orthodox do not recognize this fact at all. Comparatively, the Orthodox would say that the American Heritage Dictionary was full of lies because no one related to Noah Webster contributed to it, but Webster's Dictionary was 100% truth because only a Webster could ever understand English. Even the Latins resist this approach. Is it really intellectually honest to say that ONLY Orthodox scholars, throughout time, have ever understood the true Greek?"
FK, neither Kosta nor I are saying that Webster's or the American Heritage are mis-defining English words. We are saying that "sin" as defined in English is not the same word as "Αμαρτια" in Greek. An English dictionary doesn't deal with that. I don't mean to make this any more complex than it already is, but there are a number of words used theologically where we see the same problem; the West thinks it has translated a Greek word into a Western word with the same meaning, but it hasn't and that leads to trouble. Arguably it has worked that way in the East too, with the schism with the Monophysites arising out of the non-congruence of Greek and Syriac. Finally, I think it is distinctly possible that the only people who have truly understood the NT, as far as we do understand it, are those who understand it in concordance with what the Orthodox Church teaches.
Romans 3:
1] Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?
[2] Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God.
Approximately A. D. 90, the Jewish Council of Jamnia set the O.T. Canon. When is the earliest date you claim the Canon was set? Was it post Ressurection? Was it within 90 A.D.? Forget for the moment that the first Ecumenical Council which set your Canon was the Council Of Trent, 16th century!
“Forget for the moment that the first Ecumenical Council which set your Canon was the Council Of Trent, 16th century!”
OR, the Orthodox had nothing whatsoever to do with the Council of Trent.
Answer please. (You seem to have missed it).
When is the earliest date you claim the Canon was set?
” OR, the Orthodox had nothing whatsoever to do with the Council of Trent.
I am fully aware of that. Your response is not an answer.”
If you did know that OR, you’d know that Trent was not an Ecumenical Council, now wouldn’t you. Or maybe you just forgot, eh?
As for the earliest date Orthodoxy has for the setting of the canon of the OT, well that would be sometime between the first and third ceturies BC with the Septuagint, which, as you know, contains Sirach.
" Approximately A. D. 90, the Jewish Council of Jamnia set the O.T. Canon. When is the earliest date you claim the Canon was set? Was it post Ressurection? Was it within 90 A.D.? Forget for the moment that the first Ecumenical Council which set your Canon was the Council Of Trent, 16th century!"
As for the earliest date Orthodoxy has for the setting of the canon of the OT, well that would be sometime between the first and third ceturies BC with the Septuagint, which, as you know, contains Sirach.
You don't have a date? Sometime between.....??? What kind of an answer is that? If you have no idea when it happened why not admit it?
Which version of the Septuagint are you using? How old/new is it? What books are contained in it?
Are there any Greek copies of the Septuagint written prior to the 4th century? Where? What?
Kolokotronis, are you saying that the Eastern Orthodox Church does not believe Hell exists, at all?
Or, are you saying that after we die, we are in the presence of God, and for the unrepentant sinner, this presence is "torture" (for lack of a better word), but for the repentant, it's more pleasant?
Or are you saying that there exists no form of separation for the repentant and unrepentant sinner at all?
Please answer each of these questions with a yes or no answer, so I may learn (even if it may seem redundant to you). I read the website you linked to in your post #10,387, and quite frankly, I don't see how it's that much different than the Catholic position, at least in so much as to say that "While Heaven and Hell are decidedly real, they are experiential conditions rather than physical places, and both exist in the presence of God. In fact, nothing exists outside the presence of God." and, "The Bible indicates that everyone comes before God in the next life, and it is because of being in God's presence that they either suffer eternally, or experience eternal joy. In other words, both the joy of heaven, and the torment of judgment, is caused by being eternally in the presence of the Almighty, the perfect and unchanging God. "
The Catholic position is to simply distinguish the two "experiences", and, in some largely mysterious way we call "Heaven" and "Hell", the two groups of people are separate in their personal experience vis a vis the full presence of God. IOW, the people "in Heaven" do not interact with the people "in Hell" and vice versa. Note, the phrases "in Heaven" and "in Hell" are in quotes in the previous sentence to denote the largely mysterious way this separation is done. At least as far as I understand it.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to hearing your answers to the direct questions above.
Here’s the Canon of the OT which is current in Orthodoxy:
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
[Prayer of Manasseh]
1 Esdras
Ezra
Nehemiah
Tobit
Judith
Esther (with insertions)
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
[3 Maccabees]
[4 Maccabees]
Job
Psalms
[Psalm no. 151]
[Odes]
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Songs
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus
[Psalms of Solomon]
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Baruch
Epistle of Jeremiah
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
I wouldn’t know if Unitarians read the Bible (the group near me uses a different “holy book” each week), or at least if they read it more than other religious writings, but assuming they and you do, you know that these various books were written at various times and also translated into the Greek Septuagint at various times, which is why I said 3rd-1st century BC. To the best of my knowledge there is no known copy earlier than about the 4th century AD though certainly its books are referred to before that.
You know, OR, technically speaking there is no official “bible” as such in Orthodoxy. There are simply the scriptures which are considered canonical and used in the Liturgies and devotions and services of The Church. For that reason, this sort of discussion, which gets Westerners so wound up and leads them to say such silly things as we’ve seen here, really has little or no meaning for Orthodox Christians.
I’ll answer “yes” or “no” to precisely the questions you posed:
“Kolokotronis, are you saying that the Eastern Orthodox Church does not believe Hell exists, at all?”
No
“Or, are you saying that after we die, we are in the presence of God, and for the unrepentant sinner, this presence is “torture” (for lack of a better word), but for the repentant, it’s more pleasant?”
Yes
“Or are you saying that there exists no form of separation for the repentant and unrepentant sinner at all?”
No
I think the site I linked to answered the questions and you completely understood the answers. I am pleased to read that the Latins share these beliefs.
Thank you! For the record, I’ve always enjoyed your posts as I find them most educational. I pray, as I’m sure you do too, for the reunification of our two churches.
God bless,
Thanks for asking about this, FourtySeven. And thanks for your answers, Kolokotronis.
You’re welcome. It’s been my experience that many disagreements among people stem from ignorance of the original position. Thus, I prefer to nip these things in the bud by asking direct questions.
You are both quite welcome.
(MLG) “Sirach 15: 14-20
(MLG) That is not Scripture.”
Its not, eh? Says who, some 16th century German or a group of post Resurrection Jews who wanted to “discredit” Christianity?
I provided you with Scripture;
Romans 3:
1] Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? [2] Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God.
The same "post Ressurection" Jews, not the Hellenized version, who set the O.T. Cannon in 90AD.
You, on the other hand, can't find a single scrap of paper which is earlier than the 4th century yet your version is the "authentic" one.
" You know, OR, technically speaking there is no official “bible” as such in Orthodoxy. There are simply the scriptures which are considered canonical and used in the Liturgies and devotions and services of The Church..."
Technically speaking, it is just as well you have no "official" Bible. You take more liberties with Scripture than your Latin cousins. You are smart enough however to add your "technical" disclaimer.
It might be better for you to distance yourself from discussions concerning Scripture. It is obvious you are not working with history or knowledge on your side.
That is another protestant myth as well.The Church Fathers regularly quoted the Deuts as inspired scripture in many of their writings
Some examples of Saint Jerome..
Does not the SCRIPTURE say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power’ [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207
St. Jerome himself calls Sirach, which he had referred to as non-canonical, as Scripture. Thus, in practice, to support doctrine, he calls it Scripture. This quotation, even if there were no other quotations from him on the Deuterocanonicals, show that his view on what is and is not Scripture can not be seen from his earlier citation.
Here is more...
“”Do not, my dearest brother, estimate my worth by the number of my years. Gray hairs are not wisdom; it is wisdom which is as good as gray hairs At least that is what Solomon says: “wisdom is the gray hair unto men.’ [Wisdom 4:9]” Moses too in choosing the seventy elders is told to take those whom he knows to be elders indeed, and to select them not for their years but for their discretion (Num. 11:16)? And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age (Daniel 13:55-59, or Story of Susannah 55-59, only found in the Catholic Bibles) Jerome, To Paulinus, Epistle 58 (A.D. 395), in NPNF2, VI:119
Here St. Jerome mixes use of the Book of Wisdom with Moses’ writing. In the midst of referring to Moses, he also refers to the Story of Susanna to establish a point. He makes no distinction in practice from the writing of Moses, from the two Deuterocanonical books.
And more....
“I would cite the words of the psalmist: ‘the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel ‘I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH,’Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS.” Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159
Notice how Jerome makes no distinction at all between the Psalmist, Ezekiel, and Baruch. They are all Scripture, God’s Word. Also, contrary to Rhodes’ assertion that the Deuterocanonicals had no prophets, Jerome himself calls Baruch a prophet, thus according his writing Scriptural status. According to Jerome, Baruch thus authoritatively spoke God’s Word. He uses Baruch in tandem with these prophets to prove David in Psalm 51 correct.
“”still our merriment must not forget the limit set by Scripture, and we must not stray too far from the boundary of our wrestling-ground. Your presents, indeed, remind me of the sacred volume, for in it Ezekiel decks Jerusalem with bracelets, (Eze. 16:11) Baruch receives letters from Jeremiah,(Jer. 36, Bar. 6) and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove at the baptism of Christ.””(Mt. 3:16) Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 31:2 (A.D. 384), in NPNF2, VI:45
Notice that St. Jerome quotes in reference to Scriptures, and the Sacred Volumes. Then he refers to 3 passages. Ezekiel, Baruch, and Matthew. Now, St. Jerome here refers to Jeremiah giving letters (plural) to Baruch. One time in Jeremiah 36, and another time in Baruch 6.
And more from Saint Jerome
“”As in good works it is God who brings them to perfection, for it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that pitieth and gives us help that we may be able to reach the goal: so in things wicked and sinful, the seeds within us give the impulse, and these are brought to maturity by the devil. When he sees that we are building upon the foundation of Christ, hay, wood, stubble, then he applies the match. Let us then build gold, silver, costly stones, and he will not venture to tempt us: although even thus there is not sure and safe possession. For the lion lurks in ambush to slay the innocent. [Sir. 27:5] “Potters’ vessels are proved by the furnace, and just men by the trial of tribulation.” And in another place it is written: [Sir. 2:1] “My son, when thou comest to serve the Lord, prepare thyself for temptation.” Again, the same James says: [James 3:22]”Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only. For if any one is a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror: for he beholdeth himself, and goeth away, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.” It was useless to warn them to add works to faith, if they could not sin after baptism.”” Jerome, Against Jovinianus,, Book 2, 3 NPNF2, VI:390
As we have seen, “It is written” is a phrase that both the authors of Scripture, and the Church Fathers use only in reference to Scripture. Jerome uses the phrase identifying the quote to come as Scripture. The quote he uses comes from the book of Sirach. Thus, Sirach is Scripture. He then quotes James interchangeably as just another Scripture as of the same level of authority as Sirach.
“Yet the Holy Spirit in the thirty-ninth(9) psalm, while lamenting that all men walk in a vain show, and that they are subject to sins, speaks thus: “For all that every man walketh in the image.”(Psalm 39:6) Also after David’s time, in the reign of Solomon his son, we read a somewhat similar reference to the divine likeness. For in the book of Wisdom, which is inscribed with his name, Solomon says: “God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.”(Wisdom 2:23) And again, about eleven hundred and eleven years afterwards, we read in the New Testament that men have not lost the image of God. For James, an apostle and brother of the Lord, whom I have mentioned above—that we may not be entangled in the snares of Origen—teaches us that man does possess God’s image and likeness. For, after a somewhat discursive account of the human tongue, he has gone on to say of it: “It is an unruly evil ... therewith bless we God, even the Father and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.”(James 3:8-9) Paul, too, the “chosen vessel,”(Acts 9:15) who in his preaching has fully maintained the doctrine of the gospel, instructs us that man is made in the image and after the likeness of God. “A man,” he says, “ought not to wear long hair, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.”(1 Cor. 11:7) He speaks of “the image” simply, but explains the nature of the likeness by the word “glory.”
Taken from http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html#St.%20Jerome,%20[347-419/420%20A.D]
Dear Jo kus did a well researched post on the early Church Fathers and the Deuts as well.
Here it is from.. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1748533/posts?page=7414#7414
The Church Fathers over and over spoke of the DEUTEROCANNONICALS (Apocrypha is the term given to “hidden” writings, not writings that came into the cannon after some discussion, such as 2 Peter or Wisdom) as being Scriptures. They often discussed a theological point, proofing it with a Protocannonical work and IN THE SAME SENTENCE using a Dueterocannonical work. Thus, in context, they considered that the Deut writing had the exact SAME force as the Proto work of Scriptures.
For example, consider this...
“What, then, again says the prophet? ‘The assembly of the wicked surrounded me; they encompassed me as bees do a honeycomb,’[Ps. 22:17,118:12] and ‘upon my garment they cast lots’[Ps. 22:19]. Since, therefore, He was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, His suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against Israel, ‘Woe to their soul, because they have counselted an evil counsel against themselves[Isa. 3:9,] saying, Let us bind the just one, because he is displeasing to us’[Wisdom 2:12]. And Moses also says to them, ‘Behold these things, saith the Lord God: Enter into the good land which the Lord sware tto give to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and inherit ye it, a land flowing with milk and honey’[Ex. 33:1, Lev. 20:24].” Epistle of Barnabas, 6 (A.D. 74).
As any unbiased individual can see, the writer of the Epistle of Barnabas considered the Book of Wisdom to be Scriptural, using a verse from it with the same force in the same sentence as a verse from Isaiah and surrounded by other Scriptures from the Protocanonical books. From such writings, we can determine that many other Fathers considered other books as Scriptures.
Nearly a year ago, some other gentleman on this forum challenged me to prove this idea that the Deuterocanonicals were Scriptures as determined by the Church Fathers. As such, I did some extensive research and found the following. This is a transcript with what I have posted here before...
OT Deuterocanonicals explicitly accepted as Scripture
Epistle of Barnabas Wisdom
Clement of Rome Wisdom
Didache Sirach
Polycarp Tobit
Melito of Sardes gives a list including Daniel and Wisdom, possibly Baruch
Irenaeus Daniel (*see below) and Baruch
Tertullian Wisdom, Daniel, and Baruch
Muratorian Fragment gives a list including Wisdom in the NT
Clement of Alexandria Sirach, Baruch, Tobit and Wisdom
Hippolytus Maccabees, Tobit, Wisdom, Baruch and Daniel
Origen Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch, Daniel, Tobit and Sirach
Cyprian Maccabees, Wisdom, Daniel, Tobit and Sirach
Dionysius the Great Wisdom, Sirach
Lactanius Sirach
Alexander of Alexandria Sirach
Aphraates the Persian Sage Maccabees and Sirach
Cyril of Jerusalem includes a “canon” list with 2nd Esdras Daniel and Baruch. He later calls Wisdom Scripture, indicating that canon does not equal Scripture, as we define it. Canon means those books to be proclaimed at Mass.
Athanasius Baruch, Daniel, Sirach and Tobit he calls Scripture explicitly. He also lists Wisdom, Judith, Tobit as among those to be read for new converts. Note Tobit is on both lists, so he, like Cyril, does not equate canon with Scripture as we do today. The second list are not to be proclaimed during the Liturgy.
Basil Maccabees, Judith, Wisdom, Baruch, Daniel and Sirach
Hilary of Poitiers Daniel, Baruch, Maccabees, and Wisdom. He also lists Tobit and Judith in his list of Scripture.
Gregory of Nazianzen Daniel, Maccabees, Wisdom, Judith
Gregory of Nyssa Wisdom, Daniel
Ambrose Wisdom, Judith, Daniel, Baruch, Maccabees, Tobit and Sirach
Council of Rome, Decree of Pope Damasus (A.D. 382). All Deuterocanonicals of Roman Catholic Church included.
John Chrysostom Tobit, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, Maccabees, and Daniel
Jerome lists 1st Maccabees and later Sirach (called “Parables” in Hebrew form) as Scripture and discounts the other Deuterocanonicals SOLELY on the grounds that there are no Hebrew versions of them (this is why he includes 1st Maccabees and later Sirach). He also equates Baruch with Scripture right along with Ezekiel.
Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393).
Council of Carthage III, Canon 397 (A.D. 397).
* (all references to Daniel refer to the longer Septuagint, not Hebrew version.)
(This list is not found on the internet, but a result of my own reading and research - I give permission for others to copy and use this as they see fit.)
I stop at 400 AD. The above shows that there was a developing idea of these books and whether they were inspired works of God. As time continues, we see more of the Deuterocanonicals were declared as inspired Scripture, right alongside other Protocanonicals. A Father’s failure to mention a book as Scripture is not evidence of his exclusion. Also, there is NO evidence to suggest, besides Jerome, that ANY Father thought that the Deuterocanonicals were NOT inspired or Scripture. I have not found one instance of this negative being mentioned explicitly. With the evidence, it becomes clear that we can safely conclude that the Catholic Church correctly decided to incorporate the Deuterocanonicals into the Bible and declare all books thus as Scripture and inspired by God. We have no reason to believe that they were poorly informed or purposely mislead the future Church on the subject of what was Scripture. It becomes apparent that continuing to hold to this idea shows a philosophy without justification.
In the end, those who refuse to accept the Old Testament Deuts are going to have to explain why they accept the NEW Testament Deuts, such as James, 2 and 3 John, and 2 Peter in their Scriptures, as THEY TOO were debated initially. Why the NT but not the OT Deuts??? Can anyone deny that there are theological reasons for why Luther cast them out of the Bible?
BTW, MLG,You did not answer my question as to- if you are one of the people who believe in the serpent seed idea that eve had intercourse with satan and produced cain?
Do you believe this heretical teaching?
Do you believe Christ descended into hell, literally?
Do you believe in a purgatory as the Latin Church believes?
Were you with OJ Simpson the night his wife was murdered?
Quaking under the vicious onslaught of cross, the poor old Greek, having been well prepared by counsel to answer ONLY the EXACT question posed, quaveringly replies:
“Kolo, do you believe hell to be a literal place?”
NO!
“Do you believe Christ descended into hell, literally?”
NO!
“Do you believe in a purgatory as the Latin Church believes?”
NO!
“Were you with OJ Simpson the night his wife was murdered?”
I don’t specifically recall.
:)
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.