Posted on 10/25/2009 9:52:48 AM PDT by narses
Well, that isn’t how they view things now.
Which is odd in an of itself.
“Which is odd in an of itself.”
Yup; sort of a moving target.
Then I should think you could cite a dispute piting Alexandria against Jerusalem over a universal truth such that the Holy Spirit needed to compell Jude to address it...along with which one should hold sway.
Do you know what presvyia means?
Do you know what "pettifog" means?
“Do you know what presvyia means?
Do you know what “pettifog” means? “
I didn’t think so.
Nor did I regarding a citation that would make sense of your assertion...but hey, why argue when you can declare the opposition "ignorant," and run away?
P.S.
What does it say about the character of a “christian” that prefers to lord “special knowledge” rather than “give a reason?”
“Nor did I regarding a citation that would make sense of your assertion...but hey, why argue when you can declare the opposition “ignorant,” and run away?”
“P.S.
What does it say about the character of a “christian” that prefers to lord “special knowledge” rather than “give a reason?””
“Presvyia” answers your question. Frankly, I couldn’t possibly care less what you think of my bona fides as a Christian. I’d suggest, however, that if you want to get into a discussion of the ecclesiological theology of The Church with a Orthodox Christian, you familiarize yourself with Church history and especially its terminology.
I guarentee there is no connotation of the term that justifies your application of it to Jude’s admonition.
I dare say you may be hiding a gnosticism behind the skirts of the Orthodox Church. If you wish to bring terms of art into public discussion, definition is YOUR responsibility: not mine.
“If you wish to bring terms of art into public discussion, definition is YOUR responsibility: not mine.”
Term of art? Presvyia? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By the way, why don’t you take a look at how the Fathers used Num. xvi. 1-35. You could start with +John Chrysostomos, but Blessed Augustine, or even +Athanasius the Great, Pat. of Alexandria, will do for a starting place. It will make the nonsense of your Luther inspired interpretation of Jude 11 plain.
Any word that returns four hits on google is esoteric no matter how many exclamation points are used.
...why don’t you take a look at how the Fathers used Num. xvi. 1-35. You could start with +John Chrysostomos, but Blessed Augustine, or even +Athanasius the Great, Pat. of Alexandria, will do for a starting place. It will make the nonsense of your Luther inspired interpretation of Jude 11 plain.
Because frankly, I think it's simple vanity that motivates you to send me on a "quest" that is most likely nothing but a "rope-a-dope" rather than just state how your magic word changes everything.
NO .. the necessity is to BE a Christian.
The Pope uses it. Try this "πρεσβεια πατριαρχης"; you'll get over 4000 hits.
"Because frankly, I think it's simple vanity that motivates you to send me on a "quest" that is most likely nothing but a "rope-a-dope" rather than just state how your magic word changes everything."
Don't have access to a set of the Fathers either? That's sad, but not surprising. There's a version available on line: http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html BTW, the word "presvyia" isn't magic at all nor does "change{s} everything".
Then why not exercise a little "Christian charity," and explain exactly what you think it DOES change?
....And all of it in greek.
I've got to tell you, your intellectual honesty isn't looking too strong right now.
Whatever Christian charity I might have does not extend to giving you a Greek lesson.
“I’ve got to tell you, your intellectual honesty isn’t looking too strong right now.”
You jump into a theological discussion with a medieval spin on Jude 11 and you say I’m intellectually dishonest because YOU can’t read Greek? Please. Ask your priest or your bishop, or the local Orthodox priest, what it means and why it might be important in the context of your belief that Jude 11 refers to +Peter (or his successors at Rome, I assume, and not Antioch).
In the meantime, read the Fathers on Num. xvi. 1-35. The link I gave you is to their works in English. Like I said, some time with the Fathers will show you how nonsensical your interpretation of Jude 11 is.
You know very well "giving you a greek lesson" is not required to do anything but preserve your sense of self.
You jump into a theological discussion with a medieval spin on Jude 11 and you say I’m intellectually dishonest because YOU can’t read Greek?
No, I'm saying you are intellectually dishonest because you are hiding behind Greek to end the debate without disproving nor conceding.
Read the Fathers.
In a strictly non-contentious manner, I’ll point out that most Protestants agree that the KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV etc are sound translations. They normally are not considered inerrant.
Scripture was used as such from the first century on. Various councils have come up with lists for the canon, but the Orthodox list is not identical to the Catholic list, which differs from the Protestant and a few other canonical lists. For Catholics, the authoritative listing came in the Council of Trent, although it largely confirmed what had been in use by Catholics for over 1000 years.
Protestants generally reject the Apocrypha, which largely but not entirely coincides with the Deuterocanonicals.
Make your argument.
“Make your argument.”
PT, I see you have been a member here for many years and yet you haven’t been a party to what have been, frankly, some detailed, serious, in depth and impressive theological discussions among the Orthodox, Roman Catholic and other Catholics whose bishops are in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Do you know that there is an Orthodox/Catholic ping list to facilitate these discussion? These discussions have sometimes been heated, but they have always been, intentionally or otherwise, in furtherance of the suggestions of +Bartholomew I and +JPII that we come to know and understand one another. At our best, and frankly there has been plenty of “best” here, we have lived up to the charge that the first two hierarchs of Christendom have laid upon us. At other times, thankfully mostly in the past, we have come to verbal blows...and then usually come to recognize each other as fully members of The Church and so brothers and sisters, albeit separated and with differing opinions, our bishops no longer in communion.
Under the circumstances, you have no business telling me to “Make your argument”. I have every business, however, to suggest to you that you, a subject of +BXVI, the most patristic pope in at least 1000 years, perhaps even the first Father of The Church to appear in that same 1000 years, to read the Fathers if you want to seriously discuss these issues! Tell us what you find about Jude 11 and then you’ll be taken seriously.
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.