Well there's a response worthy of study and celebration down through the ages!
What's your next gem, "I know you are but what am I?"
If you knew what presvyia meant you’d understand. Like I said, its a common theological word.
And if you weren't acting the petulant child playing "I've got a secret" I might be able to tell if you have some actual insight, or are stonewalling to save face.
Either way, you've played this card far longer than any kind of virtue would permit.
Furthermore, as I don't normally carry a priest, and google only produces four hits for "presvyia," how does any person of goodwill classify the term as common...even with the "theological" qualifier?
This is disingenuousness at best.
That’s a shame. Its apparent that you don’t need English lessons. I can’t imagine why you can’t find what is otherwise there to be found...
I should think a person of your learning would fairly trip over that answer: because you grossly misrepresent the difficulty of the task.
Now, try searching what I suggested you search, which, if you remember, was not Jude 11, but rather the verse from Numbers whence it comes.
That statement is as asinine as protestants directing us to other scriptures to "understand" Matthew 16:18. Jude 11 gives us the Holy Spirit's authentication that the sin of Korah was gainsaying Moses. The story in Numbers is a NARRATIVE, and carries no such explict conclusion. Or do you suppose I should draw inferences from the Fathers on writings tangential to Jude 11 instead of what The Holy Spirit concludes explicitly?
Well, try presbeia (the way it was pronounced back then in the 1st century). Presevyia is a modern-Greek pronunciation, but the spelling is the same in either case — πρεσβεια. That's why fundamental knowledge of Greek helps when discussing concepts developed in Greek, so as to avoid transliterational confusion.
Presbeia gives 43,000 hits.
How do you know that? The author of Judes makes no such claim. He seems to take all the credit for writing it.
The story in Numbers is a NARRATIVE, and carries no such explict conclusion
So, the Old Testament writers were not led by the Holy Spirit? Is that what you are saying?
“Either way, you’ve played this card far longer than any kind of virtue would permit.”
Virtue????????????????? Oh please! Get over yourself.
“Furthermore, as I don’t normally carry a priest,...”
Do you know any priest who will give you the time of day, pt? If so, ask him.
“That statement is as asinine as protestants directing us to other scriptures to “understand” Matthew 16:18. Jude 11 gives us the Holy Spirit’s authentication that the sin of Korah was gainsaying Moses.”
And? That’s pretty much obvious, isn’t it, pt? Did you need the HS to explain that one to you? That’s what the Fathers say it means. But they, either of the East or the West, never said anything as profoundly ridiculous as that it refers to the Pope of Rome.
“Or do you suppose I should draw inferences from the Fathers on writings tangential to Jude 11 instead of what The Holy Spirit concludes explicitly?”
Yes, well, you still don’t know what the Fathers say, do you, pt! What a sorry comment on the catechesis of the Latin Church your performance is. Given your propensity for one off, personal interpretations of scripture, you wouldn’t be a convert from protestantism or even a catechumen would you?
BTW, pt, do you read Jude 11 to mean that all who do not submit (I love to use that word with the Pope)to the Pope of Rome are cursed and will surely come to a bad end? Do you really believe that, pt? Please tell me yes so we can all have a good laugh at your expense. I’ll even ping the orthodox list if you’d like! :)