Who really cares what the ECF's had to say?

[Thekla]

And which do YOU mean? Which culture? You see, the beamishboy was not born yesterday. I'm aware that some adults try to ask unnecessary questions to stump a younger person. Teachers do that all the time when they are cornered and realise they are wrong but are too embarrassed to admit it in class. I'm not saying you are doing the same thing but I learn a lot from school and I'm sorry I tend to employ it in real life too.

culture is not an "unnecessary question" thrown as a curveball -- as you may find as you continue your education and life. Different cultures express similar things in different ways. As an example, my dad used to say that per his experience from counseling spouses in troubled marriages, "When a German woman cries, it does not mean the same thing as when an Italian woman cries". He often noted that in counseling, he spent a great deal of time "translating" between spouses from different cultural backgrounds.

You delineate the exact context of the word "blessed", its full implication and cast it please in the proper cultural/linguistic context. You have to do it because you are trying to use the word "blessed" to justify the veneration of Mary. Don't forget how all this began. I said that Mary veneration was not supported by Scriptures. So if you think the word blessed is such a wonderful support for veneration, then you have to show it and my job will be to show you why you are wrong, ie I will rebut what you say.

you will rebutt anything from the EO/OO/RC it seems

I wanted to know if you meant makarios or eulogeo ... and I think it important to consider the following:

Christ said to greet even our enemies as brothers; in Middle Eastern and Greek practice this would mean a kiss on both cheeks or the hand or a slight genuflection. In this sense, a show of respect/esteem/veneration (synonymous words in English) is a bit more "physical" than in, for ex., the USA. In some countries, when a judge enters the courtroom, all rise. Its a rough equivalent to a kiss on the hand - typically used with one's parents etc., in the Middle East and Greece. In this context, what you see as excessive is merely a typical show of affiliation and respect.

Frequently, the onus of proof gets confusingly tossed about and it's important we set it right from the beginning.

then I think you should avail yourself of an awareness of the variety of cultural expressions. Although not strictly about cultures per se, the book
Sociolinguistics, by Peter Trudgehill (a Brit ) may be helpful in learning about varieties of expression within a culture. As many of his examples are derived from England, this book may allow for more "easy fieldwork" for you.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I don't understand why you encouarge Beamishboy's arrogance

Greetings. I just like to make sure accurate translations are used, then you and bm can argue on the mary all ya like.

Gala 4:30 but what saith the Writing? `Be you Casting Out!/ekbale <1544> (5628) the maid-servant and her son, for the son of the maid-servant may not be heir with the son of the free-one;'

Reve 11:2 and the Court, the-one with-out of-the Sanctuary, be you Casting Out/ekbale <1544> (5628) out-side/exw <1854> and not her you should be measuring, that she was given to the nations.

 

[Montalban]

The Beamishboy had argued that "blessed throughout the ages" was cancelled out in a latter Lucan verse where Jesus talks to the other people about them being blessed. Added to this mistake were two other humourous theories of him

One was that Jesus was admonishing Mary. For what? Who knows.

The other was that it didn't mean 'blessed' at all, but happy - which is undermined in his argument then that other people being called blessed cancelled out her being called blessed.

He ingores evidence from both the use of the original Greek word, to modern English translations that don't use his 'happy' translation.

Does he admit an error. Not at all. He claims he can.

He made a dubious analogy of Christ's use of metaphor to compare it to his use of the term "body" and "blood". I showed where Jesus actually confirms the literal meaning of the word. He ignored it. I re-posted it. He ignored it.

He prefers one-liners and pontifications such as his claim he's arguments are better than mine - given his own opinion of his opinion this would be a natural assumption for him to make. Very much like an Objectivist any conclusion he has come to must be 'unassailable' because he's come to that conclusion!

 

[Thekla]

In case I’m accused of plagiarism, my preceding paragraph is almost entirely (with some paraphrasing by the beamishboy) from Leon Morris’s Commentary on John (pages 374 onwards). Leon Morris happens to be a priest in the CoE. Hehe.

Mr. Morris is relying on the ECFs

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The Beamishboy had argued that "blessed throughout the ages" was cancelled out in a latter Lucan verse where Jesus talks to the other people about them being blessed. Added to this mistake were two other humourous theories of him

Well, we also will be reigining thru the ages of ages with Jesus just as the mary and apostles are.

Reve 22:5 And night not is being there; and need not they are having of a lamp and light of sun. That Lord the God shall be lighting them, and They shall reigning into the Ages of the Ages.

 

[beamishboy]

It took long enough to sink in

Do you accept that she says she'll be considered blessed throughout the ages?


My point is your re-working of this to mean happy is wrong.

What statues are you talking about?

Why are we not allowed to venerate people who are special. This is another of the points I've raised which you've not commented on. I put in an example of you and rock/sports personalities and their posters.

You based this pontification upon what?

Well for a while you argued that it meant 'happy'.

You again continue your less than honest posting. You argued this for some time, now it seems you've dropped it as you now accept she was blessed. This also flies in the face of your laughable invention when you said Jesus had admonished her.

At best your arguments boil down to your opinion –v- someone else's opinion. You do nothing to show you opinion is more correct. The changing of voice to the third person might have been your way of wishing to sound more pompous and therefore more authoritative but it still is your best argument; your opinion.

You've also ignored my rebuttal of you over the Body of Christ.

I await your next cherry-picked response with some eagerness.

No, I did not back down. Makarizo does mean happy. You tried to shut LLOJ up when he agrees with me but you can't shut the truth up. I'm only saying even if I go along with you and drop the "happy" from "blessed", it still doesn't change a thing. You ask me where I base my idea that blessedness doesn't mean sinlessness but again that's putting the cart before the horse. You should be the one proving that "blessedness" means sinlessness. The Bible says all of us are sinners and yet we know from the beatitudes that we are blessed if we did something even though we're sinners. So clearly, blessedness is not a state of sinlessness. That's proof enough. What's your proof that blessedness means sinlessness?

 

[Thekla]

No, I did not back down. Makarizo does mean happy. You tried to shut LLOJ up when he agrees with me but you can't shut the truth up. I'm only saying even if I go along with you and drop the "happy" from "blessed", it still doesn't change a thing. You ask me where I base my idea that blessedness doesn't mean sinlessness but again that's putting the cart before the horse. You should be the one proving that "blessedness" means sinlessness. The Bible says all of us are sinners and yet we know from the beatitudes that we are blessed if we did something even though we're sinners. So clearly, blessedness is not a state of sinlessness. That's proof enough. What's your proof that blessedness means sinlessness?

when Luke cites Elizabeth saying Mary is blessed and her son is blessed, she does not use makarios, but eulogeo (compare the use of eulogeo throughout the NT)

when Christ uses makarios, He indicates a spiritual state not jolliness (compare the use of makarios throughout the NT)

when Abraham is cited by Paul as being righteous, he is so accounted for his faith (see my post #861)

I'm not sure where you got this sinless notion, or what you mean by it ...

 

[Montalban]

I just notice the above post

So much for your "I'm always on-line" quip

and I am of the view that a comprehensive reply from me is required. Here it is:

It is striking that John uses a different word. He says “flesh”. The use of “flesh” is not found in any of the narratives of the institution of communion in the gospels, nor is it found in 1 Cor 10 nor 1 Cor 11. Nor is it common in the Fathers to use the word “flesh” in this sacramental sense. The correct word in sacramental usage is “body”. Irenaeus consistently uses “body” in relation to the sacrament and never “flesh” and the same with ancient liturgies like those of Hippolytus, Serapion, St James, etc. All I’m saying is the use of “flesh” cannot point to the sacrament.

In case I’m accused of plagiarism, my preceding paragraph is almost entirely (with some paraphrasing by the beamishboy) from Leon Morris’s Commentary on John (pages 374 onwards). Leon Morris happens to be a priest in the CoE. Hehe.

So your argument is based on a person who belongs to a church that believes in the reality of the 'flesh' who quotes Church Fathers whom you reject?

How is Ireneaus' words a refutation when he believed in the reality of 'body' of Christ?

Do you deny Jesus said his body (flesh) &#963;&#8049;&#961;&#958; and blood are REAL food?

He then quotes Ryle that to interpose a bodily act between the soul of men and salvation has no precedent in Scripture. And he continues that it seems more consistent with the rest of Scripture and especially viewing that the word is “flesh” instead of “body”, the proper meaning is the appropriation of Christ. Do we appropriate Christ for ourselves? Isn’t that consistent with opening our heart to Christ when he knocks that he may come in?

Who is Ryle? IF it had no precedent then what was the Lamb that the Jews slaughtered? That Jesus is the Lamb of God?

As a personal aside, I always find it very flimsy when people depend on only one small part of the Bible to found major doctrines and they continue to adhere to the doctrines even though the words used in that small part of the Bible is suspect. Correct doctrines are not established this way.

The irony of your statement must have brought a smile to your face. You base your whole objection on the use of a single word – flesh. Ignoring blood, for a starters. Ignoring the 'realness' of it. Ignoring Paul saying that the meal that they are to have is not a communal meal, but that it is real body and blood

Secondly it also involves a straw-man which I've already raised previously with you twice. You can not claim that we, a non-sola scriptura church base our doctrines on 'small parts of the Bible' because we base it on TRADITION which INCLUDES the Bible. Which is in fact part of what we've been debating now for days!

 

[Thekla]

please note the Hebraic use of "flesh and blood" and its meaning

 

[Montalban]

No, I did not back down. Makarizo does mean happy.

I've offered proof. You've offered opinion.

Try dealing with it. I know it can be upsetting, especialy when you've vested so much faith in your own opinion.

You tried to shut LLOJ up when he agrees with me but you can't shut the truth up.

He shares with you the same relationship you had with Appliepie7, that of agreeing with whatever it is the other says.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The irony of your statement must have brought a smile to your face. You base your whole objection on the use of a single word &#8211; flesh.

Did someone mention flesh!!!

Deut 28:26 and thy carcass hath been for food to every fowl of the heavens, and to the beast of the earth, and there is none causing trembling.

Reve 19:17 And I perceived one messenger standing in the sun, and he cries-out in great voice, saying to all the birds, the ones flying in mid-heaven, "hither! be ye being gathered! into the Supper of the Great God. 18 That Ye may be eating fleshes of kings

 

[Montalban]

Mr. Morris is relying on the ECFs

That's the silliness of that citation* He's offering as an authority a man who is part of a church he rejects who quotes from ECFs he rejects.


*Citation -I put in italics because Beamishboy admits he's offered his own rendition of Morris' words - who knows to what degreee, but obviously Beamishboy can't help himself 'adjusting' other people's words. He could at least offer the title of the book.

 

[Montalban]

Did someone mention flesh!!!

Deut 28:26 and thy carcass hath been for food to every fowl of the heavens, and to the beast of the earth, and there is none causing trembling.

Reve 19:17 And I perceived one messenger standing in the sun, and he cries-out in great voice, saying to all the birds, the ones flying in mid-heaven, "hither! be ye being gathered! into the Supper of the Great God. 18 That Ye may be eating fleshes of kings

Indeed. Beamsihboy's source is supposed to claim that there's no precedent for bodily sacrifice anywhere else in the Bible.

The weirdness of this claim is itself a warning - after-all Jesus dying on the cross could be said to be 'unprecedented', but Beamishboy stores great faith in his own interpretation of whatever it is he's supposed to be reading at the time.

 

[Montalban]

I'm not sure where you got this sinless notion, or what you mean by it ...

Like his quip about Orthodox having parades of statues it rests on his having no knowledge about the Orthdoxo faith; except that he's against it.

 

[Montalban]

You ask me where I base my idea that blessedness doesn't mean sinlessness but again that's putting the cart before the horse. You should be the one proving that "blessedness" means sinlessness. The Bible says all of us are sinners and yet we know from the beatitudes that we are blessed if we did something even though we're sinners. So clearly, blessedness is not a state of sinlessness. That's proof enough. What's your proof that blessedness means sinlessness?

Quote me where I talk about sinlessness! The amount of times you blissfully invent stuff is amazing.

Where have I equated blessedness with sinlessness?

I double dares ya'!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Indeed. Beamsihboy's source is supposed to claim that there's no precedent for bodily sacrifice anywhere else in the Bible.

The weirdness of this claim is itself a warning - after-all Jesus dying on the cross could be said to be 'unprecedented', but Beamishboy stores great faith in his own interpretation of whatever it is he's supposed to be reading at the time.

Well, according to the Bible there was supposed to be 2 sacrifices. Jesus and probably those who delievered Him up to be "sacrificed". I view this as fulfilled in revelation and I doubt bm will agree with me on that. Not sure though.

Ezekiel 39:17 " And thou son of 'adam, thus He says my Lord YHWH, say to bird of every of wing, and to all of animal of the field
"Be convened ye from round-about on My Sacrifice which I am sacrificing for ye, a Sacrifice great on mountains of Israel, and ye eat flesh and drink blood. [Zeph 1/Reve 19]

Reve 19:17 And I perceived one messenger standing in the sun, and he cries-out in great voice, saying to all the birds, the ones flying in mid-heaven, "hither! be ye being gathered! into the Supper/deipnon <1173> of the Great God. 18 That Ye may be eating fleshes of kings......[Zeph 1:17/Ezekiel 39:19]

 

[beamishboy]

So much for your "I'm always on-line" quip

So your argument is based on a person who belongs to a church that believes in the reality of the 'flesh' who quotes Church Fathers whom you reject?

How is Ireneaus' words a refutation when he believed in the reality of 'body' of Christ?

Do you deny Jesus said his body (flesh) &#963;&#8049;&#961;&#958; and blood are REAL food?


Who is Ryle? IF it had no precedent then what was the Lamb that the Jews slaughtered? That Jesus is the Lamb of God?


The irony of your statement must have brought a smile to your face. You base your whole objection on the use of a single word – flesh. Ignoring blood, for a starters. Ignoring the 'realness' of it. Ignoring Paul saying that the meal that they are to have is not a communal meal, but that it is real body and blood

Secondly it also involves a straw-man which I've already raised previously with you twice. You can not claim that we, a non-sola scriptura church base our doctrines on 'small parts of the Bible' because we base it on TRADITION which INCLUDES the Bible. Which is in fact part of what we've been debating now for days!

My dear ...oops (I had to delete it cos you don't like the beamishboy's use of the affectionate version of your name),

I think you totally you misunderstand my post. Let the beamishboy be crystal clear.

1. Jesus has throughout His ministry made strong metaphorical allusions to himself and his relationship with us. For example, he has said that we must be in him and he in us. We must drink the water of everlasting life (note: it's water and not wine). He told the woman at the well that those who drank not the water had no part of him. Again, it was water so this time, nobody jumps on the sacrament. He then changes from the water he offers to the woman by saying that HE was that water of everlasting spring. Again, water is used, not wine. He says we must drink this water, ie Him. In this instance, I believe most of you will agree that the meaning is simply that we must appropriate Him wholly into us. A graphic way of saying we must assimilate him and all his teachings into us. Drink that living water, so to speak.

2. Bearing (1) in mind, we next hear Jesus saying we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. You always compare God's word with God's word. You don't compare apples and pears. So comparing this with Jesus' other strong metaphorical allusions, we get the picture that once more, he is saying the same thing. Imbibe him or you or we'll have no part of Him. The same thing, the same consequence; only this time, it's his flesh and blood. The best conclusion must be it's as before - compare God's word with God's word. Ie, we must assimilate Him and His words in us if we are to have life eternal.

Those who want to give a sacramental interpretation to this are in fact doing a unique thing. Why? Because we'll be straying from the example used by the same John in the same Gospel in the case of the woman at the well. This is how we should read the Bible.

The minute we are going to stray or depart from the teaching elsewhere in the same Gospel, we must be very certain that this new interpretation is correct. Here is where the intentional use of the non-sacramental word "flesh" should warn us that our new interpretation might be in error.

You keep saying I'm dishonest and that I'm lying. What you say is totally untrue because I do try to be honest in everything I write and I do check the Bible. I don't want to pick a bone with you because you're much older. I won't say you are lying because that won't be right. I'll just say that you are very much mistaken.

The beamishboy turns to his snow-white stallion, hops onto it and rides off into the sunset.

 

[beamishboy]

I've offered proof. You've offered opinion.

Try dealing with it. I know it can be upsetting, especialy when you've vested so much faith in your own opinion.

Sorry I missed it. Where is the proof you offered? Just state the post #. I offered a citation from the Linguistic Key to Greek New Testament, complete with page number.

 

[Thekla]

blessed as eulogeo:

[URL="http://biblos.com/psalms/118-26.htm"]26

&#949;&#8016;&#955;&#959;&#947;&#951;&#956;&#941;&#957;&#959;&#962; &#8001; &#7952;&#961;&#967;&#972;&#956;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#962; &#7952;&#957; &#8000;&#957;&#972;&#956;&#945;&#964;&#953; &#954;&#965;&#961;&#943;&#959;&#965; &#949;&#8016;&#955;&#959;&#947;&#942;&#954;&#945;&#956;&#949;&#957; &#8017;&#956;&#8118;&#962; &#7952;&#958; &#959;&#7988;&#954;&#959;&#965; &#954;&#965;&#961;&#943;&#959;&#965;

Psalm 118, Septuagint[/URL]

(tr. blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord; we have blessed you out of the house of the Lord)

eulogeo - to praise, celebrate with praises; to give thanks; to bless

NT useage:
Matthew: 5:44, 14:19, 21:9, 23:39, 25:34, 26:26,
Mark: 6:41, 8:7, 10:16, 11:9, 11:10, 14:22
Luke: 1:28, 1:42, 1:64 2:28, 2:34, 6:28, 9:16, 13:35,19:38, 24:30, 24:50, 24:51
John: 12:13

Hebrew "equivalent":

barak

1) to bless, kneel
a) (Qal)
1) to kneel
2) to bless
b) (Niphal) to be blessed, bless oneself
c) (Piel) to bless
d) (Pual) to be blessed, be adored
e) (Hiphil) to cause to kneel
f) (Hithpael) to bless oneself
2) (TWOT) to praise, salute, curse

 

[Montalban]

Sorry I missed it. Where is the proof you offered? Just state the post #. I offered a citation from the Linguistic Key to Greek New Testament, complete with page number.

post #1032

You used the wrong Greek word (in a grammatical sense)