The Scriptures and Authority

It's not really relevant. The relevant point is that evangelicals interpret the word to mean the neutered modern definition, rather than hold to the original intent of Jesus words as transmitted via the Holy Tradition of the Church.

Click to expand...

LOL! It’s not relevant? You want to fault someone for supposedly not holding to the original intent of Jesus and you can’t even tell us what the word is? It’s just another case of someone presenting a secondary argument without actually having a clue as to what the argument is talking about.

Just say you don’t know what language or word is used. But, don’t expect people to take you seriously when you make a point of contention then when asked for specifics assert that it’s not relevant.

If you can’t tell me the word used, if I can’t research on my own what was said, then you’re expecting people to just take your word for it. Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way.

If you can’t tell me the word used, if I can’t research on my own what was said, then you’re expecting people to just take your word for it. Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way.

Click to expand...

The point is that the 'word' used does not matter, it is the idea that our Lord taught us that matters. That idea is preserved by His Church. Modernists (and post modernists) distort that view or use linguistics and 'academics' as their tools to forge novel ideas foreign to the Gospel.

racer said:

Still waiting for the answer to the question, what event are we "mystically revisiting?"

Click to expand...

its a bit more difficult to describe than that ... Greek is a greatly more nuanced language than English. For example, one must consider not only the word that was used, but also that words 1) conceptual relationship to other related words - ex, nous, logos, symbolon etc. and 2) which similar words were not used - ex there are upwards of a dozen "energy words" used in the NT, each with a distinct conceptual reference.

The meanings of these words must then be located into a broader cultural conceptual ground, which must include the era. Additionally, their specific Christian "filling" (ie the altered meaning to contain their new application) must be understood. For example, in his Gospel, John borrowed the use of the word logos from its use by the stoics (spermatikos logos) but then "filled" that term (logos) with a new - much larger, spiritual meaning, the Christ. This "new meaning" also referred back to the OT. In a sense, the use of the word Logos was filled and 'completed' when applied to Jesus.


EDIT: the EO has carefully maintained the meanings of these words, for ex., through the careful 'theology' of the hymns.

Oblio said:

The point is that the 'word' used does not matter, it is the idea that our Lord taught us that matters.

Click to expand...

But, how do you presume to know what He meant if you don't even know what He said? That's probably the most ridiculous and baseless argument I've seen in a while.

That idea is preserved by His Church. Modernists (and post modernists) distort that view or use linguistics and 'academics' as their tools to forge novel ideas foreign to the Gospel.

Click to expand...

But, you can't tell us what language or word we have distorted. OH-kay . . . .

Thekla said:

its a bit more difficult to describe than that ... Greek is a greatly more nuanced language than English. For example, one must consider not only the word that was used, but also that words 1) conceptual relationship to other related words - ex, nous, logos, symbolon etc. and 2) which similar words were not used - ex there are upwards of a dozen "energy words" used in the NT, each with a distinct conceptual reference.

Click to expand...

I'm sure it is more difficult according to the RCs and EOs. Convince everybody that it's too much for them to discern and comprehend, most won't even bother trying. Instead of trusting God and the Holy Spirit to enlighten them, they'll submit to one church or the other. It makes their head hurt too much to do otherwise.

God never intended for it to be so difficult. Scripture tells us that much.

The meanings of these words must then be located into a broader cultural conceptual ground, which must include the era. Additionally, their specific Christian "filling" (ie the altered meaning to contain their new application) must be understood. For example, in his Gospel, John borrowed the use of the word logos from its use by the stoics (spermatikos logos) but then "filled" that term (logos) with a new - much larger, spiritual meaning, the Christ. This "new meaning" also referred back to the OT. In a sense, the use of the word Logos was filled and 'completed' when applied to Jesus.

Click to expand...

Okay, so you still don't know what word means "mystically revisited" here. Am I correct in discerning from what you wrote that the language was Greek?

EDIT: the EO has carefully maintained the meanings of these words, for ex., through the careful 'theology' of the hymns.

Click to expand...

So, Thekla, how do you know this? How can you know for certain that the EOC has carefully maintained the meanings, if you do not trust yourself to correctly discern the meaning. IOWs, if you (or Oblio or any layperson) can not correctly discern Scripture, how can you determine who is teaching the whole Gospel?

Instead of trusting God and the Holy Spirit to enlighten them, they'll submit to one church or the other.

Click to expand...

False dichotomy, a logical fallacy.

Holy Tradition IS the expression of the Holy Spirit working in His Church.

I'm sure it is more difficult according to the RCs and EOs. Convince everybody that it's too much for them to discern and comprehend, most won't even bother trying. Instead of trusting God and the Holy Spirit to enlighten them, they'll submit to one church or the other. It makes their head hurt too much to do otherwise.

Click to expand...

actually, I was more thinking of translation from the original language in my comments. The "conceptual leap" can be difficult. Christ, the pre-eternal entered history for our sake; in Greek this can in part be described using the two kinds of time in Greek. In English, our word for time refers to created time.
The idea of 'submitting to a church' may not be as you understand it.

Okay, so you still don't know what word means "mystically revisited" here. Am I correct in discerning from what you wrote that the language was Greek?

Click to expand...

The ground of understanding on which the Gospel was written (language and culture) was different than 20th cent. US. Mystically revisited is a descriptive.

So, Thekla, how do you know this? How can you know for certain that the EOC has carefully maintained the meanings, if you do not trust yourself to correctly discern the meaning. IOWs, if you (or Oblio or any layperson) can not correctly discern Scripture, how can you determine who is teaching the whole Gospel?

Click to expand...

I don't think this was meant - that no lay person can understand (in fact, most of our Saints were lay people). Rather, you can see in the hymns, for example, the maintaining of certain meanings over time.
Certainly, language conveys different meanings in different cultures, and evolves (meanings) over time. Certainly, the idea of the "real presence", obvious to the early church, is not a feature of many modern US Christians.

Oblio said:

False dichotomy, a logical fallacy.

Holy Tradition IS the expression of the Holy Spirit working in His Church.

Click to expand...

Please explain how my statement is a false dichotomy?

Where would one find the ideology that "Holy Tradition" is the expression of the Holy Spirit in the Church?

What is your source, and how have you tested the legitimacy of that source?

racer said:

Please explain how my statement is a false dichotomy?

Click to expand...

Instead of trusting God and the Holy Spirit to enlighten them, they'll submit to one church or the other.


I'll leave aside your implication that the Holy Spirit is an adjunct to God

Oblio said:

Instead of trusting God and the Holy Spirit to enlighten them, they'll submit to one church or the other.

Click to expand...

That doesn't explain why it's a false dichotomy. I know you disagree with my statement, but you must support your argument in order for it to mean anything.

I'll leave aside your implication that the Holy Spirit is an adjunct to God

Click to expand...

My implication of what?

Oblio said:

False dichotomy, a logical fallacy.

Holy Tradition IS the expression of the Holy Spirit working in His Church.

Click to expand...

What fallacy are you using in this post?

Just because the orthodox and rc churches beleive the holy tradition is on par with Scripture doesn't mean its true.

mont974x4 said:

What fallacy are you using in this post?

Just because the orthodox and rc churches beleive the holy tradition is on par with Scripture doesn't mean its true.

Click to expand...

The Pharisees also believed in "traditions" and look what happened to them.

http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/abraham/abrahams_bosom.htm

Luke 16:14 Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were hearing all these things and were openly sneering at Him.

Luke 16:22 Became yet to be dying, the Poor-one [Grace/Faith/Life/Israel/Gentiles], and him to be carried away by the messengers into the Bosom of Abraham. And yet died also the Rich-one [Judah/Works/Law/Death] and was buried.

in the non-EO/Rc view of the action of the Holy Spirit, how is the Holy Spirit seen as effecting the community of believers ?

Positively!

Rick Otto said:

Positively!

Click to expand...

thats concise !

but, for example, how is the action of the Holy Spirit seen in terms of effect on the Christian community over time (history) ?

In the accumulation & dissemination of God's truth and in the display of the fruits of The Holy Spirit.

thats concise !

but, for example, how is the action of the Holy Spirit seen in terms of effect on the Christian community over time (history) ?

Click to expand...

Rick Otto said:

In the accumulation & dissemination of God's truth and in the display of the fruits of The Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

Sometimes the Truth gets a little "mixed up".

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/4458_12.htm
Jews Killed Jesus

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) expressed outrage over a sign placed in front of a Denver church that stated: "Jews killed the Lord Jesus."



James 5:6 Ye condemn, Ye Murder/efoneusate <5407> the Righteous-One, not He is resisting to Ye.

1 Timothy 1:8 We have perceived yet that good the Law/nomoV <3551>, if-ever any him lawfully/ nomimwV <3545> is using;
9 Having perceived this, that to just/righteuous-one Law/nomoV <3551> not is laid-down, to lawless-ones/anomoiV <459> yet and/also to disobedient to irreverant ones, and to sinners to malign ones, and to profane ones, to smiters of father and to smiters of mother, to man-murderers/androfonoiV <409>

Rick Otto said:

In the accumulation & dissemination of God's truth and in the display of the fruits of The Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

is it the revelation or the reception that varies over history ?

It's a false dichotomy because you used the phrase 'instead of', as if one must either believe one or the other. One can believe both/and rather than either/or , a common evangelical misunderstanding and dilution of Christian theology.

And before you say 'that is not what I meant ...', at the very least your statement was a Strawman WRT our Christian faith in Holy Scripture.

Why not address what was said instead of constantly attacking how it's said? Heck, chances are, most posts contain some fallacy or another.