Bible Version Comparison

Status
Not open for further replies.

Davy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,297.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No, this is not an actual comparison between Bible versions. It is a comparison between New Age Philosophy and 'modern' Bible translations.

Go to your local 'New Age' book section at your local library, and compare the 'language' philosophy with later modern Bible versions like the NIV, specifically in The New Testament.

Later Bible versions used a different set of Greek manuscripts for their New Testament translation. There is... a conspiracy against God's printed Word that has been going on. One of the major proofs is with the personal letters of two Bible scholars from Great Britain that lived in the 19th century, Wescott and Hort:

Wescott And Hort — The Overthrow of the Greek Text

Most all of the modern New Testament Bible version use their Greek text revision which they also relied on the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus Greek texts which the KJV version DID NOT use. The Alexandria manuscripts are claimed to be older than the Textus Receptus for the KJV Bible. By that claim they the textual critic says to rely on the Alexandrian text, even though it omits much of the New Testament Scripture that the KJV contains.

Most Christian brethren are not aware of the 2nd century Christian School at Alexandria, Egypt. Its most noted protagonists were Origen (the father of textual criticism), and Clement of Alexandria. Origen was eventually declared a heretic because of how he tried to change the reading of New Testament Scripture more towards a type of New Age, Hellenist-Platonist Greek philosophy. Many allegories replaced the obvious literal meanings of New Testament Scripture in their writings. This is where the tendency to 'spiritualize' The Scriptures originates. The School at Alexandria, Egypt was surrounded by pagan philosophy, and their writings reveal that early influence.

Gnosticism was a belief system that grew out of Plato's Greek philosophy. Saint Irenaeus of Lyons wrote about their heresy, and how they had flourished in the Roman empire. Modern ideas of Gnosticism can be seen in movies like The Da Vinci Code. The early 1st and 2nd century Gnostics claimed to be Christians, yet one of their false doctrines was that Jesus did not really die on the cross, but that His disciples took Him down before He died, and that He later married and had children; thus The Da Vinci Code theme at the end proclaiming a bloodline of Christ, thinking the power to do miracles that Jesus did would transfer through His bloodine.

If you are not aware of the New Age movement, and its roots and history, then it means you have missed much that is written in Old Testament history per God's Word. The movement is very ancient, going back to the Baal worship of old Sumer-Babylon, which then continued to ancient Egypt, the Far East, pagan Greece, pagan Rome, etc. This philosophy still exists today, which it should be easy to see with movies like The Da Vinci Code which is based on occult books like Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

That was the connection in 1st and 2nd century Alexandria, Egypt also with the Christian school there. It was subjected to that ancient occult philosophy of the Greek philosophers (Neoplatonists) and Gnostics. That is where the Codex Alexandrinus originated, and has been used in most all modern New Testament Bible versions.
 

com7fy8

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2013
13,649
6,108
Massachusetts
✟583,329.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
There are other translations which use the Textus Recepticus. And do you know there is a conspiracy to hail the name of King James more than the name of Jesus? There is no other name by which to be saved, than the name of Jesus. But there are ones naming King James, more and rather than Jesus, misdirecting people's attention.
 
Upvote 0

Petros2015

Well-Known Member
Jun 23, 2016
5,088
4,321
52
undisclosed Bunker
✟287,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Most Christian brethren are not aware of the 2nd century Christian School at Alexandria, Egypt. Its most noted protagonists were Origen (the father of textual criticism), and Clement of Alexandria. Origen was eventually declared a heretic because of how he tried to change the reading of New Testament Scripture more towards a type of New Age, Hellenist-Platonist Greek philosophy. Many allegories replaced the obvious literal meanings of New Testament Scripture in their writings. This is where the tendency to 'spiritualize' The Scriptures originates. The School at Alexandria, Egypt was surrounded by pagan philosophy, and their writings reveal that early influence.

More info on Origen

 
  • Winner
Reactions: PrincetonGuy
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,297.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
More info on Origen


One can find all kinds of supposed experts (i.e., academics) on YouTube supporting the false idea that Origen's demise was politically motivated, like an attempt to exalt him as a type of martyr. The reality is that he studied under a Christian Gnostic (Clement), and he also had the influence of Philo of Alexandria, an unbelieving Jew who was educated and taught Greek philosophy. Origen's disbelief in the triune Godhead, delegating Jesus Christ to having been 'created', was a heretical doctrine that he most likely got from the Gnostic Clement and the Jew Philo.
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,873
2,265
U.S.A.
✟105,960.00
Faith
Baptist
No, this is not an actual comparison between Bible versions. It is a comparison between New Age Philosophy and 'modern' Bible translations.

Go to your local 'New Age' book section at your local library, and compare the 'language' philosophy with later modern Bible versions like the NIV, specifically in The New Testament.

Later Bible versions used a different set of Greek manuscripts for their New Testament translation. There is... a conspiracy against God's printed Word that has been going on. One of the major proofs is with the personal letters of two Bible scholars from Great Britain that lived in the 19th century, Wescott and Hort:

Wescott And Hort — The Overthrow of the Greek Text

Most all of the modern New Testament Bible version use their Greek text revision which they also relied on the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus Greek texts which the KJV version DID NOT use. The Alexandria manuscripts are claimed to be older than the Textus Receptus for the KJV Bible. By that claim they the textual critic says to rely on the Alexandrian text, even though it omits much of the New Testament Scripture that the KJV contains.

Most Christian brethren are not aware of the 2nd century Christian School at Alexandria, Egypt. Its most noted protagonists were Origen (the father of textual criticism), and Clement of Alexandria. Origen was eventually declared a heretic because of how he tried to change the reading of New Testament Scripture more towards a type of New Age, Hellenist-Platonist Greek philosophy. Many allegories replaced the obvious literal meanings of New Testament Scripture in their writings. This is where the tendency to 'spiritualize' The Scriptures originates. The School at Alexandria, Egypt was surrounded by pagan philosophy, and their writings reveal that early influence.

Gnosticism was a belief system that grew out of Plato's Greek philosophy. Saint Irenaeus of Lyons wrote about their heresy, and how they had flourished in the Roman empire. Modern ideas of Gnosticism can be seen in movies like The Da Vinci Code. The early 1st and 2nd century Gnostics claimed to be Christians, yet one of their false doctrines was that Jesus did not really die on the cross, but that His disciples took Him down before He died, and that He later married and had children; thus The Da Vinci Code theme at the end proclaiming a bloodline of Christ, thinking the power to do miracles that Jesus did would transfer through His bloodine.

If you are not aware of the New Age movement, and its roots and history, then it means you have missed much that is written in Old Testament history per God's Word. The movement is very ancient, going back to the Baal worship of old Sumer-Babylon, which then continued to ancient Egypt, the Far East, pagan Greece, pagan Rome, etc. This philosophy still exists today, which it should be easy to see with movies like The Da Vinci Code which is based on occult books like Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

That was the connection in 1st and 2nd century Alexandria, Egypt also with the Christian school there. It was subjected to that ancient occult philosophy of the Greek philosophers (Neoplatonists) and Gnostics. That is where the Codex Alexandrinus originated, and has been used in most all modern New Testament Bible versions.
The spiritual forces of darkness attacking Christian scholars who are giving us the very fine translations of the Bible that we have today have one objective—to keep Christians from reading the Bible in translations that they can understand.
 
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,297.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The spiritual forces of darkness attacking Christian scholars who are giving us the very fine translations of the Bible that we have today have one objective—to keep Christians from reading the Bible in translations that they can understand.

The idea of 'easier to understand' by the Leftist leaning supporters of bad scholars like Wescott and Hort is such a bogus... claim! How many times does the Bible student who can think for theirself need to hear, "new and improved" to know those are toying with God's written Word to suit their occult aims?
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,873
2,265
U.S.A.
✟105,960.00
Faith
Baptist
The idea of 'easier to understand' by the Leftist leaning supporters of bad scholars like Wescott and Hort is such a bogus... claim! How many times does the Bible student who can think for theirself need to hear, "new and improved" to know those are toying with God's written Word to suit their occult aims?

I have heard that claim innumerable times, but one does not need to read very much of the New Testament in the KJV to come upon verses that are not fully intelligible even by most professors of English in our finest universities and have for centuries confounded publishers and printers alike. Indeed, as early as in Matt. 4:2 we find such a verse. Notice especially the last phrase in that verse and how it appears in various printings of the KJV:

Mat 4:2 And when hee had fasted forty dayes and forty nights, hee was afterward an hungred. 1611

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered. 1817

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward a hungered. 1824

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1867

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward a hungered. 1874

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1898

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, Oxford Bible

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1917, Scofield Bible (Oxford)

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, recent, Oxford Bible

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, recent, Cambridge Bible

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward ahungered. 1971, American Bible Society


We find here five different renderings of the last phrase in Matt. 4:2, all them in the KJV:

hee was afterward an hungred.
he was afterward an hungered.
he was afterward a hungered.
he was afterward an hungred.
he was afterward ahungered.

What English grammatical form is being rendered here, and precisely what does it mean? What is the difference between being “an hungered” (etc.) and being “hungry?” Do you know the correct answer to all of these questions? Very few people, even exceptionally well-educated people, do. If your claim is true that you “don't have any problems understanding the King James,” prove that it is true by correctly answering these questions.


Matt.4:2. He fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was famished. (NRSV)

The NRSV accomplishes in this verse what the translators of the KJV were attempting to do—tell us that Jesus not only became hungry, he became exceedingly hungry However, the NRSV is very easy to understand, but the KJV is virtually impossible to understand. Moreover, the KJV translated the very same verb used in the same context in Mark 11:12 using the expression “was hungry.”

Mark 11:12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry. (KJV, all editions)

Who would want to drive an old, broken-down Chevy when for the same price he could drive a new Rolls Royce? A country farmer might reply, “My Chevy gets me where I’m goin’.” But that is not always true! It breaks down in Matt. 4:2, Mark 11:12, and thousands of other places in the New Testament alone!
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,873
2,265
U.S.A.
✟105,960.00
Faith
Baptist
bad scholars like Wescott and Hort

For a “bad scholar,” Westcott wrote many excellent works, including:

Elements of the Gospel Harmony (1851)

A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (1855; revised 1875)

Characteristics of the Gospel Miracles (1859)

Introduction to the Study of the Gospels (1860; revised 1866)

The Bible in the Church (1864)

The Gospel of the Resurrection (1866; revised 1879)

A General View of the History of the English Bible (1868; revised by W A Wright 1905)

Christian Life Manifold and One (1869)

On The Religious Office of The Universities (1873)

Paragraph Psalter for The Use of Choirs (1879)

Commentary on The Gospel of St John (1881)

Commentary on The Epistles of St John (1883)

The Revelation of The Risen Lord (1882)

The Historic Faith : Short Lectures on The Apostles' Creed (1885)

The Revelation of The Father: Short Lectures on the Titles of the LORD in The Gospel of St John (1884)

Some Thoughts from The Ordinal (1884)

Christus Consummator (1886)

Social Aspects of Christianity (1887)

The Victory of The Cross: Sermons in Holy Week (1888)

Commentary on The Epistle to the Hebrews (1889)

From Strength to Strength (1890)

Essays in The History of Religious Thought in the West (1891)

The Gospel of Life: Thoughts Introductory to The Study of Christian Doctrine (1892)

The Incarnation and Common Life (1893)

The Gospel According to St. John (1896)

Some Lessons of The Revised Version of The New Testament (1897)

Christian Aspects of Life (1897)

Lessons from Work (1901)

Saint Paul's Epistle to The Ephesians: The Greek Text (1906)

The Two Empires : the Church and the World (1909)
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,873
2,265
U.S.A.
✟105,960.00
Faith
Baptist
know those are toying with God's written Word to suit their occult aims?

The truth,

Many years ago I had occasion to investigate "spiritualistic" phenomena with some care, and I came to a clear conclusion, which I feel bound to express in answer to your circular. It appears to me that in this, as in all spiritual questions, Holy Scripture is our supreme guide. I observe, then, that while spiritual ministries are constantly recorded in the Bible, there is not the faintest encouragement to seek them. The case, indeed, is far otherwise. I cannot, therefore, but regard every voluntary approach to beings such as those who are supposed to hold communication with men through mediums as unlawful and perilous. I find in the fact of the Incarnation all that man (so far as I can see) requires for life and hope.

B. F. Westcott​
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,591
49
The Wild West
✟461,272.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Origen was eventually declared a heretic because of how he tried to change the reading of New Testament Scripture more towards a type of New Age, Hellenist-Platonist Greek philosophy.

That’s untrue. He was declared a heretic unilaterally by Emperor Justinian in a move to promote unity in the Eastern church, because some Patristic figures like St. Jerome and St. Epiphanius blamed Arianism on Origen and even Origenists, the latter assertion being unfounded, and anathematizing Origen would theoretically offset any perceived pro-Oriental Orthodox bias from anathematizing Theodore of Mopsuestia. In the event this did not work, since the anathema against Theodore of Mopsuestia caused a schism in the Western Church, the Three Chapters Controversy.

Specifically, the actual basis for anathematizing Origen was his belief in apokatastasis and more problematically, his speculations about transmigration, which were in error. St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Isaac the Syrian were advocates of apokatastasis and were not anathematized. Given the importance of both Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia to the church, they should in my view and in those of a great many people not be anathema but be venerated, and in fact Theodore of Mopsuestia is, within the Church of the East, as Mar Theodore the Interpreter. Now ironically, Theodore of Mopsuestia was part of the Antiochene school which favored a literal-historical exegesis rather than the typological-prophetic approach of Alexandria. Also, only the Chalcedonian church anathematized Origen; he is not anathema in the Church of the East or the Oriental Orthodox.

Now where things get really strange is that historically, the Church of the East officially believed in Apokatastasis bordering on Universalism despite their embrace of historical-literal exegesis and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who epitomizes that approach.

The Oriental Orthodox reject Apokatastasis and believe in the reality of damnation, and at the same time favor Alexandrian exegesis, which you incorrectly associate with New Age Hellenism and Platonism and with Gnosticism, which by the way Origen was an extreme opponent of (you might be surprised to note he not only wrote polemics attacking Gnostics and Pagans, for example, Contra Celsus, but was influential in ensuring the decline of Gnosticism in the 3rd century from the influence it exerted in the 2nd century, by among other things advocating for the use of a scriptural canon which is basically the same one we use today, thus banishing the Gnostic apocrypha).

So to be very frank, you have things backwards: Origen was a pious Christian and opponent of the Gnostics who worked to ensure Gnostic apocrypha was excluded from the canon of Scripture, and who also opposed Paganism, to the extent that when Roman soldiers threatened to incinerate his manhood if he did not offer incense to the Pagan deities, he refused to offer incense and was thus made a Eunuch and a Confessor.

By the way, the phrase “New Age Hellenist-Platonist Greek philosophy” is contradictory; no such school existed or could exist, since the New Age is a contemporary movement and even
 
  • Winner
Reactions: PrincetonGuy
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,591
49
The Wild West
✟461,272.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
If someone wants to be truly devout in reading the pure unvarnished word of God, they need to knuckle down and learn how to read Koine Greek and Hebrew fluently.

One would also need to learn Aramaic, since much of Daniel and certain other books, are written in a dialect sometimes referred to as Old Testament Aramaic, which is quite different from Classical Syriac, the Eastern Aramaic dialect the Babylonian Talmud was written in, or the various vernacular dialects such as Assyrian, Turoyo and Mandaic spoken at present.

Or one could just learn Koine Greek, since the Septuagint is what is generally quoted in the NT and has been validated through corresponding Hebrew texts amid the Dead Sea Scrolls. Or Latin, since St. Jerome translated from the Hebrew and Aramaic texts where they existed, but translated the Psalter from both the Hebraic and Septuagint versions, and other books only in the LXX, from the Greek, and his translation is remarkably similar to the KJV. Or Syriac, since the Peshitta is another extremely reliable ancient translation and one gains access to the writings of St. Ephrem and other important Syrian Fathers in that manner,
 
  • Informative
Reactions: PrincetonGuy
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,591
49
The Wild West
✟461,272.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
The idea of 'easier to understand' by the Leftist leaning supporters of bad scholars like Wescott and Hort is such a bogus... claim! How many times does the Bible student who can think for theirself need to hear, "new and improved" to know those are toying with God's written Word to suit their occult aims?

Supporting Westcott and Hort or supporting certain newer translations does not make one a Leftist. It is only some of the newer translations which are objectionable, for example, the 3rd edition of the NIV, which is driven by liberal political correctness. The 2nd edition was wildly popular not just among mainline denominations like the UMC, but also among the Nazarenes, who are by no means “left wing” but rather are to United Methodists what the Presbyterian Church in America is to the PCUSA, or ACNA to the Episcopalians, or the LCMS to the ELCA. Indeed it acquired the nickname Nazarene International Version.

Ironically, the Eastern Orthodox, who use Alexandrian exegesis more than any other denomination with the exception of the Oriental Orthodox, are also among the most hardcore KJV purists; the KJV and NKJV dominate the Orthodox Church as far as New Testament lessons are concerned (for the Old Testament, there is the Orthodox Study Bible, which features a new translation of the Septuagint and the NKJV New Testament).

The simple fact is there is no documented historical connection between the Alexandrian Catechetical School and the so-called Alexandrian text type, which the Eastern Orthodox do not use (the Textus Receptus of the KJV, and the Byzantine Text Type, are what you get with the Greek Orthodox Bible).
 
  • Winner
Reactions: PrincetonGuy
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,591
49
The Wild West
✟461,272.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
One can find all kinds of supposed experts (i.e., academics) on YouTube supporting the false idea that Origen's demise was politically motivated, like an attempt to exalt him as a type of martyr. The reality is that he studied under a Christian Gnostic (Clement), and he also had the influence of Philo of Alexandria, an unbelieving Jew who was educated and taught Greek philosophy. Origen's disbelief in the triune Godhead, delegating Jesus Christ to having been 'created', was a heretical doctrine that he most likely got from the Gnostic Clement and the Jew Philo.

So basically, the problem is you have made a series of incorrect assumptions and linked them together. Let’s review:

  • Clement of Alexandria was not a Gnostic, so it is not “reality” to suggest Origen studied under one.
  • Origen is known for actively opposing Gnosticism and supporting the current New Testament canon, which excludes Gnostic scripture.
  • Origen furthermore also opposed Paganism, writing polemics against it.
  • No one claims Origen is a martyr. Rather, he is acknowledged as a confessor, because he was castrated as a result of the actions of Roman soldiers.
  • Origen did not express disbelief in the Trinity, indeed, he actually discussed the concept; insofar as his ideas did not precisely correspond with the Nicene formulation, they are certainly not Arian, as Arius was influenced by Lucien of Antioch, the protege of Paul of Samosata, who basically invented Unitarianism.
  • The Gnostics did not believe Jesus Christ was created, rather, they embraced an Emanationist doctrine which is completely unrelated to Arianism. Indeed, they rejected the idea that Jesus Christ was human, whereas Arius accepted His humanity but denied He was God.
  • Origen’s writings furthermore were compiled into an anthology, the Philokalia, by the Cappadocians, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory Nazianzus and St. Gregory of Nyssa, who were extremely important in defending the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine that Jesus Christ is, as the Nicene Creed states, “begotten, not made.”
  • The Alexandrian Catechtical School and Alexandrian exegesis is not associated with the Alexandrian text type except in terms of geography, specifically, that one of the three codices of this type was recovered in Egypt, and another was found in the library of the monastery of St. Catharine’s in Sinai. We have no idea where these three manuscripts were originally composed or who composed them.
  • Liberals are not the sole supporters of modern translations. I am not a liberal, and I support some of them. I am mainly opposed to the new Third Edition NIV and certain other “woke” editions.
  • One of the largest users of the King James Version is the Eastern Orthodox Church, which also is the largest Chalcedonian user of Alexandrian exegesis.

I admire your zeal for orthodoxy, but you have made some conclusions which are counter-factual and then based your arguments on these conclusions. These conclusions consist almost entirely of false associations based on conflation. Although in the case of Clement of Alexandria, he was not accused of Gnosticism by either St. Irenaeus of Lyons or St. Epiphanius of Alexandria, or by St. John of Damascus, who wrote the three great Patristic catalogues of heresies (Against Knowledge So Falsely Called, the Panarion, and The Fount of Knowledge, respectively). If he had been a Gnostic, they would have documented it, since they did document even very insignificant Gnostic heretics like the Marcosians (Marcos caused a stir, pun intended, by using obvious sleight of hand tricks, like some recent Hindu New Age gurus).
 
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,297.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That’s untrue. He was declared a heretic unilaterally by Emperor Justinian in a move to promote unity in the Eastern church, because some Patristic figures like St. Jerome and St. Epiphanius blamed Arianism on Origen and even Origenists, the latter assertion being unfounded, and anathematizing Origen would theoretically offset any perceived pro-Oriental Orthodox bias from anathematizing Theodore of Mopsuestia. In the event this did not work, since the anathema against Theodore of Mopsuestia caused a schism in the Western Church, the Three Chapters Controversy.

Specifically, the actual basis for anathematizing Origen was his belief in apokatastasis and more problematically, his speculations about transmigration, which were in error. St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Isaac the Syrian were advocates of apokatastasis and were not anathematized. Given the importance of both Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia to the church, they should in my view and in those of a great many people not be anathema but be venerated, and in fact Theodore of Mopsuestia is, within the Church of the East, as Mar Theodore the Interpreter. Now ironically, Theodore of Mopsuestia was part of the Antiochene school which favored a literal-historical exegesis rather than the typological-prophetic approach of Alexandria. Also, only the Chalcedonian church anathematized Origen; he is not anathema in the Church of the East or the Oriental Orthodox.

Now where things get really strange is that historically, the Church of the East officially believed in Apokatastasis bordering on Universalism despite their embrace of historical-literal exegesis and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who epitomizes that approach.

The Oriental Orthodox reject Apokatastasis and believe in the reality of damnation, and at the same time favor Alexandrian exegesis, which you incorrectly associate with New Age Hellenism and Platonism and with Gnosticism, which by the way Origen was an extreme opponent of (you might be surprised to note he not only wrote polemics attacking Gnostics and Pagans, for example, Contra Celsus, but was influential in ensuring the decline of Gnosticism in the 3rd century from the influence it exerted in the 2nd century, by among other things advocating for the use of a scriptural canon which is basically the same one we use today, thus banishing the Gnostic apocrypha).

So to be very frank, you have things backwards: Origen was a pious Christian and opponent of the Gnostics who worked to ensure Gnostic apocrypha was excluded from the canon of Scripture, and who also opposed Paganism, to the extent that when Roman soldiers threatened to incinerate his manhood if he did not offer incense to the Pagan deities, he refused to offer incense and was thus made a Eunuch and a Confessor.

By the way, the phrase “New Age Hellenist-Platonist Greek philosophy” is contradictory; no such school existed or could exist, since the New Age is a contemporary movement and even

Origen was a heretic, his applying allegory to The Bible like a pagan philosopher is what got him excommunicated. And he learned it from Clement of Alexandria, another who fell into man's philosophy.

And the term New-Age for what the Gnostics believed and taught is APPRORIATE for todays' time, because thos heresies are STILL ACTIVE among modern Gnosticism. That philosophy did not die out, but is very alive and well among the occult secret societies today.
 
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,297.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Supporting Westcott and Hort or supporting certain newer translations does not make one a Leftist. It is only some of the newer translations which are objectionable, for example, the 3rd edition of the NIV, which is driven by liberal political correctness. The 2nd edition was wildly popular not just among mainline denominations like the UMC, but also among the Nazarenes, who are by no means “left wing” but rather are to United Methodists what the Presbyterian Church in America is to the PCUSA, or ACNA to the Episcopalians, or the LCMS to the ELCA. Indeed it acquired the nickname Nazarene International Version.

Ironically, the Eastern Orthodox, who use Alexandrian exegesis more than any other denomination with the exception of the Oriental Orthodox, are also among the most hardcore KJV purists; the KJV and NKJV dominate the Orthodox Church as far as New Testament lessons are concerned (for the Old Testament, there is the Orthodox Study Bible, which features a new translation of the Septuagint and the NKJV New Testament).

The simple fact is there is no documented historical connection between the Alexandrian Catechetical School and the so-called Alexandrian text type, which the Eastern Orthodox do not use (the Textus Receptus of the KJV, and the Byzantine Text Type, are what you get with the Greek Orthodox Bible).

You call it tomato, I call it tomatoe. The ancient pagan philosophies that have crept in is what causes political correctness ideas of the far Left. So if you haven't noticed things like abortion, homosexuality, smoking dope, etc., are against God's Word, including The New Testament, then maybe you ought to open up your Bible more.
 
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,297.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Supporting Westcott and Hort or supporting certain newer translations does not make one a Leftist. It is only some of the newer translations which are objectionable, for example, the 3rd edition of the NIV, which is driven by liberal political correctness. The 2nd edition was wildly popular not just among mainline denominations like the UMC, but also among the Nazarenes, who are by no means “left wing” but rather are to United Methodists what the Presbyterian Church in America is to the PCUSA, or ACNA to the Episcopalians, or the LCMS to the ELCA. Indeed it acquired the nickname Nazarene International Version.

Ironically, the Eastern Orthodox, who use Alexandrian exegesis more than any other denomination with the exception of the Oriental Orthodox, are also among the most hardcore KJV purists; the KJV and NKJV dominate the Orthodox Church as far as New Testament lessons are concerned (for the Old Testament, there is the Orthodox Study Bible, which features a new translation of the Septuagint and the NKJV New Testament).

The simple fact is there is no documented historical connection between the Alexandrian Catechetical School and the so-called Alexandrian text type, which the Eastern Orthodox do not use (the Textus Receptus of the KJV, and the Byzantine Text Type, are what you get with the Greek Orthodox Bible).

https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?entryid=2602
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,591
49
The Wild West
✟461,272.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Origen was a heretic,

Maybe, but not for any of the reasons you specified. And he died in the peace of the Church; I have a real problem with pronouncing anathemas post mortem.

his applying allegory to The Bible like a pagan philosopher [/quote]

He never did that.

is what got him excommunicated.

Origen was never excommunicated. He was anathematized by Emperor Justinian, by the Roman Emperor, more than 200 years after he died.

And he learned it from Clement of Alexandria, another who fell into man's philosophy.

Clement of Alexandria was not a Gnostic.

And the term New-Age for what the Gnostics believed and taught is APPRORIATE for todays' time, because thos heresies are STILL ACTIVE among modern Gnosticism. That philosophy did not die out, but is very alive and well among the occult secret societies today.

Actually, Gnosticism did die out, with one exception, the non-Christian sect of Manichaeans (who are Gnostics but revere John the Baptist and regard our Lord as a false prophet, but otherwise believe in the whole stack of Gnostic beliefs, such as emanationism, the evil nature of matter, evil archons, etc), in that the last of the medieval Gnostic psuedo-Christian cults, the Paulicans of Armenia, were converted to Orthodoxy in the 19th century (presumably by the Armenian church, so Oriental Orthodoxy). Thus modern neo-Gnosticism, such as the Ecclesia Gnostica, is discomtinuous with medieval Gnostic sects (the Paulicans, Bogomils, Albigensians, Cathars) were themselves discontinuous with the sects of the Patristic era, except possibly Manichaeanism.

That being said, while there are some neo-Gnostic cults which also embrace New Age ideas, and in the realm of occult secret societies any kind of messed up belief system can be encountered, there is a radical difference between the ideas of historic Gnosticism (the idea of secret salvific knowledge, dualism, matter being evil, emanations or aeons of dyads, syszagies, heptads and ogdoads, which we see reflected in later mysticism such as Kabbalah, a false creator demiurge, Jesus Christ being divine but not human) are quite different from New Age beliefs (humans having power over matter, flexible reality, spiritism, certain Buddhist/Hindu concepts like karma, an emphasis on meditation, union with nature and so on) and these in turn are different from the beliefs of secret societies like Freemasonry, the Rosicrucians, the Theosophists, and so on, and the New Thought movement, of which Mary Baker Eddy’s Christian Science cult was the most dangerous practitioner. Of course, some people do link them together, but these were distinct concepts with distinct origins.

And Origen was not the origin of any of them.


You call it tomato, I call it tomatoe. The ancient pagan philosophies that have crept in is what causes political correctness ideas of the far Left.

Umm no, considering that many practitioners of these occult heresies you discuss are right wing, and others abhorr politics altogether.

So if you haven't noticed things like abortion, homosexuality, smoking dope, etc., are against God's Word, including The New Testament, then maybe you ought to open up your Bible more.

I am known on this forum as being one of the most outspoken opponents of abortion, homosexuality and smoking dope, and for the record, Origen also opposed those things. Indeed, St. Gregory of Nyssa and his brother St. Basil the Great, who were admirers of Origen and compiled, with their friend St. Gregory Nazianzus, the Philocalia, an anthology of Origen’s best writings, not to be confused with the Philokalia, an 18th century compendium of Eastern Orthodox Christian texts, are among the relatively small number of Early Church Fathers who felt a pastoral need to write statements condemning the practise of abortion (because generally homosexuality was considered to be obviously wrong in the Early Church).

So in criticizing Origen and the Alexandrian exegetical tradition, you are actually attacking the very Patristic figures whose writings disprove attempts by liberal revisionists in the mainline denominations to claim the early church tolerated homosexuality, when it did not. In fact earlier this evening, when in another thread on this forum a member claimed falsely claimed that arsenokoetia did not refer to homosexual perversion, I was able to cite St. Basil and St. Gregory of Nyssa’s canons in refutation of their claim.

I don’t know what could lead someone to think that I would support homosexuality or the abuse of drugs or abortions. I mean did you not notice my signature, where it says “Thanks be to God for the Supreme Court reversal of Roe vs. Wade”??? :scratch:

Indeed, I am known for severely criticizing the liberal element in mainline Protestantism, as any Episcopalian member can immediately confirm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PrincetonGuy
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.