Happy Hanukkah

[Gxg (G²)]

GxgGsquared,

I have to say, G, it's unfair of you to paint Rus in that light and try to make him out to be a hypocrite. I have been reading Rus's posts for years now, and normally he is fairly adept at making his points with as much brevity as he is able to muster. He doesn't write super long posts usually. He is able to make his points succinctly.

...
and your posting style being what I have also said for years: way too long, embedded with gobs and gobs of links and videos that nobody clicks on or watches, and they become more distracting than effective. If I were you, I'd listen to the admonishment that you don't exercise brevity. You are not able to make your case without writing a treatise.

Blessings, Gurnney

You're more than free to feel however you wish on the matter as are others. Nevertheless, it has been noted by several where there's really no purpose in argumentation that switches from discussing the OP topic to focusing on individuals - and others have already disagreed multiple times on how often the same individuals speaking on brevity are not consistent in all situations.

Regarding my postings, others have also noted where things were not only made succinctly (counter to your claim) but more than understandable. Of course, they've also noted what I've pointed out for years when it comes to the ways you/others can choose to respond in disagreement (i.e. needless coarse joking/sarcasm, a tendency to react intensely at disagreement, avoidance of what one may not prefer - or what one thinks they understand fully even when they may not have all the facts, etc.).

Ironically, there've been times things seem to me that what you wrote was too long at times (with gobs of rhetoric based on whatever one may be thinking at the time, as seen in #104 #33#5. #17 #26 #35 #70 #75 #123 amongst others ), similar to what Rus has done as well at times when it comes to certain issues, especially Chesterton ( #18 ) - I don't care to complain on it, of course, as it's just how folks write for what they're passionate for ....but at times, I couldn't handle all of it and just walked away while other times I and others engaged it.

You've claimed no one clicks videos or links - although the response, IMHO, seems over the top/Exaggeration and Overemphasizing to an extreme degree. For there've been NUMEROUS instances discussion entailed on them and others noted it ( #56 / #49 /#152 for quick examples). Logically, it'd be inaccurate to claim "nobody" since there's no real evidence of where no one (at any time or place) has either not checked out material or noted it - and it's never beneficial to speak without verification from all groups on an issue that are concerned. For that dynamic is something that's never effective, IMHO.

You have chosen to talk on brevity - despite where others have repeatedly said things stated by myself have been in brevity multiple times - and impartiality would require acknowledging others who've said that.

There has also been notice that exalting brevity in/of itself is by no means a demonstration of addressing argument - as what often happens it the "microwave" generational effect where people only care to engage with so much (after 3-4 paragraphs) and thus justify whatever they'd like to avoid by saying "Too Much." Never mind the fact that ability to focus tends to shift when they're interested and that no one reads fully everything they say even when they say to others "No one reads all you write!!" - I as well as others don't read every lengthy exchange you and Rus have had on multiple issues and don't care if others don't prefer to read

And it's not a problem documenting that fairly quickly in light of how often it occurred and others PMd me or noted that it was really unecessary. Of course, as that is not something that's intended to change at any time, such is life.

I think it is worth noting that you are debating an Orthodox Christian in an Orthodox forum and being somewhat antagonistic.

Respectfully, I think it's worth noting the aspect of irony since others have noted the same on others you were trying to defend (in addition to yourself). This has, of course, come up before when it seems any disagreement is automatically equated to "antagonistic" because it went against your sentiments - despite where others noted the same of you in addition to other things leading people to not be inclined to listen to you (#123 116 #72 #81 being some quick examples amongst many ).

Orthodox have always had debates with other Orthodox repeatedly - and everyone differs. Of course I could easily say alongside others that you came off quite antagonistic when mocking Yeshua Ha Derek earlier by writing entirely in Spanish (as if no one understood what was said) to support the false scenario of him never speaking in English when it came to him saying "Yeshua" or Aramic phrases. He and others noted it to be without warrant - especially during the Nativity Fast - but of course, per your choice, it's something you had no issue doing if you feel it was warranted. I don't go out of my way, regardless of whether or not it's intended as jokes, to denoucne the way you post or make ridicule on it -and I could do so easily as others have when you posted something/didn't appreciate what appeared to be bellitlement of your response or posting style.....but it's not a good endeavor to be involved in since it can come off needless and not in line with the heart of God, IMHO ( Proverbs 11:12/ Proverbs 26:19 ) - for it's never good to make a sport with drive-by shots at the expense of others


At the end of the day, the bottom line is that not everyone is like you/thinks like you (or others with the same sentiments).

From Thekla to Dorthea to Joshua G. to Daughter of Ararat to AV1 to Ortho Cat to seashale76 to Ignatius21 and several others (Some of whom are not here at the time due to issues of life) - Other Orthodox have already noted to me repeatedly where they don't mind reading posts as I make - they are able to engage it with rather easily. Others have noted that they are NOT wantonly verbose (as goes the claim) - and others have already noted where they appreciate the references given since . Caveat - others really like footnotes (often the most intriguing information is contained therein) - and from here or on FB, this is something other Orthodox have pointed out to me repeatedly.

Others have already noted directly that they tend to sort of respond as I do - counter with an analysis of the method in the response/s, hoping that will defuse things if one better understands what is going on (even though people can be so 'wrapped up' they perhaps misread the attempt). As said before - for from rep notes to writing on my profile to PMs and in the forum openly on multiple occasions (#89/#58 ) , there've been plenty having no issue with writing style at all and it is them I keep in mind.

For them I am concerned - just as you're concerned for those you choose to write for in the style/methodology you prefer which isn't universal. And everyone's limit/capacity for handling processing info is different - so people don't go around expecting others to read everything they say nor do they go around expecting others to write exactly as THEY prefer it.

Thus, it really is subjective what you - or other Orthodox - say on the matter since none of you are either a majority or represenative of all Orthodox who've spoken on the matter. And to ignore that isn't really fair nor dealing with conversational dynamics as they are. It is what it is, Bruh...

Rus is pointing out your argument being a poor one

As others have already noted, making an assertion/pointing out something to be a poor argument isn't the same as addressing an argument - neither is it the case that making accusations on what another believes is a matter of verifying. At multiple points, there has DIRECT avoidance of what the Early Saints have done as well as justification of behavior that one condemns in others but excuses in themselves.

That'll never be taken seriously by a lot of people...

You are a Coptic Christian now

It is actually Syrian Orthodox, for accuracy - that has been noted for ages (and within this thread as well ), although I've have worked with Coptic Christians and identify with them on certain aspects.

that is a faith that we Orthodox in here (myself included for sure) deeply respect. However, the non-Chalcedonian churches are not in full communion with we Orthodox Christians. We are not in full communion though we share great respect. I would remember that you're a guest.

As noted earlier, it's not new knowing non-Chalcedonian churches are not in full communion at the moment. Of course, mentioning it doesn't really deal with what other Orthodox have already pointed out contrast to some of the claims you have chosen to make. EO have already pointed out where the Orthodox Church doesn't require communion in order to require acceptance - but at every turn when it comes to other Orthodox (including EO) respecting many of the things others do not, there can be a tendency to demean what another doesn't value. That's not what the Church has noted historically to be necessary.

This is the reality of what others in EO have long said on the same issue when it comes to Apostolic Christianity:

In doctrinal discussions in Aarhus, Denmark, for example, leading EO and OO theologians found themselves "in full agreement on the essence of the Christological dogma".

So while in the Orthodox world some people might consider the OO to hold a clearly heretical Christology, such an opinion is far from being THE one officially correct position.

my church (Antioch) is pretty pronounced in its acceptance of the OO, and so it cannot be said that the OO are universally rejected either.

I hate to be the voice of the campus radical, but I have met many Orientals who were more Orthodox in spirit than some of my Eastern brethren.

Many other discussions besides that are in mind.

Attempting to utilize the argument of "Well, the OOs aren't in communion" logically means NO One within TAW would have any business bringing them up at any point for discussion (including references to other Saints from OO - from St Ephraim's in his works to St. Anthony to St. Isaac the Syrian and several others ) when discussing other battles Orthodox are having to deal with (be it in discussions such as Why we are divided till now ?!! or Mehmed the Conqueror and Gennadius II or Your View on the Oriental Orthodox (non-Chalcedonians) or Can I be your fav. Orthodox heretic? and many others noting where many OO are living sober and prayerful lives - in faithfulness to the Apostles/Early Church ).

There have been dialogues/meetings on many issues between Oriential and Eastern - as well as others involved - with there needing to be unification at many points and yet there's still a healthy recognition of where Unity is present (as one thing that is refreshing in Eastern" Christianity is that many things are not dogmatic and there's room for diverse views when considering Apostolic history). I do like the model currently being practiced in Europe -- joint social and charitable actions between OO and EO parishes.

Concerning the unity of Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox, Rev John H Erickson, Dean shared on this in Beyond Dialogue: The Quest for Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Unity Today and Fr. Thomas Hopko. did likewise regarding how there's The One True Church - not EO or OO exclusively. The Church.

Here

Other EOs have already noted this when it comes to OOs (more than welcomed and others seeing this as their home forum just as other EOs have with the OO one) - and thus, talking on being a guest doesn't change the dynamic of other EOs who've not seen it your way.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

And G, not once have I said anything about you personally, but you have about me in your posts, but I didn't say anything about that, but you did. I'll go back and quote you if you want. I wrote about your writing style, I did not make speculations about your inner motivations.

Experiences in school leave some people with the impression that good writing simply means writing that contains no bad mistakes--that is, no errors of grammar, punctuation, or spelling. In fact, good writing is much more than just correct writing. It's writing that responds to the interests and needs of our readers.



Briefly, here are the basic characteristics of good, effective writing:

• Good writing has a clearly defined purpose.
• It makes a definite point.
• It supports that point with specific information.
• The information is clearly connected and arranged.
• The words are appropriate, and the sentences are concise, emphatic, and correct.

Greg,

I have already noted repeatedly that I have NEVER said - at any point - that you said anything about my inner motivations.

This was quoted directly as well (all from #130 originally)- as the reality is that what I noted is that others feel what you have to say has very little weight when there's already clear violation of English grammatical rules with several things you've done since being on CF (i.e. improper use of commas, lack of transitional words and phrases, misunderstanding of the dynamics of informal English on online areas compared with classroom/business settings, etc.).

Ignoring this while trying to speak on a standard of writing as if you were perfect at all times (though you're not) was noted to aid in portraying yourself as worth listening to. Moreover, as writing styles differ from culture to culture, it was never a matter of grammatical errors being the SOLE focus - it was a matter of showing that the style of writing YOU preferred was what all people desired.

This is why it is noted that there is a HIGH level of subjective treatment that goes down the moment that one speaks as you've noted.

For there have been multiple others (as it pertains to my own writing style or others similar) who noted plainly that it had a clearly defined purpose, made a definite point, supported the point with specific information and had information clearly connected/arranged.

What often happens, however, is that another will see the same thing in front of them - and due to how they process, it'll always be opposite of what others feel it is. This has been said of your own writings a couple of occasions - and it has often been said when it comes to the fact that there are many who've sharply disagreed with you on your sentiments concerning what I write or others similarly.

Others have called you to task before in regards to making assumptions on issues - one of them pertaining to English and Education (as noted before in #15 ).

There are writing styles of others here who do NOT connect with me and others. But then I must remember that those who made the writing or posting were not intending for everyone to read it /hear it except for those interested/able to do so. Only those primarily up for it.

I've worked in Education before - there are English teachers prepared to flunk students due to how they didn't get straight to the point in less than 2 paragraphs - whereas others failed students due to how their writing style was primarily factual rather than written in a conversational/story mode of getting to the point after build up. Others preferred the dynamic of writing where thoughts shift in and out - beginning at one point, journeying into another that may seem seperate and then later connecting them together at the end. These are basics in Applied Linguistics when it comes to English - for reference, RAISING STUDENTS' AWARENESS OF CROSS-CULTURAL CONTRASTIVE RHETORIC IN ENGLISH WRITING VIA AN E-LEARNING COURSE or Writing "Clearly": Differing Perceptions of Clarity or here, here, here, and here.

What was written on was addressing the standard you had for writing style since you chose to focus on others and avoid addressing nit-picking on your own....

Noting that has nothing to do with "inner motivations" or connected to anything you deemed personal - although choosing to make other posters the topic of discussion in their chosen style of writing is a personal dynamic.

But as it concerns the issue of posting style, what was noted plainly was that you have very little room to speak so long as your grammatical skill is not flawless and writing style one where it is not seen as universal..

To go into depth about it is off-topic from what the OP is about - just as it's off topic discussing the posting style of others that was never something all Orthodox were of the same mind as you/a select number of others.

If others need to nit-pick on every single one of your postings, it'd not be difficult to do so. But of course, that'd be opposite of what the OP was focused on (i.e. Chanukah and appreciating it) - and thus far, what the OP issue has been about hasn't been dealt with at all in examining the history of the Church.

Originally Posted by gurneyhalleck1
The aggressive debating style, the uber long wars of words, the super duper long signature, it's all something people are recommending you examine and re-think. Sometimes we need to take advice from others and amend/adjust.

Respectfully, Talking on signatures is irrelevant seeing that mods already approved of it long ago as well as those of others (including Orthodox ) who were similar. Talking on aggressive debating style is moot seeing where you've already justified doing that since the beginning of the thread the moment you chose to mock Yeshua Ha Derek by making repeated postings in Spanish...and that style of posting is one you have yet to change - or change it elsewhere in CF.

What occurred was that I noted agreement with several EOs who understood/appreciated where the OP author was coming from - an author whom I've disagreed with before alongside other EOs.

However, that was questioned and I responded - and the answers given were responded to with a number of accusations based on things no one was even advocating. Thus, there's was aggression from the jump that was being responded to for the sake of clarity - something other EO have noted without any issues - and when one sees another responding aggressively, one seeks to deal with it as best as possible by noting the facts point for point.

Making it out as if responding point-for-point (or addressing false claims made on others directly) is "aggressive" is akin to what it'd be like if someone was ganged up due to them noting appreciation for another's dress - and then when people swung/cursed and someone defended themselves by blocking, those starting it claimed "He's violent!!!".....

I am actually quite relaxed when I write and don't really care for aggression - as it's not difficult responding in detail and being comprehensive. If and when another chooses to come after me in placing words in my mouth or others, of course I'll address it as calmly as possible - but I generally don't care to go after anyone in a thread since the focus is the discussion of the OP subject.

People have recommended you sit and re-think a lot of things - although you've already noted there's no need for it - so there's no need only bringing it up when it comes to your own preferences.....

As we're going to be judged on whether or not we were people who were impartial and gracious, can we not take advice on learning to not ask things of others we ourselves don't do? James 3:12-18 and James 2:11-13 is something to take seriously...

In truth, there are many times we make demands of others for things to be amended that have little basis on what the scriptures say - or impartial judgment warrant.

Can you not take their admonitions personally, but see it as a chance to be a more effective poster, etc.?

Nothing was taken personally - as that's assumption. The focus is on the facts - and as "admonitions" were based on personal preferences rather than universal standards (or the Scriptures), there's no bearing on a subjective standard being what is enforced.

Other Orthodox have already disagreed SHARPLY with the people whose admonitions you care for - and as it is, I've not seen where you've yet to deal with where you have already had postings with some of the same things you said shouldn't be done. Of course, it comes down to one having an idea of what it means to be "effective" and others differing - with people on both sides.

Everyone does what they feel is best for his or her own self--and for better or worse, people will read what they want to read, the format being subjective since it's our desires to make something that's very long rather easy to get through if enjoying it....and something very short easy to avoid if they don't want to deal with it. It's the nature of perception.

Truthfully, what I've noticed is that there's generally conversation that has continued on several postings from a couple where they were longer than others...exceptionally so, IMHO, as it took me a good bit to go through all of them even though they would sometimes come out in rapid fire.

Since it doesn't take me substantially long to get through material, I tend to go through it...even though there are moments I have to skip over some because smaller postings can get lost. Those postings take up about 59% (IMHO) of the thread and I know some others generally won't read anything of length and made a habit of noting that to other posters--a thing that was occurring long before I even posted on this forum.

Sometimes when people did that, I was from a distance wondering why there was no effort put on even though there would be DOZENS of smaller postings that would add up collectively to equate to the eqivalent of a larger one that'd take up the same amount of time.....

Subjective interpretation makes a difference.

I say that in light of times that others completely went through something consistently at length, thankful for information shared on it and actively looking for something to find in agreement even when they understood that they didn't have to comment on anything...but then seemed to switch the rhetoric entirely if a viewpoint was brought into view from someone they either didn't interact with often or a viewpoint that they simply disagreed with. Similar to what happens when people can be in a crowd hearing a very in-depth speech and celebrate it in the name of "I love how she expounded!!!!" but see another they have no connection to and disagree with or view as different and then say "She needs to keep it simple and be shorter." The bias automatically shifted in themselves what they felt was "too much" to handle--and they may not even be conscious of that.

And I am with Rus, I'm fed up with arguing/debating. I'm especially tired of the Judaizing that is going on at TAW. never in a million years did I think an Orthodox forum would be transformed into a Kibbutz

Respectfully (as other EOs have noted), it is more than understood that you are with Rus or others on the issue - and of course, others on the opposite side are on the same mindset as it concerns not arguing over whether saying "Happy Chanukah" was bad.

That said ...

No one has forced anyone to be here in this thread. It is a choice you and others made willingly - and whereas other EOs/OOs enjoyed and appreciated it, others did not. Those who did not have full ability to ignore it and walk on....but there's no room for saying that others cannot engage in discussion.

If tired of debating, then there's no need being in the Debate forum of St. Justin's designed for that purpose.

Moreover, on claiming "Judaizing", one should remember the context of "judaizing" in light of how the Early Church - from the Apostles to other saints - defined it.

Judaizing pertained specifically to saying Christ WASN'T the Messiah - that St. Paul was a false prophet and that Gentiles had to observe all the Mosaic Code for salvation. Nothing of the sort has been said here..

Appreciating Jewish culture (from customs to idioms to language - things the Early Saints did) is no more a matter of transforming things into a "Kibbutz", than it'd be a "Kibbutz" with many priests appreciating how liturgy was based on what they saw in the Temple era - or noting how the chanting in Divine Liturgy was based in review/examination of the tones and musical styles in the synagogues.

For the sake of accurate definition, the kibbutz (Hebrew word for “communal settlement&#8221 is a unique rural community; a society dedicated to mutual aid and social justice; a socioeconomic system based on the principle of joint ownership of property, equality and cooperation of production, consumption and education. Boys and girls showered together in the camps designed to aid the Jews/promote family - as has been discussed before with cultural differences (from the thread entitled The evils of sexualizing our youth ).

That is hardly what TAW has even close to becoming. There've always been Orthodox who are either Jewish or work in Jewish communities - and others discussing the historical aspects pertaining to Jewish roots of Orthodoxy.....or practicing things pertaining to Jewish culture as the Early Saints did in light of Christ.

.
It is what it is, dude. But seriously, if you don't want to talk on it, Yeshua Ha Derek has already noted where others don't have to participate. We're grown folks and can walk away when we wish.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Thank the Lord for the work of the Maccabee Martyrs/others from that era doing and living as they did - and adding to the history of the saints.

The seven holy Maccabee martyrs, Abim, Antonius, Gurias, Eleazar, Eusebonus, Alimus and Marcellus, their mother, Solomonia, and their teacher, Eleazar, suffered for Christ in 166 under Syrian King Antiochus IV. The king loved pagan and Hellenistic customs, and held Jewish customs in contempt. He did everything possible to turn people from the Law of Moses and from their covenant with God. He desecrated the Temple of the Lord, placed a statue of the pagan god Zeus there, and forced the Jews to worship it. Many people abandoned the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but there were also those who continued to believe that the Savior would come.
A ninety-year-old elder, the scribe and teacher Eleazar, was brought to trial for his faithfulness to the Mosaic Law. He suffered tortures and died at Jerusalem.
The disciples of St. Eleazar, the seven Maccabee brothers and their mother, Solomonia, also displayed great courage. They were eventually brought to trial in Antioch by King Antiochus. They fearlessly acknowledged themselves as followers of the True God, and refused to eat pork, which was forbidden by the Law.
The eldest brother acted as spokesmen for the rest, saying that they preferred to die rather than break the Law. He was subjected to fierce tortures in sight of his brothers and their mother. His tongue was cut out, he was scalped, and his hands and feet were cut off. A cauldron and a large frying pan were then heated, and the first brother was thrown into the frying pan where he offered his soul up to God.
The next five brothers were tortured one after the other. The seventh and youngest brother was the last one left alive. King Antiochus suggested to their mother, St. Solomonia, that she persuade the boy to obey him, so that her last son at least would be spared. Instead, the brave mother told him to imitate the courage of his brothers.
After all her seven children had died, St. Solomonia stood over their bodies, raised up her hands in prayer to God and died.
The martyric death of the Maccabee brothers inspired Judas Maccabeus, and he led a revolt against King Antiochus. With God’s help, he was victorious, and then purified the Temple at Jerusalem. He also destroyed the altars which the pagans had set up in the streets. All these events are related in the Second Book of Maccabees (Ch. 8-10). Many Church Fathers preached sermons on the seven Maccabees, including St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Gregory Nazianzus and St. John Chrysostom.

Troparion (Tone 7)
Let us praise the seven Maccabees,
with their mother Solomonia and their teacher Eleazar;
they were splendid in lawful contest
as guardians of the teachings of the Law.
Now as Christ’s holy martyrs they ceaselessly intercede for the world.


Kontakion (Tone 2)
Seven pillars of the Wisdom of God
and seven lampstands of the divine Light,
all-wise Maccabees, greatest of the martyrs before the time of the martyrs, with them ask the God of all to save those who honor you.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Thanks for sharing this - remembering the Maccabean Martyrs and what they did in seeking to keep themselves pure so that they'd be worthy of what would come later, it's definitely sobering to consider how much we've been given the same in Christ and therefor should not give up our sights on the Kingdom that is to come.....nor forget the sacrifices of those before us who we are connected to in their joys and struggle.


One unshakeable kingdom which we should be willing to sacrifice for since it's Real - and praying for grace to never forget that

Here​

[/quote]
Very cool video! Heavens of Gold in olam ha ba!!

 

[Kristos]

Mazel Tov!

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Thank the Lord for the work of the Maccabee Martyrs/others from that era doing and living as they did - and adding to the history of the saints.

Absolutely!

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

The Church in Jerusalem was truly fascinating - especially St. James and the dynamics he had to contend with. And on the choice of your name, it's a good choice (IMHO)

Spot on with the Holiday dynamic. In the event people use arguments such as saying "Well it's the case that the Jewish holidays on the Orthodox calendar are called by Christian names as opposed to the Jewish ones", it should noted that in those cases people reflect the tendency to wish to escape from anything that is explicitly Jewish in identity - even though they can never escape the fact that the Feasts themselves were JEWISH in nature alongside many other things that also developed.

A name change is not the same as substance change - nor does focusing on the name address the roots of where things come from. Jewish Orthodox Christians have long pointed this out when it comes to seeing the ways that change of names never was a matter of content changing when it comes to cultural translation.

Whenever people get uncomfortable with that reality, it's similar to how many within Black culture developed musical styles - from Jazz to R&B to Neo Soul - and then other Caucasians saw it, assimilated it and then changed the names of the genres because of having previous sentiments against black culture that caused them to not even be reminded of where the roots of their activities came from....

There have been others who've done excellent reviews on the subject

Here
Here​

One thing I've noticed is that there are many within Russian Orthodoxy who've noted it to be problematic whenever it seems that others from the Jewish world are told they must cease being Jewish (even though those who are Russian have no issue remaining Russian while being Orthodox - yet Gentile) - and this is a long standing issue that many within the Church have been seeking to address.

One of my sisters in Christ (who is Russian and Jewish as well as Orthodox) has noted this often - noting the reality of how often people claim to have no issue against Jews.....and yet in practice, discriminate highly against them/their culture in the same way Native-Americans were told by settlers/colonialists preaching Christ that the Lord hated all things with First-Nation groups/their culture (never mind what occurred with the Samaritan and Gentile encounters with Christ where he didn't demand they change all aspects of their background to follow Him) - and yet nothing was seen wrong with European culture. It was essentially a matter of being told "Jesus loves you - but he really doesn't like you that much...at least not as much as me" And for Jews within the Orthodox Church, this is a reality that they have had to deal with for centuries - yet it is again being addressed thankfully......with people pointing out that you don't have to cease being Jewish when you come to faith in the Messiah.



For good review:

• THE JEWISH QUESTION IN THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX- Gregory Benevitch
• Doubly Chosen I: The Jew Breaks in Two | The Groom's Family
• Doubly Chosen II: Freedom and Truth | The Groom's Family
• Doubly Chosen III: A Great Men [sic] | The Groom's Family
• Doubly Chosen IV and Final: They Put The Jew Together Again | The Groom's Family

And for places where previous discussion occurred:

Yes, I have always been fascinated with Yaakov HaTzaddik (James The Righteous) and the Church at Yerushalayim after Yeshua ascended. Your excellent post (as usual) will give me lots of places to search in the coming days!

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Mazel Tov!

Todah rabah!

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

On another tangent, I have always wondered why the Church celebrates the Transfiguration in early August now when it was quite evident that it occurred during the Feast of Sukkot (Booths). It looks like the early Orthodox Church DID! I mean we celebrate Pascha in the Passover season and Pentecost is calculated the same as Shavuot.

...this is from the Orthodox Wiki:
It is believed that Christ's transfiguration took place at the time of the Jewish Festival of Booths, and that the celebration of the event in the Christian Church became the NT fulfillment of the OT feast. Presently it is celebrated on the sixth of August.

 

[ikonographics]

On another tangent, I have always wondered why the Church celebrates the Transfiguration in early August now when it was quite evident that it occurred during the Feast of Sukkot (Booths). It looks like the early Orthodox Church DID! I mean we celebrate Pascha in the Passover season and Pentecost is calculated the same as Shavuot.

...this is from the Orthodox Wiki:
It is believed that Christ's transfiguration took place at the time of the Jewish Festival of Booths, and that the celebration of the event in the Christian Church became the NT fulfillment of the OT feast. Presently it is celebrated on the sixth of August.

There is a very good, liturgical and theological reason that the Transfiguration is celebrated on 6 August. The Transfiguration took place 40 days before the Crucifixion. 6 August is 40 days before the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, a feast that has the same significance and solemnity as Good Friday. It is the theological meaning of the feast that is important and not whether is celebrated when the Jews celebrate the Festival of Booths.

 

[GregConstantine]

"It is the theological meaning of the feast that is important and not whether is celebrated when the Jews celebrate the Festival of Booths."

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Yes, I have always been fascinated with Yaakov HaTzaddik (James The Righteous) and the Church at Yerushalayim after Yeshua ascended.

Yeah. His life was an intense one - and yet, although he was killed before Passover, he counted all of his sufferings as pure joy and died the way he lived - his death noted by the church historian Eusebius (260-339 CE), who in his Ecclesiastical History dedicates a whole chapter to James' death and martyrdom...his version that was passed down from Hegesippus (110-180 CE, a Jew by birth and one of the earliest church historians)

As another noted best:

What has James to offer the Church today? He first serves as a reminder that Jerusalem was the true mother church of all Christendom, and that the Church Universal’s destiny ultimately lies there. It is not without reason that in the Apocalypse, the writer sees at the end “the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down from heaven from God” (Rev. 21:2). When it comes to the various claims of Rome, the East, and elsewhere, regarding apostolic succession, respective dignities, and jurisdictions, the Jerusalem Church and James’ presidency over the first Church council may point the way to a new ecumenical era. Ecclesiastical triumphalism is out of place in light of the testimony of the early church. We do a great disservice to the Church in limiting our sight to the Latin West or the Greek East or any other milieu. No one branch of the Church can claim to contain the whole. As a monk of the Eastern Church has written:

Antioch and Alexandria, Rome and Constantinople are great and venerable names in the history of the Christian Church; but it is from Jerusalem that we are first of all descended.

​

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Todah rabah!

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

"It is the theological meaning of the feast that is important and not whether is celebrated when the Jews celebrate the Festival of Booths."

Look Greg, it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that Christ came to fulfill God's OT appointed Feast days/seasons. These days were on very SPECIFIC dates. That IS theologically significant. My question was, according to Orthodox Wiki, it WAS celebrated at some point during Sukkot (Booths). My question is why did it change? Was there conflicts with newer feast days/fasts so as to have to change it to Aug 6th? I mean 40 days before Pascha is not Aug 6th...

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Antioch and Alexandria, Rome and Constantinople are great and venerable names in the history of the Christian Church; but it is from Jerusalem that we are first of all descended.​

​

​

 

[ikonographics]

Look Greg, it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that Christ came to fulfill God's OT appointed Feast days/seasons. These days were on very SPECIFIC dates. That IS theologically significant. My question was, according to Orthodox Wiki, it WAS celebrated at some point during Sukkot (Booths). My question is why did it change? Was there conflicts with newer feast days/fasts so as to have to change it to Aug 6th? I mean 40 days before Pascha is not Aug 6th...

It was changed so that such important feast wouldn't fall during Great Lent. Read my post again. It was moved to 6 August because it is 40 days before the Feast of the Cross which is considered to have the same significance as Good Friday. You would also do well to read the words of the Apostle Paul: Colossians 2:16-17 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. 17 These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

It was changed so that such important feast wouldn't fall during Great Lent. Read my post again. It was moved to 6 August because it is 40 days before the Feast of the Cross which is considered to have the same significance as Good Friday. You would also do well to read the words of the Apostle Paul: Colossians 2:16-17 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. 17 These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

OK, so it was changed for those reasons, thanks. I am not passing judgement, just asking why it changed, since the Orthodox Wiki implied that it did from the original Feast at Sukkot.

 

[annier]

If Orthodoxy at some point celebrated it, Jewish believers as well as Christ Himself but not gentile CONVERTS, then was it not "Orthodox" at some point? And at what point did it become "not Orthodox"?

I am not orthodox but.... I do not think "Orthodoxy" was determined by Jewish feasts. Jews and Gentiles in ekklesia were "Orthodox" by their faith in the person and works of Christ. Maybe that is an issue here? Not sure.

 

[GregConstantine]

"I am not orthodox but.... I do not think "Orthodoxy" was determined by Jewish feasts. Jews and Gentiles in ekklesia were "Orthodox" by their faith in the person and works of Christ. Maybe that is an issue here? Not sure."

You are 100% correct, it is not an issue. It's only an issue when certain individuals make it into an issue.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

"I am not orthodox but.... I do not think "Orthodoxy" was determined by Jewish feasts. Jews and Gentiles in ekklesia were "Orthodox" by their faith in the person and works of Christ. Maybe that is an issue here? Not sure."

You are 100% correct, it is not an issue. It's only an issue when certain individuals make it into an issue.

Yes Greg, certain "individuals" here HAVE made it their issue...