How do we know . . . .

[ticker]

Holy Spirit's a good one too!

 

[Montalban]

Nope. Bible College.

Where in the Bible did Jesus establish Bible Colleges?

 

[Montalban]

Seems you forget that Paul was led into the Arabian wilderness for 3 years and taught by Christ Himself. So there is no need for a "must."

So he was taught from Scriptures and taught a 'lesson' not found in the Gospels?

OOPS!

Categorical fallacy. You and I both know that the phrase "oral tradition" in this context refers to orally passed on teaching . . . not a prophetic utterance. The two don't cross even if they are both "spoken" . . . nice try though.

I wasn't the one who raised the spectre that it might have been prophetic.

As I said, tradition is good, and it has AN authority . . . but it is never place alongside of Scripture as equal. Is tradition said to have the path that leads to salvation?

We say that God's message leads us to salvation, if we live that message.

You say God's message leads to salvation, only if it's written, and only read, because living it means nothing.

Nope. Is tradition given the highly exalted hapaxlegomenon theopneustos? Nope. When Paul argues for the truth of the Gospel does he argue from the targums?

Since he doesn't present any written texts that he learnt from then he doesn't say "Follow the book I learnt from" but "Follow the teachings I give you by word and by epistle"

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Mathetes the kerux,

Where did you get the idea that Paul went into the wilderness for 3 years? The Church does not, and has never taught this.

What Church body baptized St. Paul? What was his mission home? What Church community did he claim?

Was it not Antioch? Was it not to the Street called Straight that he was told to go to? (ACTS 9) Was it not the Antiochian Priest Ananias that brought him into the Church? Do you know where the headquarters for The Church of Antioch is? On a street called Straight in Damascus. Do you know that we still maintain the chapel where St. Paul was baptised? Perhaps you do not realize that this ancient Church still exists?

Do you expect me, as a member of the Church of Antioch, being taught by the Priesthood of The Antiochian Church to trust your bible college's training over that of The Church that Paul called his home?

Do you honestly expect me not to accept my training from this source and give precedence to western secular bible colleges who, at best, are attempting to piece together information that they get from so many sources and wind up with such a distorted picture?

Forgive me...

 

[sunlover1]

You say God's message leads to salvation, only if it's written, and only read, because living it means nothing.

That's not true. You've twisted
Mathetes' words.
Shame on ya Montalban

Do you honestly expect me not to accept my training from this source and give precedence to western secular bible colleges who, at best, are attempting to piece together information that they get from so many sources and wind up with such a distorted picture?

Forgive me...

Poisoning the well is also ineffective.

Just saying.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The well is poisoned, but I didn't do it.

For instance.

Bible college's still teach that St. Joseph was a young man, when in truth he was 85 and Mary was 15. They were never married, only betrothed, and Mary remained a virgin all her life.

So... who do you trust?

Forgive me...

 

[Uphill Battle]

The well is poisoned, but I didn't do it.

For instance.

Bible college's still teach that St. Joseph was a young man, when in truth he was 85 and Mary was 15. They were never married, only betrothed, and Mary remained a virgin all her life.

So... who do you trust?

Forgive me...

certainly not THAT statement, anyways.

 

[ScottBot]

The well is poisoned, but I didn't do it.

For instance.

Bible college's still teach that St. Joseph was a young man, when in truth he was 85 and Mary was 15. They were never married, only betrothed, and Mary remained a virgin all her life.

So... who do you trust?

Forgive me...

The Holy Spirit.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

St. Joseph was 110 when he died, and Christ himself buried him the year before starting his ministry.

Like I said... It all depends on who you trust for information.

I see The Church of Antioch as being the most reliable source.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

certainly not THAT statement, anyways.

Why?

The Holy Scriptures don't say one way or the other? It's a popular modern myth that they were both young.

ALL the ancient Churches (every one of them) teach otherwise.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

"I" find it easy to believe something that all five of the ancient Churches teach independently and yet with a unified voice.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Bible colleges don't teach that partaking of The Holy Eucharist is the center of Christian worship either. Why should I trust anyone who misses the very heart of the matter? The Holy Eucharist is Christ among us (and within us), and is the center of worship.

Forgive me...

 

[Asinner]

"I" find it easy to believe something that all five of the ancient Churches teach independently and yet with a unified voice.

Forgive me...

The Church is not an organization with mystery, but a mystery with organization.

After becoming Orthodox and being brought into the Church via an all-Greek monastery, a true miracle was moving out of the state and visiting Serbian, Antiochian, Russian, and Greek (English speaking) parishes where the Divine Liturgy was identical. Christ transcends cultures, race, language, and truly exemplifies Unity.

Love,
Christina

 

[Uphill Battle]

St. Joseph was 110 when he died, and Christ himself buried him the year before starting his ministry.

Like I said... It all depends on who you trust for information.

I see The Church of Antioch as being the most reliable source.

Forgive me...

no doubt. You've chosen it as your church for truth, of COURSE you are going to call it the most reliable.

Why?

The Holy Scriptures don't say one way or the other? It's a popular modern myth that they were both young.

no, because there are scriptural qualifiers that don't make much sense if they were never married.

ALL the ancient Churches (every one of them) teach otherwise.

Forgive me...

yes, I know. At one point, they weren't the "all the ancient churches."

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

no, because there are scriptural qualifiers that don't make much sense if they were never married.

None that are definitive, and certainly none that teach the opposite of what The Churches teach. I would rather have The Church without the scriptures that The scriptures without The Church.

yes, I know. At one point, they weren't the "all the ancient churches."

Which is exactly my point. When all of them agree on one matter, it is much easier to believe. I find it difficult to believe otherwise. All of them in agreement on a matter? What?

Forgive me...

 

[Uphill Battle]

None that are definitive, and certainly none that teach the opposite of what The Churches teach.

no, you're right. nothing definitive, and nothing "opposite." but certainly some that make me wonder very strongly why the author would pen something that doesn't make sense in the 85/15 teaching. Specifically if they never actually married.

I would rather have The Church without the scriptures that The scriptures without The Church.

yes, I can see that.

Which is exactly my point. When all of them agree on one matter, it is much easier to believe.

Forgive me...

not really. take the noahican flood, for example. There are flood legends in almost all cultures. This is derived from there being a flood. However, not all of them get it right. Some are very far from the truth, with only vestiges of the original product.

having a group agree on something, is not indication of it's validity.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

the LXX is, however, closer to the language of the NT (ie, as source for NT quotes) indicating that, indeed, the LXX was the primary source at the time of the NT writing. Additionally, IIRC (check page to confirm) most OT books (Masoretic or LXX) are not quoted; the lack of quotation from other OT books does not, to the average Christian, suggest that these books should be, therefore, discarded as "uninspired".

No it does not suggest that the others of the Jewish Canon should be considered "uninspired" (as far as the infallibility goes). But the Apocrypha were not considered part of the Jewish canon . . . the Apocrypha ITSELF distinguishes between itself and the writings of the inspired OT authors.

It is very well possible that the accepted Jewish canon was what was considered authoritative and every Jew knew this . . . so with their LXX copies they understood what was accepted as the "word of the Lord" and what wasn't and therefore quoted from what was accepted as canon and did not quote from what was NOT accepted as canon.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Bible college is a secular source. State your source for this starting and stopping please. I am more concerned with the textual editing of the psalms.

BTW ~ Do you know who St. Simeon is? According to The Church, he was one of the seventy, and translated the book of Isaiah.

Forgive me...

No . . . my bible college was run by ordained ministers in the Assemblies of God for the sole purpose of planting churches in the local regions. Not secular at all.

The LXX was originally started to translate the PENTATUECH. It was started in the third Cent BC and finished about 200 years later . . . with many starts and stops and different translators of varying capability.

Wikipedia should be sufficient

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

here is the quote:

Jewish scholars first translated the Torah into Greek in the third century BC. Further books were translated over the next two centuries. It is not altogether clear which was translated when, or where; some may even have been translated twice, into different versions, and then revised.[6] The quality and style of the different translators also varied considerably from book to book, from the literal to paraphrasing to interpretative. According to one assessment "the Pentateuch is reasonably well translated, but the rest of the books, especially the poetical books, are often very poorly done and even contain sheer absurdities".[7]
As the work of translation progressed gradually, and new books were added to the collection, the compass of the Greek Bible came to be somewhat indefinite. The Pentateuch always maintained its pre-eminence as the basis of the canon

I do not know who St Simeon is . . . but the original LXX seventy (those who did the books of Moses) were JEWISH scholars PRE-CHRIST . . .

 

[Uphill Battle]

No . . . my bible college was run by ordained ministers in the Assemblies of God for the sole purpose of planting churches in the local regions. Not secular at all.

The LXX was originally started to translate the PENTATUECH. It was started in the third Cent BC and finished about 200 years later . . . with many starts and stops and different translators of varying capability.

Wikipedia should be sufficient

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

here is the quote:

Jewish scholars first translated the Torah into Greek in the third century BC. Further books were translated over the next two centuries. It is not altogether clear which was translated when, or where; some may even have been translated twice, into different versions, and then revised.[6] The quality and style of the different translators also varied considerably from book to book, from the literal to paraphrasing to interpretative. According to one assessment "the Pentateuch is reasonably well translated, but the rest of the books, especially the poetical books, are often very poorly done and even contain sheer absurdities".[7]
As the work of translation progressed gradually, and new books were added to the collection, the compass of the Greek Bible came to be somewhat indefinite. The Pentateuch always maintained its pre-eminence as the basis of the canon

it would seem that the attitude is "not orthodox=secular."

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

You know the major difference here is who we trust to teach us.

I trust The Church of Antioch to teach me.

Forgive me...

You are right. This is the crux issue.

For you, men, their interpretaions and tradition are equally as authoritative as Scripture.

For me they are not. If the gift of NT prophecy was not considered infallible . . . but the Scriptures are . . . then men, interpretation and tradition certainly fall under (meaning as lesser authority) the gift of prophetic utterance . . . ergo . . . the church is fallible and never will I accept the generally held tradition nor teaching of the church over the clear meaning of the Scriptures. I don't think you would either . . . but the structure of authority that you propose I don't see in the NT. Tradition is never given equal import as Scripture . . .