Greetings. While I am neutral concerning the way mary is viewed by the early ECFs, isn't it also true that it wasn't until the Canon was put together that most Christians had more access to them?
Do you mean access to the Scriptures? This was mostly as it continued in the Catholic Church, where the laity had little access and the clergy kept the very expensive books under lock and key and read to the congregation in bits and pieces - a letter here and there and the Gospels first. The Peshitta itself only has the four Gospels.
As far as translations, I admit they are "horrible" but I read the NIV Chronological just fine though it is not an accurate translation.
Yes, looking into text criticism is useful when you want to get to the bottom of things. Usually there is a reason. Once you are in the habit of digging deep its hard to break and you wind up boring everybody because they'll have no appreciation for it.
Here is an interesting discussion going on between Messianics and Orthodox Jews and again, if the Bible was translated more accurately, I believe both the Jews and Muslims would view our NT/NC as the True Word of YHWH and His Christ Jesus. Thoughts?
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7260697
How does a Jew begin to believe in a triune God?
I can't really comment on this forum at length or offer an explanation for the Trinity here. I can appreciate the arguments. It is hard to change your ways knowing you will be excommunicated from a community of any type - Jewish, Christian, and possibly even Arian. If I found no evidence for the Trinity I would be happy to reject it. I do have the courage to be ostricized for taking an unpopular positition. Not many do. I think the answer is in looking at the facts and asking the Lord for the grace of intellectual honesty.
Shalom. Aren't Messianics considered "pseudo-Jews"?
From the Jewish perspective, yes, they are "pseudo."
As far as proselyzing, what do you make of what JESUS exclaiming to the Judean rulers in Matt 23?
The word for "dry" is used in both Haggai 2:6 and Luke 23:31 and I view those as the ones in the GNT book of Revelation. Thoughts?
http://www.scripture4all.org/
Haggai 2:6 That thus He says, YHWH of Hosts: Yet one little, she, and I am quaking the heavens and the land, and the sea, and the
Dry/03004 yabbashah, 7 And I quake All of the nations, and they come, desired of all of the nations. And I fill the House, the-this, honour says YHWH of Hosts.
Matt 23:15 "Woe to ye scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! that
ye are going-about the Sea and the
Dry/xhran <3584> to make one proselyte, and whenever he may be becoming/genhtai <1096> (5638), ye are making him a son of geennhV <1067> twofold-more of-ye. [Haggai 2:6/Luke 23:31]
Luke 23:31 That if in the moist wood/xulw <3586> these-things
they are doing, in the
Dry/xhrw <3584>, what may be becoming/genhtai <1096> (5638)?
I think that what applied to the Jewish leaders back in their day also applies to the Christian leaders. I think that Jesus knew that his words would be recorded in the Gospels and that his primary audience would be the very Christian leaders who needed to hear his words the most. And I think that in many ways when converts "join" churches these days they become twice the sons of hell - not really searching for truth, but buying into Mystery Bablylon. Absolutely.
But the warning does not make the institutional churches something to reject in the command to "come out of her" so much as to accept as fallible and in need of service in the freedom of the Spirit of Truth which will show you all things. There is a place for a prophetic ministry. Paul wished that all would seek the higher gifts, especially prophecy, but in a spirit of love, which in the final analysis, is all that really matters.
Now we are, indeed, getting into something like thread drift. So I'll say no more, except to bring it back to the issue of the early fathers by saying that in the first few centuries CE they probably did not see themselves in their responsibility as stewards of the Gospel as "the bad guys." Nobody ever does.
The practice of anathematizing was a sign of institutionalizing and began right around the first century. I have looked into this carefully most recently. It appears that the word "anathema" originally referred to a spiritual offering or gift, rather than to a curse. You can see this usage in the LXX. Speaking of bad translations, very possibly, even probably, when Paul used this term he was referring to offering someone up to the Lord in binding prayer, not cursing them.
I do see proselytes preaching systems. Systems are useful for learning. They are like landmarks. They provide a very nice security blanket or map for those incapable of fully researching matters on their own. We all resort to them at some point. They give us our orientation. But obviously, they can become very abusive and intolerant. The Catholics, Orthodox and Coptics, all still hold anathemas against each other even though they all place exceptional weight on the authority of the fathers and the councils. Somehow, this doesn't strike me as disciples being recognized by their love. Then looking back at the fathers themselves, I do see a desire to discuss the truth and to evangelize/proselytize, but not in a condemning way. The word "heresy" is used much but the Gospel is good news.
In the tradition of Irenaeus, for instance, Hyppolitus elaborates at great length in a treatise called "
Against All Heresies." There we get a description of all major mystery religions starting from the philosophers, especially Pythagoras up to his own day (early 3rd Century). I don't really see this in Polycarp, the disciple of John, though I do see some anti-gnostic passages in John. Irenaeus learned from Polycarp. Hypollitus from Irenaeus, so Hypollitus is a very good example of an ECF.
I don't see him anathematizing so much as pointing out truth with the same exceptional patience demonstrated by his spiritual father, Irenaeus. This is not something you can catch from a proof text. You have to read hims to see how this is so. Unless you have some reason to learn about the many branches of thought he describes you will be very bored with it and want to find a better use of your time. But what he demonstrates by it is that proselytizing is largely a matter of understanding. Part of the beauty of his heart is that he shows that he has listened.
I would think that any disciple of his would be twice a son of the kingdom, rather than of Gehenna. My position is that we revere the Scriptures and that we return to that kind of a simple servant's mind.
