nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index nglreturns.myfreeforum.org
Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Biblical knowledge
Page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 25, 26, 27
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
Jim
Senior Community Member


Joined: 15 Jun 2011
Posts: 4842


Location: South West Scotland

PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2014 8:24 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote

[quote="JMC:117734"]
Jim wrote:

You might not, JNC - but a survey of people who were learning English as a second language did!


What a bizarre reason for re-writing the Creed. I know a lot of English teachers in certain foreign countries use their job as a front for spreading the Gospel, but rewriting ancient texts because their translations are not amenable to people who aren't native speakers doesn't seem like the best "plan A" response. After  all, English isn't the language the Creed was originally formulated in, so I'd have thought the best way to make it more accessible would be to translate it into the English learners' mother tongue. Given the age of the Creed, my guess would be it already exists in most languages already. It is, after all, said (or sung) in Orthodox churches throughout the world at the Divine Liturgy in the local language (so that's your Eastern European languages already pre-translated).

-

New members asked for a modern version - a Statement of Faith.
We concurred, and went ahead.
Surely meeting people in their own situation with a Gospel message they can understand is better than presenting a formula which is incomprehensible at first glance?
Once a person expresses a desire to become a full communicant member of the Church, they will be given teaching and opportunity to study the Nicene Creed, Apostles' Creed and theCofS vows of Membership, in context with Scripture.
-


Jim wrote:
That was one of the reasons for making the Statement - note the absence of the word 'Creed' in the first place.


Is the re-jigged Creed called "the Statement" or the "Statement of Faith"? The latter has the same meaning as Creed, which comes from the Latin for "I believe", the first words of the Creed itself.
-
Yes.
I know. I took Latin at Higher level (equivalent to A Level).
But the word "Statement" was used specifically to distinguish it from "Creed", which would come at the "Communicant's class" (actually an informal study time when members share with new members who are becoming full Communicant members).
_


Jim wrote:
(Oh, and incidentally, it's also a major factor in abandoning the KJV. People coming to this country have enough difficulty coping with MODERN English without having to dredge through its' Jacobean ancestor!)


But you use more modern translations of the Bible, not re-writes or paraphrases, right? The same could have been done with the Nicene Creed -- so, why wasn't it? (well, actually it has been rendered into modern English, so really my question is why didn't the CoS use it and instead come up with a new one?)
-
See above.
_________________
Christians accept One God, Triune in nature.
SAOR ALBA GU BRATH!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JMC
Junior Community Member


Joined: 11 Mar 2014
Posts: 493


Location: Just passing through...

PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2014 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jim wrote:

New members asked for a modern version - a Statement of Faith.
We concurred, and went ahead.


But what is "out of date" about the Nicene Creed? What is archaic?

Jim wrote:
Surely meeting people in their own situation with a Gospel message they can understand is better than presenting a formula which is incomprehensible at first glance? Once a person expresses a desire to become a full communicant member of the Church, they will be given teaching and opportunity to study the Nicene Creed, Apostles' Creed and theCofS vows of Membership, in context with Scripture.


The Creed has always been professed by the believing Church, so with regards to it being something that needs to be studied to be properly professed then that goes without saying. The Creed is not, in itself, a missionary or witnessing statement, it was always intended as a product of Faith. However, there are steps between being a complete unbeliever with no knowledge of Christian teaching and a "full communicant", i.e. being a cathecumen. But that may highlight a different way of approaching the holy gifts wrt the CoS and the Orthodox Church.

Jim wrote:
Yes.
I know. I took Latin at Higher level (equivalent to A Level).
But the word "Statement" was used specifically to distinguish it from "Creed", which would come at the "Communicant's class" (actually an informal study time when members share with new members who are becoming full Communicant members).


But it doesn't distinguish, because there is no distinction to be made. A "Statement of Faith" (as opposed to just "a statement") is precisely a Creed. They are the same thing. So again, it comes back to this question of why change it, and what is incomprehensible within the Nicene Creed to people new to the faith (and how is this clarified in the new SoF?)



Jim wrote:

But you use more modern translations of the Bible, not re-writes or paraphrases, right? The same could have been done with the Nicene Creed -- so, why wasn't it? (well, actually it has been rendered into modern English, so really my question is why didn't the CoS use it and instead come up with a new one?)
-
See above.


Given what you've said above, I'm none the wiser. Do you use more modern translations of the Bible or do you use re-writes and paraphrases of the Holy Scriptures. What if new members said "I don't get the Bible", even in a newer translation? Does that mean you need to write a new Gospel (still "in complete agreement" with the original four), or do you just use other means to allow people to properly access the Gospels themselves. I'll wait for an answer on that before asking my follow question, because previously I assumed the CoS just used newer translations but now I'm not so sure!
_________________
The Way into the Kingdom of Heaven
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
JMC
Junior Community Member


Joined: 11 Mar 2014
Posts: 493


Location: Just passing through...

PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2014 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ralph2 wrote:
JMC wrote:
LeClerc wrote:

The question now Ralph is.

What led to Luke's misunderstanding re the Passover and The Feast of Unleavened bread.


At least one translation renders Πάσχα/Pascha as "Passover season". That would then not make Luke's writing mistaken, merely that he was being a little imprecise with the term Πάσχα/Pascha/Passover. That's not particularly a problem though, as Luke's role in writing his Gospel (and "sequel") is not to teach accurately about Jewish customs. Christians don't need to know the exact dates of Jewish feasts, because they're not going to be observing them.

Also, Πάσχα/Pascha is the Greek word for "Easter" - not the pagan festival but the Christian festival - as Christ is the new Passover which supersedes the Passover celebrated by the Jews. In the Church, the "new" Passover was often celebrated around the same time as the Jewish passover (as it is today). Some Christian communities celebrated "their" Passover (Christ's Resurrection) on the same day as the Jews observed "their" Passover, but other Christian communities celebrated the Passover on the Sunday after the feast of the unleavened bread (never before). This was as a witness to the Jews, because it meant that when they were celebrating the deliverance of Israel from the Pharaoh, Christians were still waiting for the celebration of their Passover celebration - which is complete and delivers all of mankind from evil, rather than just one set of people. Then, after the Jews had finished their celebration, they would be confronted by local Christian communities celebrating "the Passover": why were they celebrating the Passover late? And so the witnessing could begin about how Christians celebrate the completed Passover fulfiled in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah.

Given the above, it could be that Luke was referring to the Christian Passover/Πάσχα that occurred after the Jewish feast of unleavened bread. Maybe.


That is really interesting. If right it would explain it. I don't suppose you have an answer for the discrepancy in the accounts of the risen messiah and the empty tomb, do you? One must be wrong.


Hello, Ralph2:

What discrepancies are you referring to specifically? John's gospel specifically has details that are not recorded elsewhere, although that is not a discrepancy per se. You did say further up-thread that differences in the Gospel just go to show that the events within them were important enough to be recorded by different authors from different backgrounds - writing to different audiences - and that some differences appear, generally in emphasis. St John himself writes that the miracles and wonders of Christ were too numerous to be contained in a multitude of books, so we shouldn't be overly concerned even when some of the Gospel writers fail to mention a particular angel at the tomb on the day of the resurrection.

Nevertheless, as I mentioned, some of the holy fathers did see it as important to try and harmonize the gospel accounts, and St Augustine in particular did much in this area. As such, there is a harmonized version of the resurrection, taking all the events recorded by the Evangelists into account:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1602.htm
(Book 3, Chapter 24)

In summary, the sequence of what happened on the first "Easter Sunday" is:

1) Women visit the tomb (Matt 28:1-10; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-11)
2) Peter and John see the empty tomb (Luke 24:12; John 20: 1-10)
3) Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9-11; John 20:11-18)
4) Jesus appears to the other women (Matt 28:9,10)
5) Guards report the resurrection (Matt 28:11-15)

Then we have the appearance of Jesus to the disciples on the road to Emmaus and then to the disciples (without Thomas).
_________________
The Way into the Kingdom of Heaven
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Derek
Senior Community Member


Joined: 15 Jul 2013
Posts: 4885



PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2014 1:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

JMC wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
JMC wrote:
LeClerc wrote:

The question now Ralph is.

What led to Luke's misunderstanding re the Passover and The Feast of Unleavened bread.


At least one translation renders Πάσχα/Pascha as "Passover season". That would then not make Luke's writing mistaken, merely that he was being a little imprecise with the term Πάσχα/Pascha/Passover. That's not particularly a problem though, as Luke's role in writing his Gospel (and "sequel") is not to teach accurately about Jewish customs. Christians don't need to know the exact dates of Jewish feasts, because they're not going to be observing them.

Also, Πάσχα/Pascha is the Greek word for "Easter" - not the pagan festival but the Christian festival - as Christ is the new Passover which supersedes the Passover celebrated by the Jews. In the Church, the "new" Passover was often celebrated around the same time as the Jewish passover (as it is today). Some Christian communities celebrated "their" Passover (Christ's Resurrection) on the same day as the Jews observed "their" Passover, but other Christian communities celebrated the Passover on the Sunday after the feast of the unleavened bread (never before). This was as a witness to the Jews, because it meant that when they were celebrating the deliverance of Israel from the Pharaoh, Christians were still waiting for the celebration of their Passover celebration - which is complete and delivers all of mankind from evil, rather than just one set of people. Then, after the Jews had finished their celebration, they would be confronted by local Christian communities celebrating "the Passover": why were they celebrating the Passover late? And so the witnessing could begin about how Christians celebrate the completed Passover fulfiled in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah.

Given the above, it could be that Luke was referring to the Christian Passover/Πάσχα that occurred after the Jewish feast of unleavened bread. Maybe.


That is really interesting. If right it would explain it. I don't suppose you have an answer for the discrepancy in the accounts of the risen messiah and the empty tomb, do you? One must be wrong.


Hello, Ralph2:

What discrepancies are you referring to specifically? John's gospel specifically has details that are not recorded elsewhere, although that is not a discrepancy per se. You did say further up-thread that differences in the Gospel just go to show that the events within them were important enough to be recorded by different authors from different backgrounds - writing to different audiences - and that some differences appear, generally in emphasis. St John himself writes that the miracles and wonders of Christ were too numerous to be contained in a multitude of books, so we shouldn't be overly concerned even when some of the Gospel writers fail to mention a particular angel at the tomb on the day of the resurrection.

Nevertheless, as I mentioned, some of the holy fathers did see it as important to try and harmonize the gospel accounts, and St Augustine in particular did much in this area. As such, there is a harmonized version of the resurrection, taking all the events recorded by the Evangelists into account:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1602.htm
(Book 3, Chapter 24)

In summary, the sequence of what happened on the first "Easter Sunday" is:

1) Women visit the tomb (Matt 28:1-10; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-11)
2) Peter and John see the empty tomb (Luke 24:12; John 20: 1-10)
3) Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9-11; John 20:11-18)
4) Jesus appears to the other women (Matt 28:9,10)
5) Guards report the resurrection (Matt 28:11-15)

Then we have the appearance of Jesus to the disciples on the road to Emmaus and then to the disciples (without Thomas).


Hi JMC, I hope I have not kept you waiting to long on this one. I tend not to post here as I used to because of the absence of Lexi.

Let me initially impress upon you that I believe this event to be the hub of the plan of salvation. It is an event that opened the gateway to salvation for all mortals. Nothing would have a reason without it, so it must be important to God. It should not be beyond reason. I don't think it is. There is a major difference in the realisation that Jesus had gone from the tomb. It is basically between who saw it first and at what point did they see it. There is an answer to that, that I am sure, however,  I just do not know it yet, so, I ask other Christians if they have an answer, which I did with you.

That is not what I call the discrepancy though. Let me explain. If you look at Matthew 9 we are told the following: And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. However, if you turn to John 20: 17 Jesus speaks to Mary; Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. That is an indicator that we are literal children of God, and not adopted, as some think. And lastly, in Luke 24; 39, we read; Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

The discrepancy lies within Matthews Gospel. John made it clear that Jesus appeared in a Spirit form. "Touch me not' he said. Why? Because she couldn't touch him. He had not yet been resurrected into immortality. The gateway to salvation had not yet been opened. He confirms that when he says" I have not yet ascended to my father in heaven" which means that it is the father who held the key of the gate of salvation. All straight forward, thus far. Now when he spoke to Thomas, in Luke, he says "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." The gateway to salvation had been opened. He had been resurrected into immortality. We also know by this statement that Jesus is flesh and bone and not a spirit. A good offshoot from this is to debate why he said flesh and bones and not flesh and blood. For another time though.

From that we see that John was speaking with pure knowledge, as was Luke, however,  Matthew said. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Now that was an impossibility, and that is what I do not understand. I do not believe that it is an error. I just do not know the answer. You,  as a Christian, believe in the same God as I, whether you do it in a church, and I do it everywhere, is insignificant. You, therefore, have scriptural knowledge. You might have studied it, indeed, when you said you had the answer I was eager to hear it. That is my reason for asking. It is not crucial to my testimony of divinity as much as it is me being inquisitive.

Oh,  I am not an advocate of the Holy Fathers. They held no specific authority to act in the name of God. I have the same ability to receive personal revelation from the Holy Ghost as they did. The Holy Ghost has never confirmed my questions on the trinity. The scriptures clearly state that they are three separate and distinct individuals, which I have had confirmation on, yet these people have added a concept, without authority, that is clearly wrong and unacceptable. It is false doctrine that only serves one person, Satan. I will listen to what you have to say, if you have been prompted by the spirit, before I would believe a word of their false doctrine. All I have to do is pray about it as well to know that what you are saying is true, because the truth is a constant. It never changes. Whether you ask or I ask, is irrelevant, as the answer will always be the same. As I have said, I have prayed about these so called Holy Men and only ever receive a stupor of thought. I apologise if that offends you, however, you know exactly what I believe in now. Personal revelation.
_________________
Christians believe in the Godhead. God, the father, and his son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, who testifies of His Truth. Three  Separate and Distinct Individuals. Anything else is false doctrine, the teaching of men.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JMC
Junior Community Member


Joined: 11 Mar 2014
Posts: 493


Location: Just passing through...

PostPosted: Wed May 28, 2014 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Ralph:

Ralph2 wrote:
That is not what I call the discrepancy though. Let me explain. If you look at Matthew 9 we are told the following: And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. However, if you turn to John 20: 17 Jesus speaks to Mary; Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.


Okay, I now understand what you thought to be the discrepancy: that Jesus tells Mary Magdeline not to touch Him, but then later He allows a multitude of disciples to grab His feet in worship.


Ralph2 wrote:
John made it clear that Jesus appeared in a Spirit form. "Touch me not' he said. Why? Because she couldn't touch him.


This is not necessarily the case. Another interpretation, a common one, as to why Jesus said what He did was because He wanted Mary to get on with the job of proclaiming the resurrection. It does not imply that Jesus could not be "handled", just that at that particular point in time Christ wanted Mary to proclaim the Gospel to the Apostles so that together they could come and worship Him. When this happened, they did indeed touch Him, because He was already risen.


Quote:
You,  as a Christian, believe in the same God as I, whether you do it in a church, and I do it everywhere, is insignificant.


Insignificant, maybe, but for the record I do believe in God 'everywhere', as opposed to just whilst I'm in Church. Although probably it is more accurate that I trust in (believe in) God "anywhere", rather than "everywhere", because unfortunately I am not yet at the point of being consciously aware of God 24/7.

Quote:
Oh,  I am not an advocate of the Holy Fathers. They held no specific authority to act in the name of God. I have the same ability to receive personal revelation from the Holy Ghost as they did.


The Holy Fathers are named retrospectively, something which is often forgotten. They have been proclaimed as such by careful examination of their words and deeds, rather than because of any claim they made to be such during their lifetime. The only reason we have any of their writings at all is because they were often bishops (usually made bishops against their express desire) and it was their duty to deliver sermons which were subsequently transcribed*, write pastoral letters, and generally proclaim the faith. Although the holy fathers tended to be made into bishops eventually (as I say, usually unwillingly), their backgrounds are diverse and manner of life equally so. In this sense it is true that any person is no less likely to receive personal revelation from the Holy Ghost than anyone else based on who they are/where they came from. But the holy fathers aren't an ontologically different type of human being, they are just a diverse bunch of people who have been recognized as having received revelation from the Holy Ghost and are categorized because of the holiness and harmony of their teaching.

On a case by case basis I doubt that you have received the same, or greater, measure of revelation than they for the simple reason that if you had, you would have the humility to not proclaim it. I have often encountered the "who did they think they were??" bridling at these "holy" men. It is a good question, and worth investigating, because no doubt anyone would be struck by the deep humility of all these saints. Who did they think they were? Nothing! The least among all men! But those of us more familiar with the sinful world and less connected with God see them differently and can better perceive that, actually, they are a bit special. So from this perspective, which I hope you appreciate if not agree with, I do treat with caution those who boldly proclaim how such-and-such an opinion came from direct, divine, revelation. Therefore I safely dismiss your comments about the Trinity on these grounds - as well as because they are also a digression.




*For example, St John Chrysostom's homilies were not written down by him for posterity, but by his congregation, who eagerly received John's preaching and expounding of the Gospel and wanted to preserve it faithfully.





Quote:
In summary, the sequence of what happened on the first "Easter Sunday" is:

1) Women visit the tomb (Matt 28:1-10; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-11)
2) Peter and John see the empty tomb (Luke 24:12; John 20: 1-10)
3) Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9-11; John 20:11-18)
4) Jesus appears to the other women (Matt 28:9,10)
5) Guards report the resurrection (Matt 28:11-15)

Then we have the appearance of Jesus to the disciples on the road to Emmaus and then to the disciples (without Thomas).



_________________
The Way into the Kingdom of Heaven
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 25, 26, 27
Page 27 of 27

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum