How dare you quote a reference that has changed the Word of God!!!! "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled".
The burden of prove is still on your behave to answer Psalm 50/51
Here we go again. How exactly did the Orthodox Study Bible change the Word of God? Because the Orthodox Study Bible translates the particular verses differently than the translation you provided? Severian, through the Orthodox Study Bible, has given an adequate explanation to answer your original question of Psalm 50. Your reply shifts the burden of proof to you to show how Severian or the Orthodox Study Bible changed the Word of God since YOU made the claim. *Thank you*, Remnkimi.
And plus, Met. Kallistos actually speaks Greek! He has translated many Patristic works from Greek to English, and accusing him of changing the text is a serious charge, which some would call slander and libel. You better be careful next time you make an accusation like that, Sherene.
severian,
The last time I checked the Psalms, King David wrote and sang them in HEBREW LANGUAGE!!!
How dare you quote a reference that has changed the Word of God!!!! "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled".
The burden of prove is still on your behave to answer Psalm 50/51
Here we go again. How exactly did the Orthodox Study Bible change the Word of God? Because the Orthodox Study Bible translates the particular verses differently than the translation you provided? Severian, through the Orthodox Study Bible, has given an adequate explanation to answer your original question of Psalm 50. Your reply shifts the burden of proof to you to show how Severian or the Orthodox Study Bible changed the Word of God since YOU made the claim. *Thank you*, Remnkimi.
And plus, Met. Kallistos actually speaks Greek! He has translated many Patristic works from Greek to English, and accusing him of changing the text is a serious charge, which some would call slander and libel. You better be careful next time you make an accusation like that, Sherene.
severian,
The last time I checked the Psalms, King David wrote and sang them in HEBREW LANGUAGE!!! Our Church (like all Orthodox Churches, except for maybe the Syrians) uses the Greek Septuagint for the Old Testament over the Hebrew Masoretic. Met. Kallistos would have translated it from Greek. And you still have not addressed Remnkimi's challenge. He is right, the burden of proof is on you.
And why do you accuse the Metropolitan of distorting the text? What evidence is there that he altered it?
How dare you quote a reference that has changed the Word of God!!!! "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled".
The burden of prove is still on your behave to answer Psalm 50/51
Here we go again. How exactly did the Orthodox Study Bible change the Word of God? Because the Orthodox Study Bible translates the particular verses differently than the translation you provided? Severian, through the Orthodox Study Bible, has given an adequate explanation to answer your original question of Psalm 50. Your reply shifts the burden of proof to you to show how Severian or the Orthodox Study Bible changed the Word of God since YOU made the claim.
And again which Church Father wrote these commentaries?
[quote author=childoforthodoxy link=topic=13619.msg159470#msg159470 date=1346285048] It's a shame that this thread has gone away from its original intent.
Not really ChildofOrthodoxy. I personally have learned a lot. I hope others who are just viewing will get some benefit. I think it would be nicer if there wasn't so much redundancy and attacks but filter it all out and I think everyone can learn something.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13619.msg159471#msg159471 date=1346290237] [quote author=childoforthodoxy link=topic=13619.msg159470#msg159470 date=1346285048] It's a shame that this thread has gone away from its original intent.
Not really ChildofOrthodoxy. I personally have learned a lot. I hope others who are just viewing will get some benefit. I think it would be nicer if there wasn't so much redundancy and attacks but filter it all out and I think everyone can learn something.
Filter out the sarcasm too.
btw reminkimi did you get a chance to ponder on my questions to you in post # 89?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159465#msg159465 date=1346279519] Job 14:4,5 says: "For who shall be pure from uncleanness? No one Even if his life is but one day upon earth?"
Psalm 58:4 "Sinners are alienated from the womb; From birth they are led astray; they speak lies"
Can someone provide an explanation, other than a Metaphor, to these verses in light of this discussion?
I'll start out with Psalm 58:3. The verse and the entire psalm does not speak of all humans as born with sin. Rather it says the wicked go astray from birth. It doesn't imply they have gone astray before birth. It doesn't imply they are born with sin. Rather the wicked, who do not seek righteousness, run to sin from their early childhood.
Job 14 First of all, you're going to have to duke it out with sherenemaria. You quoted the Septuagint. Sherene implied that only the KJV is the Word of God. According to KJV version, the text reads "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass;" With this text, it doesn't say man is born sinful. Rather it says three things, (1) no man can clean or purify something that is unclean and (2) every man's prosperity and life age is determined by God and (3) Man cannot free himself from God's predetermined age for himself.
Now since I believe the Septuagint is more reliable than KJV, I'll respond with the Father writings. No Eastern Father ever used Job 14:4,5 (Septuagint) to prove Oirignal Sin. The only father who actually used Job 14:4 are 1. Clement of Rome: An Example of humility (nothing to do with original sin) 2. Cyprian: Three Books of Testimonies against the Jews (Book 3, Chapter 54). Again nothing to do with being born with sin, rather that no one one is sinless. 3. Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings. Chapter 11, #23. It's about using Job 14 against the Palegian. It's about name calling. 4. Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings. Chapter 4, #4. Uses Job to prove Original sin 5. Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings. Chapter 50. Discusses original sin 6. Ambrose: Concerning Repentance. Book 1. Chapter 1. Repeats Augustine and says Job 14 and Psalm 50 prove original sin 7. Jerome: Against the Pelagians. Book 2. Even righteous men are not without sin. Nothing about original sin or inherited guilt. 8. Augustine: Against the Pelagians. Book 4. Chapter 27. Augustine quotes Cyprian to prove original sin.
All Latin theologians teach original sin. No Eastern Orthodox father ever used Job 14 as a reference for original sin. None. Not one. Never. Nilch. No St Cyril of Alexandria. No St Athanasius. No Origen. No Coptic patriarch. No Fr Tadros. No Pope Shenouda. No Syrian fathers. No Cappadocean fathers. The silence is deafening.
PS: In this post, I didn't use the word metaphor, nor implied it. Satisfied? And although I partially responded to your Reply #89, I will go into depth in another post.
In the last post, I showed how none of the Orthodox fathers used any of the verse given to prove original sin. Here is some more information against the concept of original sin and inherited guilt. I'll start with 3 modern Eastern Orthodox theologians.
1. Bishop Kallistos (The Orthodox Church. Faith and Worship (excerpts) "Most orthodox theologians reject the idea of ‘original guilt,’ put forward by Augustine and still accepted (albeit in a mitigated form) by the Roman Catholic Church. Men (Orthodox usually teach) automatically inherit Adam’s corruption and mortality, but not his guilt: they are only guilty in so far as by their own free choice they imitate Adam....And Orthodox have never held (as Augustine and many others in the west have done) that unbaptized babies, because tainted with original guilt, are consigned by the just God to the everlasting games of Hell (Thomas Aquinas, in his discussion of the fall, on the whole followed Augustine, and in particular retained the idea of original guilt; but as regards unbaptized babies, he maintained that they go not to Hell but to Limbo — a view now generally accepted by Roman theologians....But although Orthodox maintain that man after the fall still possessed free will and was still capable of good actions, yet they certainly agree with the west in believing that man’s sin had set up between him and God a barrier, which man by his own efforts could never break down. Sin blocked the path to union with God. Since man could not come to God, God came to man." Source
2. Fr John Romanides (Original Sin according to St Paul) To get at the basic presuppositions of Biblical thinking, one must abandon any juridical scheme of human justice which demands punishment and rewards according to objective rules of morality. To approach the problem of original sin in such a naive manner as to say that tout lecteur sense concilura qu'une penalite commune implique une offense commune, and that thus all share in the guilt of Adam, is to ignore the true nature of the justice of God and deny any real power to the devil.[/u Source
3. Fr John Meindorff (Byzantine Theology) The scriptural text, which played a decisive role in the polemics between Augustine and the Pelagians, is found in Romans 5:12 where Paul speaking of Adam writes, “As sin came into the world through one man and through sin and death, so death spreads to all men because all men have sinned [eph ho pantes hemarton]” In this passage there is a major issue of translation. The last four Greek words were translated in Latin as in quo omnes peccaverunt (”in whom [i.e., in Adam] all men have sinned”), and this translation was used in the West to justify the doctrine of guilt inherited from Adam and spread to his descendants. But such a meaning cannot be drawn from the original Greek—the text read, of course, by the Byzantines. The form eph ho—a contraction of epi with the relative pronoun ho—can be translated as “because,” a meaning accepted by most modern scholars of all confessional backgrounds. Such a translation renders Paul’s thought to mean that death, which is “the wages of sin” (Rm 6:23) for Adam, is also the punishment applied to those who like him sin. It presupposed a cosmic significance of the sin of Adam, but did not say that his descendants are “guilty” as he was unless they also sinned as he did.
All three Eastern Orthodox theologians have shown multiple reasons why the Orthodox Church doesn't accept the Augustinian concept of original sin and inherited guilt.
What I found most intriguing is what a Roman Catholic priest said. After a fairly long introduction, he maintains the official Catechesis of the Catholic Church does NOT teach inherited guilt. Here are references from the Catechesis. 1. Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin—an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle. (403-405)
Notice the importance of distinguishing the effect of Adam's sin personally vs. its effect on the human nature.
2. (Not from the official Catechesis but from a RC point of view) The Catholic Church thus agrees with Orthodox theologians who insist that no person may be deemed morally culpable for a sin he did not personally commit. Individuals are not condemned by God because of Adam’s disobedience. In the words of Pope Pius IX: “God in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault” (Quanto conficiamur moerore [1863]). All human beings enjoy solidarity with Adam and share in the consequences of his disobedience. All are born “in Adam.” But we inherit not his personal guilt but his corrupted nature and separation from the divine life.
3. Final conclusion by Fr Alvin Kimel's blog on Original Sin Western Catholic theologians typically employ the terms sin, stain of sin, guilt, punishment, and penalty to describe the condition of fallen man. Following the ritual practice of the Church, they even speak of infants and small children being baptized for the “remission of their sins.” But the Catholic Church is clear that this usage is to be interpreted figuratively, [ii][u]not literally.[/i]
So to summarize 1. Only the Western Latin fathers believe in original sin and inherit guilt 2. No Eastern Orthodox father (whether Coptic or non-Coptic, ancient or modern) believed in inherited guilt 3. The modern belief and official Catechesis of the Catholic Church does not believe in original sin and inherit guilt as Augustine described.
Finally to answer your point in reply #89 You wrote: "How was the death, you participated with Christ, taste like? How is wearing Christ differ from wearing the old man?
Was your death a metaphor? Was you wearing the new man an allegory? My death in baptism was a spiritual death, not a physical, literal death. My putting on Christ in charismation was a spiritual act, mysteriously done through a physical act. Physically and literally I partake of Christ through bread and wine in the Eucharist. Your example has nothing to do with Adam's geneology as described in Hebrews 7. Metaphorically, I am Adam's descendant, not literally or physically. Metaphorically, I sin like Adam by eating the plant of the forbidden tree which is my own personal sin. You are comparing apples and oranges here. Sacraments are mystical. Genealogy and comparisons are metaphoric.
Bishop Kallistos, Fr John Romanides, Fr John Meindorff (Byzantine Theology)
All these authors are neo theologians who deny the original sin.
Romaniddes specifically is the one who started this movement with his thesis that the fear of death brought on the sin.
We cannot learn from them. I cannot understand why you would quote Eastern theologians who specifically deny the Orthodox dogma of Original Sin and yet there are many other theologians from the same family who affirm it.
How convenient.
It is amazing how you choose what best fits your belief.
#1, ur both really annoying #2, stop complicating things #3, just b/c the EO say something doesn't mean it's right. #4, just because the Catholic church says something doesn't mean it's wrong. #5, In my opinion, they have a tendency to complicate things and try to use different terminology as much as possible just so they can disagree with each other.
Attached is an article regarding this topic written by one of our theologians. I urge you to take it for what it is. Don't try to understand it in different words, or different meanings, or whatever. We have to understand that this topic is one of the Mysteries of our faith and will never be understood completely with our limited minds.
#1, ur both really annoying #2, stop complicating things #3, just b/c the EO say something doesn't mean it's right. #4, just because the Catholic church says something doesn't mean it's wrong. #5, In my opinion, they have a tendency to complicate things and try to use different terminology as much as possible just so they can disagree with each other.
Attached is an article regarding this topic written by one of our theologians. I urge you to take it for what it is. Don't try to understand it in different words, or different meanings, or whatever. We have to understand that this topic is one of the Mysteries of our faith and will never be understood completely with our limited minds.
Pray for me.
Excellent sifaing.
I do know who the author is and I do have a great respect for him.
Thanks so much.
Another great article for those who think that the Eastern Orthodox do not believe in the Original sin:
#1, ur both really annoying #2, stop complicating things #3, just b/c the EO say something doesn't mean it's right. #4, just because the Catholic church says something doesn't mean it's wrong. #5, In my opinion, they have a tendency to complicate things and try to use different terminology as much as possible just so they can disagree with each other.
Attached is an article regarding this topic written by one of our theologians. I urge you to take it for what it is. Don't try to understand it in different words, or different meanings, or whatever. We have to understand that this topic is one of the Mysteries of our faith and will never be understood completely with our limited minds.
Pray for me.
Excellent sifaing.
I do know who the author is and I do have a great respect for him.
#1, ur both really annoying #2, stop complicating things #3, just b/c the EO say something doesn't mean it's right. #4, just because the Catholic church says something doesn't mean it's wrong. #5, In my opinion, they have a tendency to complicate things and try to use different terminology as much as possible just so they can disagree with each other.
Attached is an article regarding this topic written by one of our theologians. I urge you to take it for what it is. Don't try to understand it in different words, or different meanings, or whatever. We have to understand that this topic is one of the Mysteries of our faith and will never be understood completely with our limited minds.
Pray for me.
Excellent sifaing.
I do know who the author is and I do have a great respect for him.
Thanks so much. Who is the author?
It is Father Shenouda Maher.
I do also encourage the reading of the article by Vladimir Moss, an EO member, in which he refutes the EO neotheologians , like Bishop Kallistos, Fr John Romanides, Fr John Meindorff who deny the dogma of Original Sin:
And look what the Roman Catholics say about Vladimir Moss here: "He also put a statement that would fit the Immaculate Conception (below) "Christ was born from a virgin who had been cleansed beforehand from all sin by the Holy Spirit precisely in order to break the cycle of sin begetting sin. As St. Gregory Palamas writes"
So you want us to accept one Eastern Orthodox priest that advocates Immaculate deception because he also advocates original sin and inherited guilt. And all of the references I gave are inappropriate?
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13619.msg159483#msg159483 date=1346301237] And look what the Roman Catholics say about Vladimir Moss here: "He also put a statement that would fit the Immaculate Conception (below) "Christ was born from a virgin who had been cleansed beforehand from all sin by the Holy Spirit precisely in order to break the cycle of sin begetting sin. As St. Gregory Palamas writes"
So you want us to accept one Eastern Orthodox priest that advocates Immaculate deception because he also advocates original sin and inherited guilt. And all of the references I gave are inappropriate?
You really need to get your references straight. Stop educating yourself from forums, blogs, wiki.
At least have the courtesy to get your information first hand by reading the article itself instead of some second commentaries found on some Catholic forum with a Catholic agenda.
In the article I provided, he does not advocate immaculate conception whatsoever. Rather, he quotes St Gregory the Theologian explaining that denying The Original Sin gives way to the heresy of immaculate conception.
Here is what he says on p.24: " .. there is one human being of whom we know that she would not have displayed Adam’s self will, and who is glorified above all human beings precisely because she rejected Eve’s temptation, reversing her disobedience: the Mother of God. And yet the Mother of God was born in original sin. This is the teaching of the Orthodox Church, which rejects the Roman Catholic doctrine that the Virgin was conceived immaculately in order to preserve her from original sin. Rather, the Orthodox Church follows the teaching of St. Gregory the Theologian, who says: “The Son of God was conceived of the Virgin, who had been purified beforehand [obviously, from sin] in soul and body by the Holy Spirit.”
He then continues quoting other EO theologians to further enhance that the Original sin is an essential dogma to fight the heresy of Immaculate conception
I would like to clarify something. I did not purposely change the quote from St. Cyprian of Carthage earlier, as Imikhail seemed to subtlety imply. I posted that fragment of the quote because that was how I found it elsewhere on this forum. I did not purposely leave out the whole quote. I am sorry for that. I have since then edited that post so as to not mislead others.
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13619.msg159489#msg159489 date=1346341090] I would like to clarify something. I did not purposely change the quote from St. Cyprian of Carthage earlier, as Imikhail seemed to subtlety imply. I posted that fragment of the quote because that was how I found it elsewhere on this forum. I did not purposely leave out the whole quote. I am Sorry for that.
No worries Severian.
We just have to be careful in reading the Fathers within context because as the Scriptures can be proof texted, so are the Fathers.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159490#msg159490 date=1346342407] [quote author=Severian link=topic=13619.msg159489#msg159489 date=1346341090] I would like to clarify something. I did not purposely change the quote from St. Cyprian of Carthage earlier, as Imikhail seemed to subtlety imply. I posted that fragment of the quote because that was how I found it elsewhere on this forum. I did not purposely leave out the whole quote. I am Sorry for that.
No worries Severian.
[b]We just have to be careful in reading the Fathers within context because as the Scriptures can be proof texted, so are the Fathers. I agree with this and thanks for being so understanding.
I am sorry if I snapped or was uncharitable earlier. In my misguided zealotry I may have acted in an un-Christian manner. I am young and still have a lot to learn. All I want to do is preserve the authentic teaching and heritage of our Holy Orthodox Church as exposited by the Holy Tradition and the Holy Fathers. Especially, in this time of great tribulation the Church has been facing. I will read Fr. Shenouda Maher's article ASAP. But, I have a ton of paperwork to finish.
How dare you quote a reference that has changed the Word of God!!!! "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled".
The burden of prove is still on your behave to answer Psalm 50/51
Here we go again. How exactly did the Orthodox Study Bible change the Word of God? Because the Orthodox Study Bible translates the particular verses differently than the translation you provided? Severian, through the Orthodox Study Bible, has given an adequate explanation to answer your original question of Psalm 50. Your reply shifts the burden of proof to you to show how Severian or the Orthodox Study Bible changed the Word of God since YOU made the claim. *Thank you*, Remnkimi.
And plus, Met. Kallistos actually speaks Greek! He has translated many Patristic works from Greek to English, and accusing him of changing the text is a serious charge, which some would call slander and libel. You better be careful next time you make an accusation like that, Sherene.
severian,
The last time I checked the Psalms, King David wrote and sang them in HEBREW LANGUAGE!!! Our Church (like all Orthodox Churches, except for maybe the Syrians) uses the Greek Septuagint for the Old Testament over the Hebrew Masoretic. Met. Kallistos would have translated it from Greek. And you still have not addressed Remnkimi's challenge. He is right, the burden of proof is on you.
And how dare you accuse the Metropolitan of distorting the text? Legal action can be taken against you for such unsubstantiated accusations. You're not one to question his ability to interpret/translate the text.
When a person starts to lose the power of argument and cannot defend his point of view, he begins to attack, threaten and scare his opponents. This is very well known method; fortunately I am not that kind of a person who can be scarred easily. As long as I have the right stuff I will defend the foundation of my beloved True Coptic Orthodox Church. This thread started by you attacking the symbols of our Coptic Orthodox Church and no one from this tasbeha website object to your relentless attack, though this website belongs to C.O.C. You forced your point of view which completely adheres to the Eastern Church and again no one object. Just we argued your motive from the Holy Scriptures, the Divine Liturgy and from the writing of the father of the Church.
Now, I asked you to provide what does Psalm 50/51 mean and I mentioned that the burden of prove is on you, in post # 86. Unfortunately you copied what the Study Bible wrote and used it as an answer. You cannot use a biased source that belongs to the church that objects to the doctrine of original sin. So again the burden of prove is still on your side, but this time try to prove it by using a credible and neutral source from the early Church’ Fathers. Stop repeating the phrase the “burden of prove” because it is childish to quote what I said to you originally.
^I am done with this discussion (until I read Fr. Shenouda's article). I was not trying to threaten or scare you as you ridiculously claim. I was stating a fact. You cannot accuse a translator of interpolating or altering a text without evidence. On an anonymous online discussion forum you can probably get away with it. However, if you publish a claim like that it will be reasonably expected that you back up your claim. And anyway, just because my explanation comes from an outside source does not invalidate it. I thought it was a sufficiently Orthodox, so I used it. I agree with you in saying that just because the Byzantines say something does not make it right. But, I used this explanation because I thought it sufficiently interpreted Psalm 50/51.
I have done my part, the burden of proof is now on you. You must demonstrate that this explanation is un-Orthodox, and you must demonstrate how Met. Kallistos changed the text. I am also rather surprised that you were ignorant of the fact that our Church uses the Greek Septuagint for the Old Testament and not the Hebrew.
And I did not lose the power of argument in my discussion with you. You were the one who did not respond to any of my arguments. Almost every post you have made on this thread was an argument made out of emotion without any interest in logical discourse (actually, most of your posts are like this). At least Imikhail is citing references we can work with.
EDIT: I have edited my posts on this thread which have assumed a more polemical and aggressive tone. We must remember that this is a public forum that anyone can access. It is not a private/locked fora. I know I am stepping on my own toes as I say this, but arguing in an un-Christian manner can scandalize inquirers into our Faith and unlearned individuals.
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13619.msg159496#msg159496 date=1346364981] ^I am done with this discussion (until I read Fr. Shenouda's article). I was not trying to threaten or scare you as you ridiculously claim. I was stating a fact. You cannot accuse a translator of interpolating or altering a text without evidence. On an anonymous online discussion forum you can probably get away with it. However, if you publish a claim like that it will be reasonably expected that you back up your claim. And anyway, just because my explanation comes from an outside source does not invalidate it. I thought it was a sufficiently Orthodox, so I used it. I agree with you in saying that just because the Byzantines say something does not make it right. But, I used this explanation because I thought it sufficiently interpreted Psalm 50/51.
I have done my part, the burden of proof is now on you. You must demonstrate that this explanation is un-Orthodox, and you must demonstrate how Met. Kallistos changed the text. I am also rather surprised that you were ignorant of the fact that our Church uses the Greek Septuagint for the Old Testament and not the Hebrew.
And I did not lose the power of argument in my discussion with you. You were the one who did not respond to any of my arguments. Almost every post you have made on this thread was an argument made out of emotion without any interest in logical discourse (actually, most of your posts are like this). At least Imikhail is citing references we can work with.
EDIT: I have edited my posts on this thread which have assumed a more polemical and aggressive tone. We must remember that this is a public forum that anyone can access. It is not a private/locked fora. I know I am stepping on my own toes as I say this, but arguing in an un-Christian manner can scandalize inquirers into our Faith and unlearned individuals. I would also like to apologize to Imikhail and Sherene_Maria if I have offended either of them.
Comments
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13619.msg159451#msg159451 date=1346274060]
[quote author=sherene_maria link=topic=13619.msg159449#msg159449 date=1346272574]
Severian,
How dare you quote a reference that has changed the Word of God!!!!
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled".
The burden of prove is still on your behave to answer Psalm 50/51
Here we go again. How exactly did the Orthodox Study Bible change the Word of God? Because the Orthodox Study Bible translates the particular verses differently than the translation you provided? Severian, through the Orthodox Study Bible, has given an adequate explanation to answer your original question of Psalm 50. Your reply shifts the burden of proof to you to show how Severian or the Orthodox Study Bible changed the Word of God since YOU made the claim.
*Thank you*, Remnkimi.
And plus, Met. Kallistos actually speaks Greek! He has translated many Patristic works from Greek to English, and accusing him of changing the text is a serious charge, which some would call slander and libel. You better be careful next time you make an accusation like that, Sherene.
severian,
The last time I checked the Psalms, King David wrote and sang them in HEBREW LANGUAGE!!!
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13619.msg159453#msg159453 date=1346274370]
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13619.msg159451#msg159451 date=1346274060]
[quote author=sherene_maria link=topic=13619.msg159449#msg159449 date=1346272574]
Severian,
How dare you quote a reference that has changed the Word of God!!!!
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled".
The burden of prove is still on your behave to answer Psalm 50/51
Here we go again. How exactly did the Orthodox Study Bible change the Word of God? Because the Orthodox Study Bible translates the particular verses differently than the translation you provided? Severian, through the Orthodox Study Bible, has given an adequate explanation to answer your original question of Psalm 50. Your reply shifts the burden of proof to you to show how Severian or the Orthodox Study Bible changed the Word of God since YOU made the claim.
*Thank you*, Remnkimi.
And plus, Met. Kallistos actually speaks Greek! He has translated many Patristic works from Greek to English, and accusing him of changing the text is a serious charge, which some would call slander and libel. You better be careful next time you make an accusation like that, Sherene.
severian,
The last time I checked the Psalms, King David wrote and sang them in HEBREW LANGUAGE!!!
Our Church (like all Orthodox Churches, except for maybe the Syrians) uses the Greek Septuagint for the Old Testament over the Hebrew Masoretic. Met. Kallistos would have translated it from Greek. And you still have not addressed Remnkimi's challenge. He is right, the burden of proof is on you.
And why do you accuse the Metropolitan of distorting the text? What evidence is there that he altered it?
[quote author=sherene_maria link=topic=13619.msg159449#msg159449 date=1346272574]
Severian,
How dare you quote a reference that has changed the Word of God!!!!
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled".
The burden of prove is still on your behave to answer Psalm 50/51
Here we go again. How exactly did the Orthodox Study Bible change the Word of God? Because the Orthodox Study Bible translates the particular verses differently than the translation you provided? Severian, through the Orthodox Study Bible, has given an adequate explanation to answer your original question of Psalm 50. Your reply shifts the burden of proof to you to show how Severian or the Orthodox Study Bible changed the Word of God since YOU made the claim.
And again which Church Father wrote these commentaries?
"For who shall be pure from uncleanness? No one
Even if his life is but one day upon earth?"
Psalm 58:4
"Sinners are alienated from the womb; From birth they are led astray; they speak lies"
Can someone provide an explanation, other than a Metaphor, to these verses in light of this discussion?
It's a shame that this thread has gone away from its original intent.
Not really ChildofOrthodoxy. I personally have learned a lot. I hope others who are just viewing will get some benefit. I think it would be nicer if there wasn't so much redundancy and attacks but filter it all out and I think everyone can learn something.
[quote author=childoforthodoxy link=topic=13619.msg159470#msg159470 date=1346285048]
It's a shame that this thread has gone away from its original intent.
Not really ChildofOrthodoxy. I personally have learned a lot. I hope others who are just viewing will get some benefit. I think it would be nicer if there wasn't so much redundancy and attacks but filter it all out and I think everyone can learn something.
Filter out the sarcasm too.
btw reminkimi did you get a chance to ponder on my questions to you in post # 89?
Job 14:4,5 says:
"For who shall be pure from uncleanness? No one
Even if his life is but one day upon earth?"
Psalm 58:4
"Sinners are alienated from the womb; From birth they are led astray; they speak lies"
Can someone provide an explanation, other than a Metaphor, to these verses in light of this discussion?
I'll start out with Psalm 58:3. The verse and the entire psalm does not speak of all humans as born with sin. Rather it says the wicked go astray from birth. It doesn't imply they have gone astray before birth. It doesn't imply they are born with sin. Rather the wicked, who do not seek righteousness, run to sin from their early childhood.
Job 14
First of all, you're going to have to duke it out with sherenemaria. You quoted the Septuagint. Sherene implied that only the KJV is the Word of God. According to KJV version, the text reads "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass;" With this text, it doesn't say man is born sinful. Rather it says three things, (1) no man can clean or purify something that is unclean and (2) every man's prosperity and life age is determined by God and (3) Man cannot free himself from God's predetermined age for himself.
Now since I believe the Septuagint is more reliable than KJV, I'll respond with the Father writings.
No Eastern Father ever used Job 14:4,5 (Septuagint) to prove Oirignal Sin. The only father who actually used Job 14:4 are
1. Clement of Rome: An Example of humility (nothing to do with original sin)
2. Cyprian: Three Books of Testimonies against the Jews (Book 3, Chapter 54). Again nothing to do with being born with sin, rather that no one one is sinless.
3. Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings. Chapter 11, #23. It's about using Job 14 against the Palegian. It's about name calling.
4. Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings. Chapter 4, #4. Uses Job to prove Original sin
5. Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings. Chapter 50. Discusses original sin
6. Ambrose: Concerning Repentance. Book 1. Chapter 1. Repeats Augustine and says Job 14 and Psalm 50 prove original sin
7. Jerome: Against the Pelagians. Book 2. Even righteous men are not without sin. Nothing about original sin or inherited guilt.
8. Augustine: Against the Pelagians. Book 4. Chapter 27. Augustine quotes Cyprian to prove original sin.
All Latin theologians teach original sin. No Eastern Orthodox father ever used Job 14 as a reference for original sin. None. Not one. Never. Nilch. No St Cyril of Alexandria. No St Athanasius. No Origen. No Coptic patriarch. No Fr Tadros. No Pope Shenouda. No Syrian fathers. No Cappadocean fathers. The silence is deafening.
PS: In this post, I didn't use the word metaphor, nor implied it. Satisfied? And although I partially responded to your Reply #89, I will go into depth in another post.
1. Bishop Kallistos (The Orthodox Church. Faith and Worship (excerpts)
"Most orthodox theologians reject the idea of ‘original guilt,’ put forward by Augustine and still accepted (albeit in a mitigated form) by the Roman Catholic Church. Men (Orthodox usually teach) automatically inherit Adam’s corruption and mortality, but not his guilt: they are only guilty in so far as by their own free choice they imitate Adam....And Orthodox have never held (as Augustine and many others in the west have done) that unbaptized babies, because tainted with original guilt, are consigned by the just God to the everlasting games of Hell (Thomas Aquinas, in his discussion of the fall, on the whole followed Augustine, and in particular retained the idea of original guilt; but as regards unbaptized babies, he maintained that they go not to Hell but to Limbo — a view now generally accepted by Roman theologians....But although Orthodox maintain that man after the fall still possessed free will and was still capable of good actions, yet they certainly agree with the west in believing that man’s sin had set up between him and God a barrier, which man by his own efforts could never break down. Sin blocked the path to union with God. Since man could not come to God, God came to man."
Source
2. Fr John Romanides (Original Sin according to St Paul)
To get at the basic presuppositions of Biblical thinking, one must abandon any juridical scheme of human justice which demands punishment and rewards according to objective rules of morality. To approach the problem of original sin in such a naive manner as to say that tout lecteur sense concilura qu'une penalite commune implique une offense commune, and that thus all share in the guilt of Adam, is to ignore the true nature of the justice of God and deny any real power to the devil.[/u
Source
3. Fr John Meindorff (Byzantine Theology)
The scriptural text, which played a decisive role in the polemics between Augustine and the Pelagians, is found in Romans 5:12 where Paul speaking of Adam writes, “As sin came into the world through one man and through sin and death, so death spreads to all men because all men have sinned [eph ho pantes hemarton]” In this passage there is a major issue of translation. The last four Greek words were translated in Latin as in quo omnes peccaverunt (”in whom [i.e., in Adam] all men have sinned”), and this translation was used in the West to justify the doctrine of guilt inherited from Adam and spread to his descendants. But such a meaning cannot be drawn from the original Greek—the text read, of course, by the Byzantines. The form eph ho—a contraction of epi with the relative pronoun ho—can be translated as “because,” a meaning accepted by most modern scholars of all confessional backgrounds. Such a translation renders Paul’s thought to mean that death, which is “the wages of sin” (Rm 6:23) for Adam, is also the punishment applied to those who like him sin. It presupposed a cosmic significance of the sin of Adam, but did not say that his descendants are “guilty” as he was unless they also sinned as he did.
All three Eastern Orthodox theologians have shown multiple reasons why the Orthodox Church doesn't accept the Augustinian concept of original sin and inherited guilt.
What I found most intriguing is what a Roman Catholic priest said. After a fairly long introduction, he maintains the official Catechesis of the Catholic Church does NOT teach inherited guilt. Here are references from the Catechesis.
1. Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin—an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle. (403-405)
Notice the importance of distinguishing the effect of Adam's sin personally vs. its effect on the human nature.
2. (Not from the official Catechesis but from a RC point of view) The Catholic Church thus agrees with Orthodox theologians who insist that no person may be deemed morally culpable for a sin he did not personally commit. Individuals are not condemned by God because of Adam’s disobedience. In the words of Pope Pius IX: “God in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault” (Quanto conficiamur moerore [1863]). All human beings enjoy solidarity with Adam and share in the consequences of his disobedience. All are born “in Adam.” But we inherit not his personal guilt but his corrupted nature and separation from the divine life.
3. Final conclusion by Fr Alvin Kimel's blog on Original Sin
Western Catholic theologians typically employ the terms sin, stain of sin, guilt, punishment, and penalty to describe the condition of fallen man. Following the ritual practice of the Church, they even speak of infants and small children being baptized for the “remission of their sins.” But the Catholic Church is clear that this usage is to be interpreted figuratively, [ii][u]not literally.[/i]
So to summarize
1. Only the Western Latin fathers believe in original sin and inherit guilt
2. No Eastern Orthodox father (whether Coptic or non-Coptic, ancient or modern) believed in inherited guilt
3. The modern belief and official Catechesis of the Catholic Church does not believe in original sin and inherit guilt as Augustine described.
Finally to answer your point in reply #89
You wrote: "How was the death, you participated with Christ, taste like? How is wearing Christ differ from wearing the old man?
Was your death a metaphor? Was you wearing the new man an allegory?
My death in baptism was a spiritual death, not a physical, literal death. My putting on Christ in charismation was a spiritual act, mysteriously done through a physical act. Physically and literally I partake of Christ through bread and wine in the Eucharist. Your example has nothing to do with Adam's geneology as described in Hebrews 7. Metaphorically, I am Adam's descendant, not literally or physically. Metaphorically, I sin like Adam by eating the plant of the forbidden tree which is my own personal sin. You are comparing apples and oranges here. Sacraments are mystical. Genealogy and comparisons are metaphoric.
All these authors are neo theologians who deny the original sin.
Romaniddes specifically is the one who started this movement with his thesis that the fear of death brought on the sin.
We cannot learn from them. I cannot understand why you would quote Eastern theologians who specifically deny the Orthodox dogma of Original Sin and yet there are many other theologians from the same family who affirm it.
How convenient.
It is amazing how you choose what best fits your belief.
#1, ur both really annoying
#2, stop complicating things
#3, just b/c the EO say something doesn't mean it's right.
#4, just because the Catholic church says something doesn't mean it's wrong.
#5, In my opinion, they have a tendency to complicate things and try to use different terminology as much as possible just so they can disagree with each other.
Attached is an article regarding this topic written by one of our theologians. I urge you to take it for what it is. Don't try to understand it in different words, or different meanings, or whatever. We have to understand that this topic is one of the Mysteries of our faith and will never be understood completely with our limited minds.
Pray for me.
Guys,
#1, ur both really annoying
#2, stop complicating things
#3, just b/c the EO say something doesn't mean it's right.
#4, just because the Catholic church says something doesn't mean it's wrong.
#5, In my opinion, they have a tendency to complicate things and try to use different terminology as much as possible just so they can disagree with each other.
Attached is an article regarding this topic written by one of our theologians. I urge you to take it for what it is. Don't try to understand it in different words, or different meanings, or whatever. We have to understand that this topic is one of the Mysteries of our faith and will never be understood completely with our limited minds.
Pray for me.
Excellent sifaing.
I do know who the author is and I do have a great respect for him.
Thanks so much.
Another great article for those who think that the Eastern Orthodox do not believe in the Original sin:
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/downloads/311_THE_NEW_SOTERIOLOGY.pdf
[quote author=sifaing link=topic=13619.msg159477#msg159477 date=1346298308]
Guys,
#1, ur both really annoying
#2, stop complicating things
#3, just b/c the EO say something doesn't mean it's right.
#4, just because the Catholic church says something doesn't mean it's wrong.
#5, In my opinion, they have a tendency to complicate things and try to use different terminology as much as possible just so they can disagree with each other.
Attached is an article regarding this topic written by one of our theologians. I urge you to take it for what it is. Don't try to understand it in different words, or different meanings, or whatever. We have to understand that this topic is one of the Mysteries of our faith and will never be understood completely with our limited minds.
Pray for me.
Excellent sifaing.
I do know who the author is and I do have a great respect for him.
Thanks so much.
Who is the author?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159478#msg159478 date=1346298559]
[quote author=sifaing link=topic=13619.msg159477#msg159477 date=1346298308]
Guys,
#1, ur both really annoying
#2, stop complicating things
#3, just b/c the EO say something doesn't mean it's right.
#4, just because the Catholic church says something doesn't mean it's wrong.
#5, In my opinion, they have a tendency to complicate things and try to use different terminology as much as possible just so they can disagree with each other.
Attached is an article regarding this topic written by one of our theologians. I urge you to take it for what it is. Don't try to understand it in different words, or different meanings, or whatever. We have to understand that this topic is one of the Mysteries of our faith and will never be understood completely with our limited minds.
Pray for me.
Excellent sifaing.
I do know who the author is and I do have a great respect for him.
Thanks so much.
Who is the author?
It is Father Shenouda Maher.
I do also encourage the reading of the article by Vladimir Moss, an EO member, in which he refutes the EO neotheologians , like Bishop Kallistos, Fr John Romanides, Fr John Meindorff who deny the dogma of Original Sin:
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/downloads/311_THE_NEW_SOTERIOLOGY.pdf
"He also put a statement that would fit the Immaculate Conception (below)
"Christ was born from a virgin who had been cleansed beforehand from all sin by the Holy Spirit precisely in order to break the cycle of sin begetting sin. As St. Gregory Palamas writes"
So you want us to accept one Eastern Orthodox priest that advocates Immaculate deception because he also advocates original sin and inherited guilt. And all of the references I gave are inappropriate?
And look what the Roman Catholics say about Vladimir Moss here:
"He also put a statement that would fit the Immaculate Conception (below)
"Christ was born from a virgin who had been cleansed beforehand from all sin by the Holy Spirit precisely in order to break the cycle of sin begetting sin. As St. Gregory Palamas writes"
So you want us to accept one Eastern Orthodox priest that advocates Immaculate deception because he also advocates original sin and inherited guilt. And all of the references I gave are inappropriate?
You really need to get your references straight. Stop educating yourself from forums, blogs, wiki.
At least have the courtesy to get your information first hand by reading the article itself instead of some second commentaries found on some Catholic forum with a Catholic agenda.
In the article I provided, he does not advocate immaculate conception whatsoever. Rather, he quotes St Gregory the Theologian explaining that denying The Original Sin gives way to the heresy of immaculate conception.
Here is what he says on p.24:
" .. there is one human being of whom we know that she would not have displayed Adam’s self will, and who is glorified above all human beings precisely because she rejected Eve’s temptation, reversing her disobedience: the Mother of God. And yet the Mother of God was born in original sin. This is the teaching of the Orthodox Church, which rejects the Roman Catholic doctrine that the Virgin was conceived immaculately in order to preserve her from original sin. Rather, the Orthodox Church follows the teaching of St. Gregory the Theologian, who says: “The Son of God was conceived of the Virgin, who had been purified beforehand [obviously, from sin] in soul and body by the Holy Spirit.”
He then continues quoting other EO theologians to further enhance that the Original sin is an essential dogma to fight the heresy of Immaculate conception
I would like to clarify something. I did not purposely change the quote from St. Cyprian of Carthage earlier, as Imikhail seemed to subtlety imply. I posted that fragment of the quote because that was how I found it elsewhere on this forum. I did not purposely leave out the whole quote. I am Sorry for that.
No worries Severian.
We just have to be careful in reading the Fathers within context because as the Scriptures can be proof texted, so are the Fathers.
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13619.msg159489#msg159489 date=1346341090]
I would like to clarify something. I did not purposely change the quote from St. Cyprian of Carthage earlier, as Imikhail seemed to subtlety imply. I posted that fragment of the quote because that was how I found it elsewhere on this forum. I did not purposely leave out the whole quote. I am Sorry for that.
No worries Severian.
[b]We just have to be careful in reading the Fathers within context because as the Scriptures can be proof texted, so are the Fathers.
I agree with this and thanks for being so understanding.
I am sorry if I snapped or was uncharitable earlier. In my misguided zealotry I may have acted in an un-Christian manner. I am young and still have a lot to learn. All I want to do is preserve the authentic teaching and heritage of our Holy Orthodox Church as exposited by the Holy Tradition and the Holy Fathers. Especially, in this time of great tribulation the Church has been facing. I will read Fr. Shenouda Maher's article ASAP. But, I have a ton of paperwork to finish.
Pray that I get all I need to done. Thanks!
[quote author=sherene_maria link=topic=13619.msg159462#msg159462 date=1346278401]
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13619.msg159453#msg159453 date=1346274370]
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13619.msg159451#msg159451 date=1346274060]
[quote author=sherene_maria link=topic=13619.msg159449#msg159449 date=1346272574]
Severian,
How dare you quote a reference that has changed the Word of God!!!!
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled".
The burden of prove is still on your behave to answer Psalm 50/51
Here we go again. How exactly did the Orthodox Study Bible change the Word of God? Because the Orthodox Study Bible translates the particular verses differently than the translation you provided? Severian, through the Orthodox Study Bible, has given an adequate explanation to answer your original question of Psalm 50. Your reply shifts the burden of proof to you to show how Severian or the Orthodox Study Bible changed the Word of God since YOU made the claim.
*Thank you*, Remnkimi.
And plus, Met. Kallistos actually speaks Greek! He has translated many Patristic works from Greek to English, and accusing him of changing the text is a serious charge, which some would call slander and libel. You better be careful next time you make an accusation like that, Sherene.
severian,
The last time I checked the Psalms, King David wrote and sang them in HEBREW LANGUAGE!!!
Our Church (like all Orthodox Churches, except for maybe the Syrians) uses the Greek Septuagint for the Old Testament over the Hebrew Masoretic. Met. Kallistos would have translated it from Greek. And you still have not addressed Remnkimi's challenge. He is right, the burden of proof is on you.
And how dare you accuse the Metropolitan of distorting the text? Legal action can be taken against you for such unsubstantiated accusations. You're not one to question his ability to interpret/translate the text.
When a person starts to lose the power of argument and cannot defend his point of view, he begins to attack, threaten and scare his opponents. This is very well known method; fortunately I am not that kind of a person who can be scarred easily. As long as I have the right stuff I will defend the foundation of my beloved True Coptic Orthodox Church. This thread started by you attacking the symbols of our Coptic Orthodox Church and no one from this tasbeha website object to your relentless attack, though this website belongs to C.O.C. You forced your point of view which completely adheres to the Eastern Church and again no one object. Just we argued your motive from the Holy Scriptures, the Divine Liturgy and from the writing of the father of the Church.
Now, I asked you to provide what does Psalm 50/51 mean and I mentioned that the burden of prove is on you, in post # 86. Unfortunately you copied what the Study Bible wrote and used it as an answer. You cannot use a biased source that belongs to the church that objects to the doctrine of original sin. So again the burden of prove is still on your side, but this time try to prove it by using a credible and neutral source from the early Church’ Fathers.
Stop repeating the phrase the “burden of prove” because it is childish to quote what I said to you originally.
I have done my part, the burden of proof is now on you. You must demonstrate that this explanation is un-Orthodox, and you must demonstrate how Met. Kallistos changed the text. I am also rather surprised that you were ignorant of the fact that our Church uses the Greek Septuagint for the Old Testament and not the Hebrew.
And I did not lose the power of argument in my discussion with you. You were the one who did not respond to any of my arguments. Almost every post you have made on this thread was an argument made out of emotion without any interest in logical discourse (actually, most of your posts are like this). At least Imikhail is citing references we can work with.
EDIT: I have edited my posts on this thread which have assumed a more polemical and aggressive tone. We must remember that this is a public forum that anyone can access. It is not a private/locked fora. I know I am stepping on my own toes as I say this, but arguing in an un-Christian manner can scandalize inquirers into our Faith and unlearned individuals.
^I am done with this discussion (until I read Fr. Shenouda's article). I was not trying to threaten or scare you as you ridiculously claim. I was stating a fact. You cannot accuse a translator of interpolating or altering a text without evidence. On an anonymous online discussion forum you can probably get away with it. However, if you publish a claim like that it will be reasonably expected that you back up your claim. And anyway, just because my explanation comes from an outside source does not invalidate it. I thought it was a sufficiently Orthodox, so I used it. I agree with you in saying that just because the Byzantines say something does not make it right. But, I used this explanation because I thought it sufficiently interpreted Psalm 50/51.
I have done my part, the burden of proof is now on you. You must demonstrate that this explanation is un-Orthodox, and you must demonstrate how Met. Kallistos changed the text. I am also rather surprised that you were ignorant of the fact that our Church uses the Greek Septuagint for the Old Testament and not the Hebrew.
And I did not lose the power of argument in my discussion with you. You were the one who did not respond to any of my arguments. Almost every post you have made on this thread was an argument made out of emotion without any interest in logical discourse (actually, most of your posts are like this). At least Imikhail is citing references we can work with.
EDIT: I have edited my posts on this thread which have assumed a more polemical and aggressive tone. We must remember that this is a public forum that anyone can access. It is not a private/locked fora. I know I am stepping on my own toes as I say this, but arguing in an un-Christian manner can scandalize inquirers into our Faith and unlearned individuals.
I would also like to apologize to Imikhail and Sherene_Maria if I have offended either of them.