The "Original Sin" is unbiblical

[TER]

And the writings of the New Testament were all written, collected, copied, and canon in the first century by the apostolic Church, and not only by later churches that began to look like what you would recognize as the Orthodox Church.

Actually, no. BTW, did you know that the collection of books you use in your modern western Bible excludes books of the Old Testament which the first century apostolic Church held as authoritative? Why is that?

And also, the Orthodox Church did not develop later, it is the same apostolic Church you keep referring to. The term 'Orthodox Church' was used later to differentiate it from the Roman Catholic Church after the Great Schism. It is, nonetheless, historically, the same Church which can trace it's bishops back to the Apostles and has shared of the Holy Eucharist every Lord's Day, just as described in the Bible you use but which you seem to ignore.

 

[erowe1]

Actually, no. BTW, did you know that the collection of books you use in your modern western Bible excludes books of the Old Testament which the first century apostolic Church held as authoritative? Why is that?

Nope. I accept the same books the apostolic church did, and that Jews have continuously since that time. I don't accept the ones that later Christians added to that collection.

And also, the Orthodox Church did not develop later, it is the same apostolic Church you keep referring to.

That may be what it claims about itself. But certain aspects of it that it considers essential to its nature, such as monarchical bishops, were not in existence in the first century. Nor was the view of Adam's sin and the spread of death that you are presenting.

 

[Sola_Fide]

dbl...

 

[Sola_Fide]

So you say

What you are really saying is 'notice that is also bears no resemblance to what I understand Paul teaches in Romans 5:12-21.

No, I don't think he's saying that. I think he's saying that the article you posted describes the view of your church, which does not adequately handle the text of Romans 5.

And if the view of your church is not the view of Paul, then it doesn't matter how far back you claim your tradition goes...its wrong. God's Word is authoritative, not your church or any other church.

And it was not soon after the first century that all of the heresies that the apostles were fighting began to exert their effect on the pure gospel of imputed grace. This is why Paul warned so strongly that salvation was through what we believed:

1st Corinthians 15:1-8

Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born

 

[erowe1]

LOL, and yet you deny the Holy Eucharist and the grace of ordination!!

No I don't. I affirm everything the New Testament teaches about those.

 

[erowe1]

You have just revealed you ignorance in topics related to the structure and worship of the early Church. You should study more about the faith of the early Christians before you make unfounded assumptions as you have above.

Thanks for the advice. Believe it or not, I have put in some time studying that subject, and those weren't unfounded assumptions. Which do you dispute? And why?

 

[TER]

Nope. I accept the same books the apostolic church did, and that Jews have continuously since that time. I don't accept the ones that later Christians added to that collection.

Except you don't use the version of the Old Testament used by the Apostolic Church, namely the Septuagint, but rather follow a version compiled by Jews hundreds of years later.

And you reject certain books of the Old Testament which the earliest Church did not.

That may be what it claims about itself. But certain aspects of it that it considers essential to its nature, such as monarchical bishops, were not in existence in the first century. Nor was the view of Adam's sin and the spread of death that you are presenting.

And please name one Monarchial Bishop in the history of the Orthodox Church?
And the view of Adam's sin that you are presenting is nowhere found in the earliest writings of the Church, nor are other innovations such as the Solas which you have made your traditions and doctrines. And still, you deny the Holy Eucharist but claim that you follow the tradition of the apostolic Church.

 

[TER]

No I don't. I affirm everything the New Testament teaches about those.

Well, for one thing, do you believe the Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, just as Christ said in the New Testament?
Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is transferred in the sacrament of Holy Ordination as described in Acts of the New Testament?

Thanks for the advice. Believe it or not, I have put in some time studying that subject, and those weren't unfounded assumptions. Which do you dispute? And why?

If you have studied as you say you have, then you would know that the Apostles went far and wide, ordaining with the laying of the hands the offices of bishops, presbyters and deacons, and that it was their sharing of the One Cup of the Holy Eucharist which defined those members in communion with one another within the Body of Christ, the Church.

 

[erowe1]

Except you don't use the version of the Old Testament used by the Apostolic Church, namely the Septuagint, but rather follow a version compiled by Jews hundreds of years later.

Be careful how you use that word "Septuagint."

I have copies of what is today called the Septuagint that are like what you're describing, where all the books of the Old Testament along with the Apocrypha are bound in a single volume. But at the time of the apostles, no such book existed. All the books they used as scripture were then on separate scrolls. Some synagogues would have some scrolls, and some others (see, for example Luke 4:17). The books regarded as Scripture by the Jews of Palestine in Jesus's day, and by Jesus himself did not include the Apocrypha.

Of course, these books had all been translated into Greek. There was a tradition that the Pentateuch (nothing else, just the Pentateuch) had been translated by 70 (or 72) translators in Alexandria. And this is where we get the title "Septuagint" (from the Latin for 70) that would later be applied to that much longer collection. All the other books had also been translated, some of them multiple different times, by anonymous people at times and places we don't know. The New Testament was written in Greek, and so when it quotes the Old Testament, those quotes are also in Greek. This leads some to say sloppily that they are quoting "the Septuagint," which unfortunately misleads people like yourself into thinking they were quoting from a collection that included the Apocrypha. But no book of the Apocrypha is ever quoted as Scripture anywhere in the New Testament. Nor were those books regarded as Scripture by the Pharisees of Palestine, who, by all indications in the Gospels, shared the same delimitation of what is and isn't Scripture as Jesus did.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Well, for one thing, do you believe the Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, just as Christ said in the New Testament?
Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is transferred in the sacrament of Holy Ordination as described in Acts of the New Testament?



If you have studied as you say you have, then you would know that the Apostles went far and wide, ordaining with the laying of the hands the offices of bishops, presbyters and deacons, and that it was their sharing of the One Cup of the Holy Eucharist which defined those members in communion with one another within the Body of Christ, the Church.

Just a side question I had about your comments TER: Why do you assume that the experience of the church in the book of Acts is the normative experience of the church in every age?

 

[TER]

And if the view of your church is not the view of Paul, then it doesn't matter how far back you claim your tradition goes...its wrong. God's Word is authoritative, not your church or any other church.

Do you deny that Christ established a Church? The question for the Christian since the very beginning was not did Christ establish a Church, but rather, where is this Church? Where is this Body of Christ in the world which St. Paul taught about and batpized people into and ordained Bishops as shepards over?

You mention God's Word, but what you are saying is 'Holy Scriptures'. As I explained to you previously, the Word of God is not the Holy Scriptures (although it is our greatest testimony and authority written on pages), it is the Incarnate Son of God Jesus Christ. And we are not told to become pages of a book, but members of the Body of Christ, the Living Word of God. The Holy Scriptures must be read within the mind of this Body of Christ otherwise misinterpretations and misunderstandings can abound.

 

[erowe1]

The question for the Christian since the very beginning was not did Christ establish a Church, but rather, where is this Church? Where is this Body of Christ in the world which St. Paul taught about and batpized people into and ordained Bishops as shepards over?

It is wherever there are people who have saving faith in Jesus Christ. It is through our union with Christ that we become a part of his Church. It is not through becoming a part of the Church that we get united to Christ.

 

[erowe1]

Well, for one thing, do you believe the Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, just as Christ said in the New Testament?

No. The New Testament doesn't say that.

Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is transferred in the sacrament of Holy Ordination as described in Acts of the New Testament?

No. The New Testament doesn't say that either.

If you have studied as you say you have, then you would know that the Apostles went far and wide, ordaining with the laying of the hands the offices of bishops, presbyters and deacons, and that it was their sharing of the One Cup of the Holy Eucharist which defined those members in communion with one another within the Body of Christ, the Church.

No, you don't understand. When I say I've studied it, I'm talking about the New Testament itself. Not what later theologians say about it. Again, I'm not as keen on going with whatever is the latest fad, like you are with all these innovations that didn't come up until the second century or later. I stick with the original.

 

[TER]

Be careful how you use that word "Septuagint."

I have copies of what is today called the Septuagint that are like what you're describing, where all the books of the Old Testament along with the Apocrypha are bound in a single volume. But at the time of the apostles, no such book existed. All the books they used as scripture were then on separate scrolls. Some synagogues would have some scrolls, and some others (see, for example Luke 4:17). The books regarded as Scripture by the Jews of Palestine in Jesus's day, and by Jesus himself did not include the Apocrypha.

Of course, these books had all been translated into Greek. There was a tradition that the Pentateuch (nothing else, just the Pentateuch) had been translated by 70 (or 72) translators in Alexandria. And this is where we get the title "Septuagint" (from the Latin for 70) that would later be applied to that much longer collection. All the other books had also been translated, some of them multiple different times, by anonymous people at times and places we don't know. The New Testament was written in Greek, and so when it quotes the Old Testament, those quotes are also in Greek. This leads some to say sloppily that they are quoting "the Septuagint," which unfortunately misleads people like yourself into thinking they were quoting from a collection that included the Apocrypha. But no book of the Apocrypha is ever quoted as Scripture anywhere in the New Testament. Nor were those books regarded as Scripture by the Pharisees of Palestine, who, by all indications in the Gospels, shared the same delimitation of what is and isn't Scripture as Jesus did.

I should have made myself clearer, as it appears I may have mistakenly led you to believe that I meant the Septuagint included those books that are called apocrypha. I did not mean to do that and you are correct in pointing this out.

However, some of things you have said are indeed inaccurate.

For example, the Greek translation of the Pentatarch (the Septuiginat) was exactly the version used by the early Church and the same one mentioned 80% of the time when the Old Testament is referred to in the New Testament. This is because the Septuagint was the version most widely used and which more clearly expressed the prophecies of Christ. The version used centuries after His death, the Hebrew text used in the modern Protestant Bible, while extremely close to the Septuagint, has changed certain verses and wording to minimize the prophecies of Christ (which would be natural given that it was the Jews who compiled and translated this completed version sometime in the seventh century AD).

You make this statement "But no book of the Apocrypha is ever quoted as Scripture anywhere in the New Testament." But neither does the New Testament quote from Esther, Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. Does this by your definition mean these books are Apocrypha?

And even more against your point, are these instances in the New Testament:

1) What Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 2:9, preceded with the phrase “it is written”, resembles but is not equal to Isaiah 64:4. According to Ambrosiaster [13] (c. 4th century AD) it is a quotation from the apocryphal Apocalypse of Elijah.

2) Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 10:4 about the spiritual rock that followed the Israelites during Exodus and he named two magicians who opposed Moses in 2 Timothy 3:8 – both are not found in the book of Exodus but in lost Apocryphal writings.

3) In 2 Peter 2:22, Proverbs 26:11 is placed in par with a proverb from outside the Bible.

4) Jude 9 quotes from the Apocryphal book the Ascension of Moses

5) Jude 14-16 quotes from the apocryphal book 1 Enoch 1:9.

 

[erowe1]

And please name one Monarchial Bishop in the history of the Orthodox Church?

You mean after it split from the Roman Catholic Church or is before OK?

 

[TER]

It is wherever there are people who have saving faith in Jesus Christ. It is through our union with Christ that we become a part of his Church. It is not through becoming a part of the Church that we get united to Christ.

Well, I can agree with this point. That does not mean, however, that Christ did not establish a Church in the world for spiritual and bodily healing of our sins and passions and to enter into sacramental communion with Him.

 

[erowe1]

For example, the Greek translation of the Pentatarch was exactly the version used by the early Church and the same one mentioned 80% of the time when the Old Testament is referred to in the New Testament.

I see you're quoting things you found online without checking them out. In fact quotations from the Pentateuch make up nowhere near 80% of the Old Testament quotations in the New Testament.

What happened is you got that statistic from someone, and that person might not have even known what they were talking about. But they got it from someone else.

And when you get back to the person who actually knew what they were talking about, what they meant was this. Of all the quotations in the New Testament, 80% have wording that is similar to what you will find in the most common Greek translations of those same books being quoted, which unfortunately often gets referred to as "the Septuagint," while the other 20% have a wording that appears to have been translated independently from the text of the original Hebrew. I'm not sure if this is even accurate, but I am sure that's what they meant.

None of this has anything at all to do with whether or not they accepted the Apocrypha as Scripture.

 

[erowe1]

And even more against your point, are these instances in the New Testament:

1) What Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 2:9, preceded with the phrase “it is written”, resembles but is not equal to Isaiah 64:4. According to Ambrosiaster [13] (c. 4th century AD) it is a quotation from the apocryphal Apocalypse of Elijah.

2) Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 10:4 about the spiritual rock that followed the Israelites during Exodus and he named two magicians who opposed Moses in 2 Timothy 3:8 – both are not found in the book of Exodus but in lost Apocryphal writings.

3) In 2 Peter 2:22, Proverbs 26:11 is placed in par with a proverb from outside the Bible.

4) Jude 9 quotes from the Apocryphal book the Ascension of Moses

5) Jude 14-16 quotes from the apocryphal book 1 Enoch 1:9.

Not a single one of those examples is a quotation from one of the books that you are claiming to be part of the Old Testament that the Western Bibles exclude.

I agree that Esther, Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes could be questioned. But since they were part of the canon that was accepted at Jamnia, which was representative of the Pharisees of Palestine in Jesus's day, there's a strong historical case for those books. This is not the case for 1-2 Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, or Sirach.

 

[TER]

No. The New Testament doesn't say that.

Yes, it does say that we must eat of the Flesh and drink of the Blood of Christ (Christ Himself said that), and that is why many of His followers left Him because it was a 'hard' teaching. He also said it plainly in the Last Supper "This is My Body" "This is My Blood". In fact, the first Christians were mocked and called 'cannibals' by their detractors the Romans and the Jews because they they partook of this sacrament (including the Apostles themselves)

No. The New Testament doesn't say that either.

Except it does, where it is clearly stated that they layed hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit and that they traveled far and wide laying hands and ordaining bishops, priests and deacons.

No, you don't understand. When I say I've studied it, I'm talking about the New Testament itself. Not what later theologians say about it. Again, I'm not as keen on going with whatever is the latest fad, like you are with all these innovations that didn't come up until the second century or later. I stick with the original.

Tell me then where in the original faith is the doctrines of Sola Scriptura expressed? Which earliest Christian writers express this as the apostolic faith?) (and spare me your misinterpretations of the writings of St. Paul, as I don't care what your interpretation is but that of those who testified to the faith in the first century)

 

[TER]

I see you're quoting things you found online without checking them out. In fact quotations from the Pentateuch make up nowhere near 80% of the Old Testament quotations in the New Testament.

Oops, I meant to say that 80% of the verses of the Old Testament quoted in the New Testament are from the Septuagint and not the Masoretic text. Thanks for pointing this out.