Christian Discussion Thread II

[Menassa]

I was talking about Matthew 1:22-23.

In parallel with Isaiah 7:14... and it did not change... a footnote is not change.

The word has changed, yes. Languages evolve, they change over time. If I were to say I offered a holocaust to God I would be received with some very negative looks. The words you are questioning are perfectly fine in translation - but over time as their meaning has changed so too has the overall meaning of the section - leading to the need of footnotes or an overall updated translation such as the New Douay-Rheims translation, the NKJV, &c.
Or would you say we speak the same exact way the people translating the Bible would have.

What's the oldest Manuscript of Matthew that we have?

It does not say: Young Woman.

[Cill Airne]

The word has changed, yes. Languages evolve, they change over time. If I were to say I offered a holocaust to God I would be received with some very negative looks. The words you are questioning are perfectly fine in translation - but over time as their meaning has changed so too has the overall meaning of the section - leading to the need of footnotes or an overall updated translation such as the New Douay-Rheims translation, the NKJV, &c.
Or would you say we speak the same exact way the people translating the Bible would have.

What's the oldest Manuscript of Matthew that we have?

It does not say: Young Woman.

I would say the Latin Vulgate, to the best of my knowledge, which uses the term virginem - and in the Latin of the time, that is a perfectly acceptable term for a young woman. Many of the words used in English translations use Latinised vocabulary, holocaust from holocaustum, virgin from virginem, &c. At the time of these translations they were understood differently than they are today - which is why they are amended today and not in the past.

[Conscentia]

What's the oldest Manuscript of Matthew that we have?

It does not say: Young Woman.

I would say the Latin Vulgate, to the best of my knowledge, which uses the term virginem - and in the Latin of the time, that is a perfectly acceptable term for a young woman. Many of the words used in English translations use Latinised vocabulary, holocaust from holocaustum, virgin from virginem, &c. At the time of these translations they were understood differently than they are today - which is why they are amended today and not in the past.

The New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek, not Latin.
The Vulgate is a late 4th-century Latin translation of the Bible.

[Cill Airne]

I would say the Latin Vulgate, to the best of my knowledge, which uses the term virginem - and in the Latin of the time, that is a perfectly acceptable term for a young woman. Many of the words used in English translations use Latinised vocabulary, holocaust from holocaustum, virgin from virginem, &c. At the time of these translations they were understood differently than they are today - which is why they are amended today and not in the past.

The New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek, not Latin.
The Vulgate is a late 4th-century Latin translation of the Bible.

Yes, I am aware of this? But, to my knowledge, the oldest copies of the bible we have is the Vulgate. But I am not sure.

[Menassa]

What's the oldest Manuscript of Matthew that we have?

It does not say: Young Woman.

I would say the Latin Vulgate, to the best of my knowledge, which uses the term virginem - and in the Latin of the time, that is a perfectly acceptable term for a young woman. Many of the words used in English translations use Latinised vocabulary, holocaust from holocaustum, virgin from virginem, &c. At the time of these translations they were understood differently than they are today - which is why they are amended today and not in the past.

Well then, let's check other places the word 'almah' is used:

Proverbs 30 (NIV)

19 the way of an eagle in the sky,
the way of a snake on a rock,
the way of a ship on the high seas,
and the way of a man with a young woman.

Proverbs 30 (Douay-Rheims)
19 The way of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent upon a rock, the way of a ship in the midst of the sea, and the way of a man in youth.

That's a bit odd....

Proverbs 30 (KJV)
19 The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid.

Well it appears in all these places Almah does not mean: "Virgin"

A little bit odd that words mean one thing in one place and a different one in another...

[Distruzio]

You're gnostic. Any reasoning I offer will be countered with a, "nu-uh!"

Our theology is correct from my perspective. That doesn't suggest that it is binding upon you. Which is exactly what my previous statement suggested... that one needn't be a Christian and enjoy salvation because there are Christian who find their salvation in jeopardy.

I won't just ignore your argument because of your (or my) ideology (I'm not a Christian, after all). I just want some kind of physical evidence that what you say is true. You made an affirmative statement, so why? How do you know that it's true?

Fair enough. I know our theology to be correct because it has lasted 2000 years without change with the Church to guard it. Societies grow and fall around the Church and yet it stands. Culture shifts to and fro and yet it stands. Our Eastern Orthodox and orthodox approach to theological considerations easily satisfy all contentious moral and cultural issues in the US because of our theology.

[The Truth and Light]

I won't just ignore your argument because of your (or my) ideology (I'm not a Christian, after all). I just want some kind of physical evidence that what you say is true. You made an affirmative statement, so why? How do you know that it's true?

Fair enough. I know our theology to be correct because it has lasted 2000 years without change with the Church to guard it. Societies grow and fall around the Church and yet it stands. Culture shifts to and fro and yet it stands. Our Eastern Orthodox and orthodox approach to theological considerations easily satisfy all contentious moral and cultural issues in the US because of our theology.

What's your view on gay marriage?

[Conscentia]

The New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek, not Latin.
The Vulgate is a late 4th-century Latin translation of the Bible.

Yes, I am aware of this? But, to my knowledge, the oldest copies of the bible we have is the Vulgate. But I am not sure.

Is this not the oldest?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus

[Grave_n_idle]

Fair enough. I know our theology to be correct because it has lasted 2000 years without change with the Church to guard it.

Which is funny, because I 'know' it's not correct for pretty much the same reason.

Things that are true are true even without institutional conditioning and a multi-millenial conspiracy to suppress independent thought.

[Distruzio]

Fair enough. I know our theology to be correct because it has lasted 2000 years without change with the Church to guard it.

Which is funny, because I 'know' it's not correct for pretty much the same reason.

Things that are true are true even without institutional conditioning and a multi-millenial conspiracy to suppress independent thought.

Confusing us for the Medieval Catholic Church again?

[Distruzio]

Fair enough. I know our theology to be correct because it has lasted 2000 years without change with the Church to guard it. Societies grow and fall around the Church and yet it stands. Culture shifts to and fro and yet it stands. Our Eastern Orthodox and orthodox approach to theological considerations easily satisfy all contentious moral and cultural issues in the US because of our theology.

What's your view on gay marriage?

No problems. They just can't marry within the Church. That rule pretty much applies to anyone who does not marry in the Church.

For instance, I can't marry a gnostic and remain in communion with the Church.

I can't marry a Unitarian and remain in communion with the Church.

I can't have premarital sex and remain in communion with the Church.

A persons sexuality or gender do not jeopardize their salvation.

For us, sin isn't the breaking of Church rules or laws. Sin is the violation of relationship. A homosexual marriage, while existing outside the Church, remains just as holy and sacred to us as those who do marry within the Church. That's the official Church stance. Individual opinions on it vary just as much among the Orthodox Christians as among non Christians. But, as I've said before, there are those within the Church but without the Grace of God and there are those within the Grace of God but without the Church.

[Ordya]

I won't just ignore your argument because of your (or my) ideology (I'm not a Christian, after all). I just want some kind of physical evidence that what you say is true. You made an affirmative statement, so why? How do you know that it's true?

Fair enough. I know our theology to be correct because it has lasted 2000 years without change with the Church to guard it. Societies grow and fall around the Church and yet it stands. Culture shifts to and fro and yet it stands. Our Eastern Orthodox and orthodox approach to theological considerations easily satisfy all contentious moral and cultural issues in the US because of our theology.

Okay, so your theology (probably) hasn't been altered through time. Nice job. That still doesn't explain how you know it's true. (True in the sense that "these events actually happened" and not "nothing has been corrupted".)

[The Truth and Light]

What's your view on gay marriage?

No problems. They just can't marry within the Church. That rule pretty much applies to anyone who does not marry in the Church.

For instance, I can't marry a gnostic and remain in communion with the Church.

I can't marry a Unitarian and remain in communion with the Church.

I can't have premarital sex and remain in communion with the Church.

A persons sexuality or gender do not jeopardize their salvation.

For us, sin isn't the breaking of Church rules or laws. Sin is the violation of relationship. A homosexual marriage, while existing outside the Church, remains just as holy and sacred to us as those who do marry within the Church. That's the official Church stance. Individual opinions on it vary just as much among the Orthodox Christians as among non Christians. But, as I've said before, there are those within the Church but without the Grace of God and there are those within the Grace of God but without the Church.

Wait, so you can't have a same-sex marriage within the Church, but if you have a marriage outside of the Church you cannot stay in Communion?

[Distruzio]

No problems. They just can't marry within the Church. That rule pretty much applies to anyone who does not marry in the Church.

For instance, I can't marry a gnostic and remain in communion with the Church.

I can't marry a Unitarian and remain in communion with the Church.

I can't have premarital sex and remain in communion with the Church.

A persons sexuality or gender do not jeopardize their salvation.

For us, sin isn't the breaking of Church rules or laws. Sin is the violation of relationship. A homosexual marriage, while existing outside the Church, remains just as holy and sacred to us as those who do marry within the Church. That's the official Church stance. Individual opinions on it vary just as much among the Orthodox Christians as among non Christians. But, as I've said before, there are those within the Church but without the Grace of God and there are those within the Grace of God but without the Church.

Wait, so you can't have a same-sex marriage within the Church, but if you have a marriage outside of the Church you cannot stay in Communion?

Correct. The rules aren't based upon a persons sexuality. There are homosexuals within the Church. Hell, I'm in the Church and I've had sex with transexuals. A persons sexuality isn't the concern of the Church. Their salvation - their healing - is. What needs to be healed? The human inclination to violating relationships. The Church believes that the most appropriate way to honor a relationship - and, therefore, honor God - is to do so while in communion with the Church. That means no premarital sex, no civil unions etc etc. We have to resist temptations society presents us with.

It could be something as simple as me drinking to excess day after day. That inhibits my ability to honor my relationships. Therefore, I could be counseled to refrain from taking communion until the Priest feels that I am ready and have appropriately repented.

I have fallen out of communion for living with a girlfriend before we were married. The Church accepted my repentance and allowed me back in once I had satisfied my conscience.

And that's what it boils down to. Your conscience. The individual knows when they violate ethical norms of the Church. Confession, repentance, communion.... it all has to do with individual healing. All of it can be tied to homosexual marriage. Being gay isn't a sin. Having sex outside of marriage is. And since a homosexual is expected to live a life of abstinence, just as a heterosexual is, they cannot be married in the Church. {edit- I forgot to finish the thought} All Christians are expected to be abstinent until marriage. Right now, socially acceptable behaviors are tied to cultural norms. Eastern Orthodoxy is traditionally rather culturally conservative. As far as I know, there never was an issue with homosexual Orthodox. Marriage however, is a different and altogether more complicated matter since the State has usurped the Church in marriage. The State offers incentives for marriage that the Church does not. It isn't, necessarily, that the Church prohibits homosexual marriages. It prohibits State administered marriages. I don't know what the Church would say about homosexual marriages if the State were not involved in marriages.

Maybe one day things will change. But the Church has been around for 2000 years. Change doesn't come quickly. The Orthodox Church, in particular, prides itself on being unchanging. That isn't to say that things aren't sometimes corrected or addressed. It just means that, perhaps, one day the Church could realize that restricting homosexual marriages within the Church was ill-advised and not in line with proper orthodox Church doctrine. This has happened before following the iconoclasty heresy and the caesaropapist (and later mergings of the Church with the State) era. These things take time.

It'll work out in the end, however.

[Distruzio]

Fair enough. I know our theology to be correct because it has lasted 2000 years without change with the Church to guard it. Societies grow and fall around the Church and yet it stands. Culture shifts to and fro and yet it stands. Our Eastern Orthodox and orthodox approach to theological considerations easily satisfy all contentious moral and cultural issues in the US because of our theology.

Okay, so your theology (probably) hasn't been altered through time. Nice job. That still doesn't explain how you know it's true. (True in the sense that "these events actually happened" and not "nothing has been corrupted".)

Well, if I believed that the theology had been corrupted, then I'd be calling Jesus a liar and I wouldn't be Christian... now would I?

[The Truth and Light]

Wait, so you can't have a same-sex marriage within the Church, but if you have a marriage outside of the Church you cannot stay in Communion?

Correct. The rules aren't based upon a persons sexuality. There are homosexuals within the Church. Hell, I'm in the Church and I've had sex with transexuals. A persons sexuality isn't the concern of the Church. Their salvation - their healing - is. What needs to be healed? The human inclination to violating relationships. The Church believes that the most appropriate way to honor a relationship - and, therefore, honor God - is to do so while in communion with the Church. That means no premarital sex, no civil unions etc etc. We have to resist temptations society presents us with.

It could be something as simple as me drinking to excess day after day. That inhibits my ability to honor my relationships. Therefore, I could be counseled to refrain from taking communion until the Priest feels that I am ready and have appropriately repented.

I have fallen out of communion for living with a girlfriend before we were married. The Church accepted my repentance and allowed me back in once I had satisfied my conscience.

And that's what it boils down to. Your conscience. The individual knows when they violate ethical norms of the Church. Confession, repentance, communion.... it all has to do with individual healing. All of it can be tied to homosexual marriage. Being gay isn't a sin. Having sex outside of marriage is. And since a homosexual is expected to live a life of abstinence, just as a heterosexual is, they cannot be married in the Church.

Maybe one day things will change. But the Church has been around for 2000 years. Change doesn't come quickly. The Orthodox Church, in particular, prides itself on being unchanging. That isn't to say that things aren't sometimes corrected or addressed. It just means that, perhaps, one day the Church could realize that restricting homosexual marriages within the Church was ill-advised and not in line with proper orthodox Church doctrine. This has happened before following the iconoclasty heresy and the caesaropapist (and later mergings of the Church with the State) era. These things take time.

It'll work out in the end, however.

Oh.

[Distruzio]

Correct. The rules aren't based upon a persons sexuality. There are homosexuals within the Church. Hell, I'm in the Church and I've had sex with transexuals. A persons sexuality isn't the concern of the Church. Their salvation - their healing - is. What needs to be healed? The human inclination to violating relationships. The Church believes that the most appropriate way to honor a relationship - and, therefore, honor God - is to do so while in communion with the Church. That means no premarital sex, no civil unions etc etc. We have to resist temptations society presents us with.

It could be something as simple as me drinking to excess day after day. That inhibits my ability to honor my relationships. Therefore, I could be counseled to refrain from taking communion until the Priest feels that I am ready and have appropriately repented.

I have fallen out of communion for living with a girlfriend before we were married. The Church accepted my repentance and allowed me back in once I had satisfied my conscience.

And that's what it boils down to. Your conscience. The individual knows when they violate ethical norms of the Church. Confession, repentance, communion.... it all has to do with individual healing. All of it can be tied to homosexual marriage. Being gay isn't a sin. Having sex outside of marriage is. And since a homosexual is expected to live a life of abstinence, just as a heterosexual is, they cannot be married in the Church.

Maybe one day things will change. But the Church has been around for 2000 years. Change doesn't come quickly. The Orthodox Church, in particular, prides itself on being unchanging. That isn't to say that things aren't sometimes corrected or addressed. It just means that, perhaps, one day the Church could realize that restricting homosexual marriages within the Church was ill-advised and not in line with proper orthodox Church doctrine. This has happened before following the iconoclasty heresy and the caesaropapist (and later mergings of the Church with the State) era. These things take time.

It'll work out in the end, however.

Oh.

I edited that post, btw. You may want to read it again. I forgot to finish a thought for clarity.

[The Truth and Light]

Oh.

I edited that post, btw. You may want to read it again. I forgot to finish a thought for clarity.

I still feel like you're lying to me, and rather eloquently.

[Distruzio]

I edited that post, btw. You may want to read it again. I forgot to finish a thought for clarity.

I still feel like you're lying to me, and rather eloquently.

How so?

[The Truth and Light]

I still feel like you're lying to me, and rather eloquently.

How so?

I have reason to believe that all the ecclesiastical restrictions against homosexuality and the different kinds of homosexual relationships - as well as other relationships that the Church restricts - comes from a history of homophobia, misogyny, and sex-negativity. I also think you're sacrificing way too much of your moral agency to the ethics of the Church, and due to your position within, you should be working to set them straight; not complacently abiding by poorly considered ethics.

[Esselman]

How so?

I have reason to believe that all the ecclesiastical restrictions against homosexuality and the different kinds of homosexual relationships - as well as other relationships that the Church restricts - comes from a history of homophobia, misogyny, and sex-negativity. I also think you're sacrificing way too much of your moral agency to the ethics of the Church, and due to your position within, you should be working to set them straight; not complacently abiding by poorly considered ethics.

Not sure how others view it, but I'll say as a Catholic, you're allowed to love whoever you want but don't call it marriage. The bible isn't against homosexuals, just homosexual acts. Being a member of the church doesn't make you any less morally, that itself is a complete falsehood. And work to set them straight? How would you go about effectively changing the ways of an entire religious belief system?

[Distruzio]

How so?

I have reason to believe that all the ecclesiastical restrictions against homosexuality and the different kinds of homosexual relationships - as well as other relationships that the Church restricts - comes from a history of homophobia, misogyny, and sex-negativity.

There is likely some, or maybe even quite a bit, of truth to this. We must, however, remember that the men comprising the Church are not infallible. The Church taken together is. The men crafting the positions of the Church on social issues may be the bigots you suspect. But after so many centuries, the theological position of the Church has remained unchanged - therefore the Church is correct while the men involved may not have been.

In practice this means that a homosexual couple would not be able to wed in an Orthodox Church. They could, however, wed in a Protestant church that was friendly towards homosexual marriages. Their communion with the Church would not be in question because of their homosexuality. Their communion with the Church would be in question because of who married them. This in no way affects their Orthodoxy or their orthopraxy (correct living). They could still go to church, participate, worship, and enjoy the feasts the same as anyone else. They just couldn't take communion. As I've said before, though, there are those within the Church that are without the Grace of God and there are those within the Grace of God but without the Church. Falling out of communion does not jeopardize a persons salvation. Their Priest still prays for them. The local community still cares for them in times of need (it's required). Monks still maintain the tree that was planted at the time of your confirmation and baptism to be used to create your coffin when you die. You are still Orthodox.

The Church is here as our Mother, our steward. Children sometimes differ with their parents. That doesn't change the love or adoration involved in the relationship... does it?

I also think you're sacrificing way too much of your moral agency to the ethics of the Church, and due to your position within, you should be working to set them straight; not complacently abiding by poorly considered ethics.

This is something I can and should be accused of. I defend it by saying that I do not exist to change the Church but, rather, vice versa. The Church exists to change me. And it has. I was homophobic before conversion. I was heterocentric before conversion. I was marginally more egalitarian before converting. I was also quite the little prick before converting. Whatever changes that have happened may be relatively marginal or quite significant. Regardless, the man that you've found endearing in other threads is that man because of the influence of Orthodoxy. If I have sacrificed my moral agency to the Church, it was for the best because I am a better man than I was.

A rigid theology allows for a fluid code of conduct for the Orthodox person. That may seem counter intuitive, but it is true. We have a very strict and codified belief system that does not change. Yet Orthodoxy endures and offers answers that, more often than not, satisfies the secular world in ways that the Protestants cannot. Why? Because the Protestant has a very fluid theology that restricts their code of conduct. Protestantism is the precise opposite of Othodoxy (by and large) and, as should be expected, garners the precisely opposite response from the secular world - revulsion at its nearly ubiquitous milieu even though there is no coherent or consistent theological underpinning for Protestantism.

[The Truth and Light]

I have reason to believe that all the ecclesiastical restrictions against homosexuality and the different kinds of homosexual relationships - as well as other relationships that the Church restricts - comes from a history of homophobia, misogyny, and sex-negativity. I also think you're sacrificing way too much of your moral agency to the ethics of the Church, and due to your position within, you should be working to set them straight; not complacently abiding by poorly considered ethics.

Not sure how others view it, but I'll say as a Catholic, you're allowed to love whoever you want but don't call it marriage. The bible isn't against homosexuals, just homosexual acts. Being a member of the church doesn't make you any less morally, that itself is a complete falsehood. And work to set them straight? How would you go about effectively changing the ways of an entire religious belief system?

I think it starts with you. You can admit to yourself that certain doctrines are harmful to the Church and to the world, and you can take a stand. Say, hey, I don't think God is alright with this. This is a twisted message, a half-truth. Know that your God is infallible, but your Church is not. Be an advocate for what you know is right and don't tow the line with your Church if you know it's not okay.

[Esselman]

Not sure how others view it, but I'll say as a Catholic, you're allowed to love whoever you want but don't call it marriage. The bible isn't against homosexuals, just homosexual acts. Being a member of the church doesn't make you any less morally, that itself is a complete falsehood. And work to set them straight? How would you go about effectively changing the ways of an entire religious belief system?

I think it starts with you. You can admit to yourself that certain doctrines are harmful to the Church and to the world, and you can take a stand. Say, hey, I don't think God is alright with this. This is a twisted message, a half-truth. Know that your God is infallible, but your Church is not. Be an advocate for what you know is right and don't tow the line with your Church if you know it's not okay.

Then once you're ostracized for starting a scene such as this, what then?

[The Truth and Light]

I think it starts with you. You can admit to yourself that certain doctrines are harmful to the Church and to the world, and you can take a stand. Say, hey, I don't think God is alright with this. This is a twisted message, a half-truth. Know that your God is infallible, but your Church is not. Be an advocate for what you know is right and don't tow the line with your Church if you know it's not okay.

Then once you're ostracized for starting a scene such as this, what then?

Then your Church was wrong all along, and that's the harsh truth.