Posted on 06/08/2009 8:20:56 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
In Col 1:15 the word is first-born or prototokos, not protogenes. Fathers do not give birth but bring into being, generate. Trinitarian theology states that God the Father is without cause; ungenerated. He is also the source, the cause, the generator of everything there is, including the divine Hypostases, that is the Son, who is eternally generated, and the Spirit, who eternally proceeds from the Father, so that insoforar as their existence is concerned, it is eternally caused by the Father.
Mothers give birth, bring forth, deliver that which already exists. The Greeks knew the difference. The Word is eternally generated by the Father, but Jesus was born in time by his mother. God the Father did not "bear" his Son. He begot his Son.
Saying Christ is "only-born" from monogenes is as acceptable as saying He is "only-begotten", since the two mean the same thing.
They don't mean the same thing. The term genes, as in monogenes means the only one who came into existence; it is the same verb as in the one who became flesh (John 1:14). The verb is ginomai—to come into existence, to become. Monotokos would mean the only one who was born. The verb is tikto (τίκτω), which means to bring forth, to bear, to produce, etc.; it doesn't mean to come into existence!
There is a huge difference in Greek between these two concepts. They can never be confused. To generate and to bear are like night and day, but when one is blind then it manes no difference, and that's how heresies are born—through faulty translations.
If the English translations of your Bibles led you to believe that only-begotten is the same as only-born is one and the same thing, then remember to read English translations with a grain of salt, because they are not leading you in the right direction.
This is precisely why there is a need for a Catechism.
Because of the expense of the scrolls, many rabbinical schools taught memorization. The practice continued till the widespread use of the printing press. If one was a well to do educated Jew of the time, not having memorized the great majority of the Old Testament was scandalous.
We assume that people of the past were as tied to the written word as we are for accurate transmission. That is often not the case.
It also needs to be remembered that not all copies of works were “fancy”. Roman writers of the time talk of so and so taking the complete works of Livy or Cicero while on campaign. For me, that would be a couple of volumes, but for them it meant some poor slave had to carry whole baskets of scrolls! The cost of a written work was not as high at this time as it was in the Middle Ages. Partly because there were a lot of people in the business of making and selling works, and partially because (again) if you wanted to be an up and coming Roman, you had better know your literature.
As for Ethiopia, fascinating place. There is many traditions that the Ark ended up there, and there is a lot of evidence of Jewish influence and religion. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church is very “Jewish” in a lot of ways and traditions. For the servant of the Queen to be wandering around with either Isaiah or the complete Old Testament wouldn't have been to odd. And he would have had some idea of the Old Testament from being in Ethiopia anyway.
Now if a person was a Paulican, saying obvious untruths about what they believe in order to convert that person would be a bit silly. He would know “We don't believe that” and ignore the rest. But the sermon I remember reading was a point by point analysis of what they believed, the logical and theological problems with it, followed by the Orthodox view.
I believe you are referring to Photius.
In the US though, it is often do to laziness on the parts of the theologians in many of the Evangelical denominations. People don't take the time to think the statements through, and end up making some of the old mistakes.
And unfortunately I don't have time to look it up tonight.
Catechism is the summary and the explanation of the belief of those who are in the Church. In other words, all Catholics believe in the Holy Trinity, in Jesus Christ, who is fully divine and fully human; they all believe that Mary is the Mother of Jesus who is the enfleshed Word of God, in the Purgatory, in Mary ascension body and soul, etc. All this is in the Catechism. The Catechism also says that the Church believes contraception is a sin, and abortion is murder.
Now, unfortunately, there are some Catholics who claim to be Catholics but subscribe to other beliefs when it comes to contraception and abortion. So, while they outwardly practice what the Church believes, in private they practice something else. Among Baptists, the divergence is even greater because there isn't any Catechism.
There is an amazing diversity of doctrine and practice across Catholicism - much more so than among Baptists. At least Baptists who live in the same country and belong to the same language group generally hold services in the same language.
No there is an amazing diversity of practice but not doctrine in Catholicism. Voodoo is not part of the catechism. Neither are birth controls. There is only one Catechism of the Church and those who don't believe it and don't live by it are not Catholics even though they may present themselves as such.
Baptists are against "baby-splashing" but they don't mind hanging around Presbyterians, or some other "denomination" as long as it is "Bible-believing." So long as they agree on the "core" beliefs (i.e. God is triune, Christ is both divine and human, Bible is the word of God, etc.) the details of these and other beliefs and practices really don't matter.
There is a Baptist church practically at every corner, each being a little different (denominationally) than the one across the street!
And as far the language is concerned, who are you kidding?!? You mean to tell me that the Philipino Baptist churches use English in the US? Or that Korean Baptist churches in the US don't use Korean? The Church doesn't like to use the language of the supermarket when addressing God, that's all, so we have liturgical languages (Greek, Latin, Slavonic, etc.).
The beauty of ti is that Catholics could go to any Catholic church anywhere in the world and hear the same Mass and understand it, just like at home! The same can be said of Greek Churches and Slavonic Churches. God should beings us into unity, not divide us according to languages.
Which again emphasises that the unity of Catholicism is not doctrinal, but based on authority. It's not a matter of the heart and mind, just a matter of outward adherence
Doctrinal unity is authority. Our beliefs formed our Constitution which, when codified, represents binding authority based on our beliefs.
We all believe and practice imperfectly. Your side chooses to use the bible as the sole authority subject to a myriad of personal interpretations and language variations. Instead of following the combined wisdom of the Church over the past 2,000 years, your side relies in each-man-his-pope principle. What makes them better than the rest of us who simply follow the Councils and the Fathers, except their ego? Protestantism (and yes Baptists included) have one-man "churches" where everyone can believe as he or she pleases.
I would agree - but Conybeare doesn't. His thesis (echoed today by folks like Bart Ehrman) was that Christianity was initially adoptionistic, but later became trinitarian with the imposition of the doctrine by councils and patristics. I would heartily disagree with his theory
And I would heartily agree with it! Everything seems to point to that. As Paul says "there is but one God (theos) the Father, and one Lord (kyrios) Jesus Christ..." Kyrios was not a divine title or divine name. No one prays to Jesus. John, who wrote his Gospel at the end of the first century and after Jamnia had the liberty to call Jesus God, and one can only wonder if that verse was in the original manuscript. Being intimately connected and part of Judaism, adoptionism would have to have been the first Christian belief, and mark's account of Jesus' baptism attests to that as the oldest version of the Gospels. And Paul treats Christ no differently. Again, the title son of God was not a divine title in Judaism and Judaic mindset. It was reserved for angles and special humans God chose to do his work. It did not imply divinity.
As a Jewish messiah, Jesus owuldhave to have been a human chosen by God, and raised to a rank of as wariror-king, who would thus become anointed (messiah, christos) and defeat the enemies of Israel. Nothing whatsoever suggests a divine person in that messiah; one one who was "adopted" by the power of God (ruah, the spirit, the wind, breath of God) to do God;s work on earth, and is given the title the son of God (the same title given to Adam).
and the spurious claim that they obtained their doctrine from Paul of Samosata
And where did they get their doctrine from?
Well, the suggestion that the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 is inoriginal is, even from a purely evidentiary standpoint, highly unlikely.
Eusebius makes 17 references to it and every one (pre Nicene Council) doesn't have the triniatrian formula. The remaining five (post Nicene Council) all have it!
The Didache, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Victorinus (both Greek and Latin writerS) all cite the full Trinitarian reading before the council of Nicaea, indicating it was present in the texts they had access to.
The problem is that none of those works exist in their originals, as there are no Mat 28:19 copies that pre-date the 4th century Nicene Council, except those references made by Eusebius. Trinitarianism is extremely vague until Origen and Tertullian; the fact is that the Church had a heterogeneous makeup regarding Trinity and Christology, which is precisely why the Council in Nicaea was originally convened.
Further, the presentation of baptism in the epistles is never presented in the creedal form that it is in Matthew 28:19, so the argument about baptism in the name of Jesus only is not a strong one.
Of course not, Paul wasn't there! And neither was Luke. The fatc is that mat 28:19 is imperative and only a few days after it was allegedly said they were baptizing in the name of Jesus (just as Eusebius' version of 28:19 says). besides, Mark's great commission makes no mention of the Trinitarian formula.
Moreover, since Jesus Himself claimed that not one Word of His would pass away, this positively rules out the notion that some "original" form of Matthew 28:19 disappeared and had to be replaced by the "one we now have." If we choose to believe Jesus, that is.
You can preach that to three-year olds. The Bible has been changed over and over by human hands by error and for human agendas. Besides, Jesus doesn't say it's his word. Most of the NT is Paul's words and other deuterocnaonical authors' words.
Besides, like everything else prior to the 4th century, the Church had a variety of beliefs and practices. Didache is an latter-day copy and is unreliable as a historical document. Falsifying was not uncommon, as can be seen by divergent Greek and Roman minutes of Ecumenical Councils. Nothing written in ancient times (unless corroborated by outside and independent references) can be taken as carved in stone, and that goes especially for the Bible. There were no standards and no way of enforcing them even if they existed.
If I were you I would not quote Tertullian (or Irenaeus for that matter) when it comes to the doctrine of Trinity as he (and Ireaneaus) did not the Trinity was co-eternal. He uses the words we can relate to (such as of the same substance) but Tertullian believed that literally. In other words, God was material, he wasn't always the Father, nor the Judge:
"For from the moment when those things began to exist, over which the power of a Lord was to act, God, by the accession of that power, both became Lord and received the name thereof. Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father." [Tertullian, Against Hermogenes 3, in ANF 3:478.]
Tertullian can be credited for creating the name Trinity, and that's about all. Jerome's triniartian beliefs are hardly Triniatrian. Hyppolitcus was not a reliable source, etc.
“I will ask Kolo for the exact guy who did it, but one of the ways we know of the Paulicans is a set of sermons that were written to convert people away from them.”
It was +Photios the Great; Dangus is correct.
“In a large part, the language issue separates Rome and Constantinople also.”
There is no question that a number of the theological differences between the East and the West had their origin in language. Original Sin as described by Blessed Augustine, for example, was a product of his limited facility with Greek. I don’t think that language problems are such today as to give rise to new differences.
“In the US though, it is often do to laziness on the parts of the theologians in many of the Evangelical denominations.”
I would add, however, that it looks like some of the mistranslations we see were/are born more of a desire to create a non “Roman” theology than simple laziness.
>> Sorry dangus, but your arguments here represent a grasping at straws, and little else... Somebody erased something from the text - but what that something actually was, we have no idea. <<
Oh, please! You’re grasping at straws! The editors of the translation felt reasonably confident of what was erased. And I hardly think it’s “arguing from silence” when what is erased is literally damning proof that the Paulicians weren’t Christians to suppose that someone didn’t want us regarding the Paulicians as non-Christians. What’s arguing from silence is Conybeare’s supposition that because “The Key of Truth” doesn’t contain all of the heresies Photius ascribed to the Paulicians 1,000 years earlier that those heresies did not exist.
>> The much more logical approach to the text would look at the context as a whole, noting that the body of text remaining has much which is directly contradictory to the unorthodox tendencies that Conybeare imagined he had reconstructed. Either the Paulicians were orthodox, or they were adoptionist, but I doubt they were both in the very same work of literature. <<
Are you calling Conybeare’s attempted reconstruction of the passage “imagined,” even though the editor and a second redactor indepenedently verified it?
>> but to my knowledge, no other Armenianist after them has reconstructed these words in a way that agrees with them. <<
LOL! To your knowledge, does any “Armenianist” after them disagree with them? I can understand some skepticism towards “mainstream scholarship.” But maybe there’s a reason why mainstream sources, none of which are particularly Catholic-friendly, seem to place too great an emphasis on “the Key of Knowledge” when discussing the general nature of Paulicians: there’s no such vindication that you imagine.
>> Further, keep in mind that the actual erasures were talking about here amount to probably a couple of dozen Armenian words across the entire body of the text. Granted, there are also some genuine lacunae which can encompass up to several putative chapters, but that’s just part of the territory. <<
What’s interesting is that one of the lacunae happens to exist right where the punchline is. It’s like getting a wiretap from the evidence lockup that says, “You want to know who my inside guy is? I’ll tell you he is! He’s .... that’s who!” Oh, it’s just a coincidence that that’s where the glitch in the tape is.
Arguing from silence when someone has effaced critical, damning evidence is pretty lame. Maybe that’s why mainstream scholars still regard Photius as the best source we have, as problemmatic as he is.
>> while Armenianists who DO have access to the Armenian sources reject the theories about gnosticism? <<
Who are these “Armenianists?” The article you posted is a steaming heap of dung. If you have a source who actually agrees with your premise, unlike the Key of Truth, why don’t you post it. You obviously have dug quite deeply into this matter to locate Garsoian, since Amazon doesn’t even have her book.
Does Garsoian support the notion that the Paulicians were Baptists, or proto-Baptists? Does SHE cite evidence that they were NOT adoptionists? Or does she merely criticize the West for glossing over valued works. I’m not dismissing the Key of Truth, as you accuse me of... I’m saying it doesn’t say what you say it says.
>> the baptismal formula not mentioned by Eusebius and Mark’s Gospel wouldhave very likely been added to the manuscripts, as this was the habit of ancient writers, namely to “correct” the copies they copied. <<
That’s a very controversial assertion to just drop and not defend. Unlike the Comma Johanneum, the doxology of Our Lord’s Prayer or the Mark’s longer ending, there aren’t manuscripts missing Matthew’s trinitarian formula, nor later contentions over it. Eusebius’ failure to mention it is hardly a dog that didn’t bark. But I have read modern dogs who didn’t bark. Are there any ancient ones?
>> Didache is an latter-day copy and is unreliable as a historical document. Falsifying was not uncommon, as can be seen by divergent Greek and Roman minutes of Ecumenical Councils. <<
You treat the Didache as a single copy. Indeed, the full, extant copy of it is, in fact, just a single copy. So, truly, any single statement from it can have been amended. But huge swaths of our surviving manuscript of the Didache are corroborated by being cited by other authors. Your statement, while not entirely incorrect, could certainly be read as justifying disastrous denials of history.
Correct.
“Well, they were heretics, they were dualists, they believed that evil God created the world (demiurge), and that Christ came from heaven to save us from our evil bodies. That makes them Gnostics. They also rejected the Old Testament (Tanakh), just like the Marcionist Gnostics did, which doesn’t necessarily make them Marcionists but certainly like Mariconist in that aspect. “
I can think of a dozen ways that any one of my enemies could take a handful of my sermons and use them to accuse me of the very same errors that are laid against the Paulicians . . . if they want to claim that they are the only orthodox ones.
I especially like the one about Jesus coming to save us from our bodies. There is a very clear Scriptural sense in which that is true. We are promised a NEW body. 1 Corinthians 15; Philippians 3; etc. I can imagine some of the old-fashioned Baptist camp meeting preaching, using some of the old home-spun mountain expressions of the Blue Ridge being twisted by those who would just love to accuse the preachers of gnosticism.
No, markomalley is a Catholic writer - the term I used since he is obviously writing, and I'm pretty sure he's Catholic. While there may be some writing for the Encyclopedia Britannica who are Catholic, my reference to that work more has to do with the fact that it "bandies about outdated rubbish" - in this case, the claim that the Paulicians were "gnostics" despite the fact that they obviously were not.
In other words, Catholic writers (markomalley, and others on this thread) bandy about outdated rubbish (articles like that in the EB which are based on falsified information that hasn't been truly relevant for a century now).
But you still seem to be under the notion that the Key of Truth is perfect evidence, when it is not; that all other evidence should be summarily dismissed; that the Key of Truth supports the notion that the Paulicians were good Christians, when it proves they weren’t.
Perfect evidence? That's a rather loaded term since the idea of something being "perfect" evidence presupposes that it has to be perfect at proving something. The KoT is not "perfect" evidence, but it IS the BEST single piece of evidence we have about the beliefs and practices of the Paulicians - much more so than the extremely suspect Greek polemical writers.
If the KoT actually demonstrated gnostic theology, then I would readily concede that the Paulicians were gnostics. As it stands, the KoT does not demonstrate that - rather the opposite actually - as Armenianists who actually have access to the Armenian evidences readily concur. Neither does the KoT demonstrate actual adoptionistic tendencies, despite Conybeare's best efforts to reconstruct them into the text.
If anything, if the Key of Truth demonstrates that there are historical antecedents for Baptist theology among the Paulicians, it doesn’t support the notion that Baptists revived a remnant of true Christianity, it obliterates it by showing that the Baptist theology actually stems from quasi-Christian heresies.
Sorry dangus, but despite your hopes and aspirations for believing that the Paulicians were gnostics or adoptionists, you're sooner of later going to have to grapple with the actual evidence of the Key itself, rather than what people have written about it, or what ancient Greek polemicists wrote about their enemies, the Paulicians.
As it stands, there is not a single, credible bit of evidence advanced by the Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox on this thread to suggesat that the Paulicians were any type of actual heretic. As such, the notion that they were a "quasi-Christian heresy" rests only on Catholic wishful thinking, in support of the artificially-constructed Catholic view of church history in which Roman Catholicism is the direct heir of primitive, 1st-century Christianity.
Sorry, but Catholicism is, in reality, the accretion of a number of heresies and heterodoxies that entered into Christianity between the 3rd and 6th centuries, before finally crystallising into the recognisable form that is still largely present today.
As an aside: Your digression towards Abelard (who I’ll admit to having been previously unfamiliar) is downright bizarre. Abelard is not a Doctor of the Church. He is not even a saint. From what I can gather, he is highly respected as a PHILOSOPHER because of his development of dialecticism. He also influenced the descriptions by many in the Catholic Church of the nature of Limbo. But he was recognized as a heretic in his day, and is still regarded as one now. So where’s the great inconsistency within the Catholic Church?
Abelard is used as an example of the fact that Catholicism is not more immune to the internal development of heresies than any other group. Because of thing, it is somewhat, ah, inconsistent for Catholics to make the argument that one group is necessarily heretical because some other group that succeeded it demonstrated heresies - an argument that has appeared in some posts on this thread.
I think you mistake the whole meaning of the unity of the Catholic Church. The claim of unity has nothing to do with any claim of perfect adherence among those who would call themselves Catholic. The claim is based on the fact that there is a single standard upon which adherence can be measured. Certainly, the faithful, even reknowned theologians, can be wrong on certain matters. But those who are faithful accept the correction of the Church.
I certainly understand that - in fact, if you've noticed in some of my other responses, that is exactly what I am critical of - the notion of POLITICAL unity. Such unity is no unity, biblically speaking. The Scriptures speak of Christians being united in mind, in spirit, in purpose. This is most definitely NOT the same thing as the political unity of the Catholic religion. Catholics do not have scriptural unity.
Well, I figure that sooner or later, the more intellectually honest Catholics will have to come to grips with the actual first hand evidence - which actual Armenianists agree is the best evidence available - instead of merely relying on something that somebody who told somebody who told somebody told them.
In point of fact, what we know of the Paulicians is that in the 8th century AD, both their own document, as well as nearby Armenian sources, knew no hint of gnosticism in the Paulicians at all. Further, that their own document shows no signs of actual adoptionism, especially not of the type taught by Paul of Samosata. These are facts, whether you like them or not. The idea that the Paulicians were gnostics or adoptionists is wishful thinking.
You are free to cling to wishful thinking all you want, but it doesn't change the facts.
What’s fascinating about these is the way that certain Baptist apologists find comfort recognizing vague similarities between their own heresies and the heresies of plainly only quasi-Christian groups, as if having commonality with more rank heresies make their own heresies more credible. If I might beg the argument a bit, wouldn’t you expect that given the thousands of varieties of enemies of the Church, wouldn’t you expect that a few of them would try the same tactic?
What I find fascinating is how Catholic writers seem singular tone-deaf when it comes to the matter of historical evidences and facts. As if spouting nonsense about heresies (especially when Catholicism, scripturally speaking, is so rife with these itself) was going to paper over historical facts.
TQC, do you really think it makes Baptists MORE credible to find similarities between Baptist doctrines and heresies that assert Christ was a mere creature?
Well, since that hasn't been the case, I rather consider the point to be moot.
This is an interesting claim, I have to admit. But how do you reconcile your claim with the fact that it seems to have no actual basis in fact?
Or to put it another way, why do you think Paul of Samosata was the antecedent for the Paulicians when, even though still putatively bearing his name, no evidence for his distinct heretical teachings can be found in the Paulicians' actual source document?
Like I've said elsewhere, Catholics can't prove a claim by simply repeating it over and over and over again. You're going to have to actually grapple the evidence eventually, instead of hoping that repetition of falsehood will make your case for you.
The article also points to one of their most noted failings which was their syncretism.
Where did it say that?
It seems they adopted all sorts of heretical practices with which, as we know, the East was infested in the 7th and 8th centuries. My understanding has been that the Paulicians adopted a number of Mohammedan practices and beliefs so I am amused to read that there are Baptists who believe that Mohammedanism is in part a product of their claimed spiritual ancestors. The weed of heresy, like the weed of crime, bears bitter fruit!
I'm unsure of where you drew these conclusions from in the article, since they appear nowhere in it. Are you sure you're not just adding in your own erroneous inferences?
Nevertheless, are you sure you want to make this argument against the Paulicians concerning Mohammedanism? After all, primitive Christianity - whether we believe the obviously incorrect Catholic claims to this mantle or not - spawned a lot of heresies (where do you think the various "Christian" Gnostic speculations came from?), just as Scripture predicted would happen (Acts 20:30). By your argument, the primitive Christianity of Christ and the Apostles must have been "heretical" and a pernicious weed.
Simply put - while the Paulicians and other Eastern groups like them were generally orthodox, there nevertheless could have been the perversion of them in some places which could have contributed to the evolution of Islam between the 7th-8th centuries in the Near East.
This would not be without precedent. Catholicism itself (and therefore also the various Eastern Orthodoxies) is the product of syncretism and heresy. What we know as "Catholicism" evolved as a series of heterodox and pagan accretions onto the framework of Christianity which occured primarily between the 3rd and 6th centuries AD. Catholicism represents a heterodox offshoot from the stem of original, primitive, orthodox Christianity.
Its sort of pathetic that some in ecclesial groups are so driven to find a mythological spiritual pedigree that they will embrace particularly bizarre ancient heresies in a failing attempt to find some legitimacy. Frankly, it would be far less sad if they simply stuck to the idea that the HS went off for a 1500 year nap after Pentecost and woke up in Thubingen.
I agree - the Catholic efforts to connect their religion with primitive Christianity ARE mystifying. As for the Paulicians and other groups - there's no stretch there. Paul points out the truth of God retaining to Himself a remnant (Romans 11:5), and Jesus inferred that it would be very difficult to find THE faith (article is present in the Greek) on the earth at the time of His return (Luke 18:8). Since no man knows the hour of His return at the end of this present age, it stands to reason that individuals having true Christian faith would never form a large segment of the population of the world at any point in the Church Age. Coupled with what Jesus said in Matthew 7:13-14 about the gate to salvation being narrow and that few would find it, it seems illogical to suggest that groups like Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, which as state-churches have dominated the populations of entire continents, would be the representatives of true, primitive-type Christianity. Instead, I would suggest that it is logical, and indeed Biblically necessary, to look for this pure form of faith among the "out-groups" that were outcasts and the offscouring of the societies dominated by the universal state-churches. This is not to say, of course, that every or even most of the out-groups were themselves pure Christianity. However, given what we actually know of the Paulicians, as opposed to the calumnities made against them by their enemies, it is certain that the Paulicians were much closer to orthodox than is Catholicism (though, as I've pointed out elsewhere, their belief in a universal church and in transsubstantiation are errors).
TQC, there’s a certain desperation in the tone of your post. Why is that? Truth be told, TQC, you lost most of your credibility with me when you launched on your mistaken dissertation on “monotokos” and monogennes and Theotokos, ending in what certainly appears to be a declaration of a Trinitarian and Christological heresy. What little credibility you had left you was severely diminished by this sort of nonsense:
“This would not be without precedent. Catholicism itself (and therefore also the various Eastern Orthodoxies) is the product of syncretism and heresy. What we know as “Catholicism” evolved as a series of heterodox and pagan accretions onto the framework of Christianity which occured primarily between the 3rd and 6th centuries AD. Catholicism represents a heterodox offshoot from the stem of original, primitive, orthodox Christianity.”
+Ignatius of Antioch and +Polycarp would find that just silly. Both of them, TQC, both of them, would recognize the Orthodox Divine Liturgy I attended this very morning. If you’d like to read a liturgy from their time, with admittedly a few later additions, read this:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.xii.ii.html
But this wiped it out entirely:
“...and Jesus inferred that it would be very difficult to find THE faith (article is present in the Greek)....”
Article is present in the Greek?????????????????????? TQC, are you trying to make a point or impress us? I learned to speak Greek at the same time I learned English, which is to say that it is one of my two mother tongues. Greek ALWAYS uses the article except in a few vocative case situations. Like I said, if you paid for your Greek lessons, get your money back.
You of course are free to embrace any heresy you wish and proclaim it from the housetops. We in The Church, however, are just as free to either laugh at your beliefs or pity you for holding them and refuse to engage further in discussions of questions which the Councils resolved 1600 years ago.
Of course there are no copies. There was a wholesale book burning of undesirable sources. We don't have any of the heretical manuscripts for exactly that reason, but only know what they allegedly taught according to their personal selections of their orthodox accusers.
Eyusebius doesn't fail to mention it; he actually quotes Matthew 28:19 no less than 17 times with words "Go therefore and baptize in my name."
There only extant copies of Matthew 28:19 are post Nicene, while other verses exist in older fragments. The coincidence just seems more than accidental especially because Matthew 28:19, just as Comma Johanneum, are so cruciual to "prove" the otherwise nonexistent evidence of Tirniatrianism in the Gospels.
Your statement, while not entirely incorrect, could certainly be read as justifying disastrous denials of history
The real question is what is the oldest copy of the Didache that we have and what references specifically made by others corroborate its Triniatrian formula? People treat ancient sources as originals, which they are not. Fragmentary evidence which can be corroborated does not vouch for credibility of the whole work.
Assuming things based on uncorroborated material, latter-day copies, etc., could be a disastrous distortion of history.
Doubt is not a denial, but admission that clear-cut evidence does not support either position. Deliberate presumption of truth on insufficient evidence is much worse. It is much more honest to say "we don't know" than to claim something was when in fact we have no solid backing to state it as a matter of fact.
Today we know that Comma Johanneum and Pericope Adulterae are latter-day additions to the Holy Bible, yet they remain in the Bible masquerading as words penned by an Apostle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.