The Word Homosexual First Appeared In 1946 Translation of The Bible

9,149 Views | 154 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by Patriot101
AggieDub14
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3/8/what-about-romans-124-27

Stumbled upon this today and wanted to discuss it.

ARSENOKOITAI was the word originally used, which means boy molester.

From the article
"I had a German friend come back to town and I asked if he could help me with some passages in one of my German Bibles from the 1800s. So we went to Leviticus 18:22 and he's translating it for me word for word. In the English where it says "Man shall not lie with man, for it is an abomination," the German version says "Man shall not lie with young boys as he does with a woman, for it is an abomination." I said, "What?! Are you sure?" He said, "Yes!" Then we went to Leviticus 20:13 same thing, "Young boys." So we went to 1 Corinthians to see how they translated arsenokoitai (original Greek word) and instead of homosexuals it said, "Boy molesters will not inherit the kingdom of God.""

Thoughts on this?

The way I understand it, much of this was written as the Greeks began to make contact with Hebrews. Greeks had a tradition of making sexual relationships with 12-17 year old boys, which the Hebrews rightfully thought was a terrible thing.

On the topic of Sodom and Gomorrah, homosexuality wasn't the issue. The issue was living for pleasure instead of living for the Lord and fellow community. Moral of the story is if all you do is eat and screw, then society will crumble. Gay or straight.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It doesn't mean boy molester. It means, literally, man-bedder.

It's a combination of arren, male, and koite, bed.

The Latin vulgate uses masculorum concubitores which is the same idea. Nothing about young.
Quad Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is a good example of the problems of an Appeal to Authority. A Google search for "ARSENOKOITAI bible translation" turns up bunch of sources that all conflict with each other. Oddly a lot of them are the same article just copy/pasted on different sites.

Regardless the concept of homosexuality described by arsenokoitai doesn't describe the modern homosexual relationship. Think about how much the concept of homosexuality has changed in your life time, let alone in the last 10 years.

Here are a few more that disagree with Zobel. There are just as many that agree with him.
http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/modern-translations-from-ideology-malakoi-arsenokoitai/
https://baptistnews.com/article/two-odd-little-words-the-lgbt-issue-part-11-revised/#.X4cEXvlKg2w
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/bible/doesnotoppose.html

Here's a twist on it I hadn't read about before from the PBS article:
Quote:

As the UCC study guide says: "The condemnation of male homosexual acts must be seen in the context of the procreative ethic which it served." Thus the law may be primarily directed not against same-sex relationships in and of themselves but rather against the result of male homosexuality. Since today "wasting of semen" may not be considered a sin at all, the contemporary relevance of the law is nullified.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I mean the main premise of this post is just a mess. The word homosexual didn't appear until 1946 -> therefore, what? The Bible is silent on homosexuality? That does not follow at all.

But at any rate, I agree with you that this concept of trying to decipher based on ancient words that had a contextual use we are no longer familiar with is a fool's errand. Fortunately we didn't discover the scriptures yesterday, and we have two thousand years of contextual evidence and commentary to go off of.

Unsurprisingly, the Church has been consistent on this issue, and there's not some shocking new revelation here that Christians began to disapprove of homosexuality in the 20th century. The Didache, for example, condemns both pederasty and adultery, and early fathers speak clearly to condemn these along with sodomy and "unseemliness with males". It's not ambiguous. Arguing that it is begins with a flawed premise.
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quad Dog said:

This is a good example of the problems of an Appeal to Authority. A Google search for "ARSENOKOITAI bible translation" turns up bunch of sources that all conflict with each other. Oddly a lot of them are the same article just copy/pasted on different sites.

Regardless the concept of homosexuality described by arsenokoitai doesn't describe the modern homosexual relationship. Think about how much the concept of homosexuality has changed in your life time, let alone in the last 10 years.

Here are a few more that disagree with Zobel. There are just as many that agree with him.
http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/modern-translations-from-ideology-malakoi-arsenokoitai/
https://baptistnews.com/article/two-odd-little-words-the-lgbt-issue-part-11-revised/#.X4cEXvlKg2w
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/bible/doesnotoppose.html

Here's a twist on it I hadn't read about before from the PBS article:
Quote:

As the UCC study guide says: "The condemnation of male homosexual acts must be seen in the context of the procreative ethic which it served." Thus the law may be primarily directed not against same-sex relationships in and of themselves but rather against the result of male homosexuality. Since today "wasting of semen" may not be considered a sin at all, the contemporary relevance of the law is nullified.

I think the challenge here is that any text can be interpreted in any way the interpreter wants.

Even something as simple as: "Thou shalt not murder"
What does this mean? Capital punishment? Abortion? Honor killings? Revenge? Defensive situations? Reckless behavior?

///
I don't think the problem here is an Appeal to Authority, I think it's closer to the reverse.

Zobel laid out what I consider to be a clear and simple explanation. Occam's razor: Man bedding means do not go to bed with men. You post links that disagree.

OK, now what? Who is the authority on this matter?

Lastly, I think the quoted speculation in UCC study guide is wildly inaccurate. St Paul encourages Christians to be celibate; how does that serve a procreative ethic?

1 Cor 7:
Quote:

1 Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.
3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband.
4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
6 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment.
7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.
Quad Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Unsurprisingly, the Church has been consistent on this issue, and there's not some shocking new revelation here that Christians began to disapprove of homosexuality in the 20th century. The Didache, for example, condemns both pederasty and adultery, and early fathers speak clearly to condemn these along with sodomy and "unseemliness with males". It's not ambiguous. Arguing that it is begins with a flawed premise.
The Church has been consistent on many issues until it isn't. Perhaps homosexuality will join the list of things the Church will change it's mind on, or split itself over, like divorce, contraception, celibate priests, and many others. We've all seen some Churches already changing its mind on homosexuality.
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quad Dog said:

Quote:

Unsurprisingly, the Church has been consistent on this issue, and there's not some shocking new revelation here that Christians began to disapprove of homosexuality in the 20th century. The Didache, for example, condemns both pederasty and adultery, and early fathers speak clearly to condemn these along with sodomy and "unseemliness with males". It's not ambiguous. Arguing that it is begins with a flawed premise.
The Church has been consistent on many issues until it isn't. Perhaps homosexuality will join the list of things the Church will change it's mind on, or split itself over, like divorce, contraception, celibate priests, and many others. We've all seen some Churches already changing its mind on homosexuality.
Yes, I think you've highlighted the importance of rejecting (1) sola scriptura and (2) theological innovation.

Both necessarily lead to relativism, chaos and discord.
Quad Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
OK, but where do you draw the line on relativism? Some of these changes and redefinitions have been going on for thousands of years.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Church did not change or split over divorce, contraception, or celibate priests. Literally none of these things have been the cause of schism.

Quote:

OK, but where do you draw the line on relativism? Some of these changes and redefinitions have been going on for thousands of years.
Cite, please.
Quad Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Those weren't the best examples, just ones that are more topical and controversial in our life times.

I could write for pages about the history of why churches have split and disagreed and cite all kinds of sources about why (and as we discussed in this thread, other sources would be cited to disprove me) and still be all kinds of wrong. The two most famous would probably be the Protestant Reformation and the East-West Schism. There is no way I could explain why those happened. One of the reasons I read was over unleavened bread. Man if two churches can't agree on yeast, what can they agree on?

The fact remains that churches have split and changed their minds for all kind of reasons both simple and complicated. The Methodist Church almost split in two over same-sex marriage last year. The Episcopalian church did a few years before. Most people would say that the Church of England was created so that the King could get a divorce even if that is a gross oversimplification. Pope Francis spoke in favor of ending celibacy last year. Who knows what the consequences of changing that tradition would be. Many Catholics on here would probably stop following a married priest.

If internet message boards existed in 1517 I'm sure someone would have accused Martin of relativism.
jkag89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Pope Francis spoke in favor of ending celibacy last year.
A celibate priesthood in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church is practice not dogma or doctrine.
chimpanzee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
jkag89 said:

Quote:

Pope Francis spoke in favor of ending celibacy last year.
A celibate priesthood in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church is practice not dogma or doctrine.
The differences between and practice, dogma, and doctrine are all pedantic gobbledygook to most everyone in the pews. It's apparently important, that's all people know. I'd be curious how many Catholics know that priests weren't always required to be unmarried, modern converted clergy exception notwithstanding.

The ecclesiology of why the church does what it does will be lost on the people that mostly don't even recognize the central tenets of the faith.

UTExan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The thing about LGBTQ activists in the church that have struck me are the following:
1.) there is an almost desperate attempt to reverse 2 millennia of Christian understanding of Biblical prohibitions regarding homosexual behaviors;
2.) a movement is underway to marginalize believers who retain the traditional understanding to the point of ostracism;
3.) even if traditional beliefs are retained regarding prohibition of sexual promiscuity, LGBTQ persons in the church seem to disregard the idea of sexual continence;
4.) LGBTQ activists in the church seem obsessed by sex.

Those are my observations. Perhaps yours are different.
It is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness- Sir Terence Pratchett
“ III stooges si viveret et nos omnes ad quos etiam probabile est mittent custard pies”
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
A controversy doesn't indicate a change or a redefinition. It's not that they weren't the best examples, they were factually not examples of what you're describing.

Quote:

There is no way I could explain why those happened. One of the reasons I read was over unleavened bread. Man if two churches can't agree on yeast, what can they agree on?
No schism occurred over unleavened bread.

Quote:

The fact remains that churches have split and changed their minds for all kind of reasons both simple and complicated. The Methodist Church almost split in two over same-sex marriage last year. The Episcopalian church did a few years before. Most people would say that the Church of England was created so that the King could get a divorce even if that is a gross oversimplification. Pope Francis spoke in favor of ending celibacy last year. Who knows what the consequences of changing that tradition would be. Many Catholics on here would probably stop following a married priest.
This is a bad argument and more or less accepts the current state of disunity as a given. This is not so. Until the Reformation, schism or a break in communion between Christian churches was the exception, not the rule. And there weren't many schisms, you can count them on one hand:

- Arianism (subject of several councils and periods, but has since died out)
- Nestorianism (The Church of the East, separated in 431 AD after Council of Ephesus)
- Miaphytism (Oriental Orthodox, who separated in 451 AD after Council of Chalcedon)
- The filioque (Roman Church vs the Eastern church, separated in 1054 AD)

In essence, there are four churches which have any kind of demonstrable continuity to Apostolic teaching.

After the Reformation, Protestant churches have fractured and shattered into as many denominations as there are opinions, and there is no issue too small to generate a schism. Divorce, opinions on salvation, the eucharist, which bible you should use, what kind of music you use in worship, whether the scriptures are word for word infallible, et cetera ad nauseam.

But literally none of this addresses the OP or supports your point. That people have opinions, and that opinions conflict, is a given. That does not refute the simple fact that the Church has a steady, clear, unequivocal stance on homosexuality going back to the first century. No amount of creative interpretation or dubious translations of the scripture can change that.
Quad Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Yes, I think you've highlighted the importance of rejecting (1) sola scriptura and (2) theological innovation.
If you want to reject sola scripture, then you must embrace things like a subordinate authority, such as the ordinary teaching offices of a denominated church, the ecumenical creeds, and the councils of the catholic church. Surely at the time, those kinds of things would have been classified as theological innovation. What's the dividing line between theological innovations that are and not accepted?

It seems a little ironic to me that those that embrace sola scripture seem to be more progressive in their interpretations of scripture. Where those that reject sola scriptura are more conservative.

I copied that list of the opposites of sola scriptura from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

If you want to reject sola scripture, then you must embrace things like a subordinate authority, such as the ordinary teaching offices of a denominated church, the ecumenical creeds, and the councils of the catholic church. Surely at the time, those kinds of things would have been classified as theological innovation. What's the dividing line between theological innovations that are and not accepted?
Surely not. There has been from the beginning the teaching office (though there was no denominations, only one), symbols of faith, councils.

Put another way - there has never been a time when there was not recognized a formal structure of authority within the church, or when there was not a formal clergy, or when there was not formal teachings, or when there were not formal catechetical statements of faith, i.e., creeds.

We see all of these things in the scriptures, in the clear. We see all of these things in history, in the clear. Innovation is departing from these things. You have it precisely 180 degrees out.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

4.) LGBTQ activists in the church seem obsessed by sex.
I notice the exact opposite, and it's the anti-LGBTQ activists who seem obsessed about sex and genitals (as it relates to transgender Christians...or trans people in general).
chimpanzee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

This is a bad argument and more or less accepts the current state of disunity as a given. This is not so. Until the Reformation, schism or a break in communion between Christian churches was the exception, not the rule. And there weren't many schisms, you can count them on one hand:

- Arianism (subject of several councils and periods, but has since died out)
- Nestorianism (The Church of the East, separated in 431 AD after Council of Ephesus)
- Miaphytism (Oriental Orthodox, who separated in 451 AD after Council of Chalcedon)
- The filioque (Roman Church vs the Eastern church, separated in 1054 AD)

I guess it's not a schism if you stab those with whom you have theological disputes in the head until there are none left. It's hard to count all the schisms (or whatever you want to call them) that didn't occur.



In the West, a break in communion with another church seemed to frequently coincide with the loyalties of the guys with the swords. Nowadays, the swords are loyal to no church at all so tiny schisms happen on every street corner.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That's a tired argument, but at any rate it requires us to doubt the Holy Spirit. Either the church maintained the truth, or one of those separate groups was real Christianity and it died. Evil won. You can't really get around that problem.

At any rate it also isn't true. The Bishops frequently found themselves on the outs with the guys with swords, over and over. You're focusing on a medieval western view which really isn't emblematic of the history of the faith as a whole.
DirtDiver
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OT was written and Hebrew and NT in Greek, Aramaic so it helps to understand the source language.

Lev 18:21 You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the Lord. 22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. 23 Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.

Definition
n m
[ol]
  • male (of humans and animals) adj
  • male (of humans)
  • [/ol]
    Same word for male is used here:
    27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

    While male could be a young boy it could also be an grown man. You have to see how this word is used in the rest of the Bible to get the full picture of the exact meaning. Most of the time it's used in the context of contrasting male from female not old males from young males.
    Quad Dog
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Meriam Webster defines innovation as introducing something new.

    So you're saying this teaching office has never introduced something new? These ongoing formal structures of authority, formal clergy, and formal teachings that were there since the beginning have never introduced something new?
    What exactly have they done then? Or have they always maintained and upkept the same old teachings since the beginning? If so, that kind of sounds like sola scriptura to me.

    Or are we working with different definitions of innovation?
    Zobel
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    There is no innovation in the faith, this is the bedrock of orthodoxy. There is nothing novel, at all, because the faith was passed down once for all to the saints. Innovation is always to be avoided.

    That is not sola scriptura at all. I think you're laboring under some misconceptions about various terms.
    Quad Dog
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    I'm here to learn. Obviously about something I know little about apparently.

    Sola scriptura is soley following the scriptures and nothing else. Right?

    You're saying there is nothing new, no innovation. No changes from scriptures would be sola scriptura, right?

    But you say the faith was passed down to the saints? Did they make innovations to scriptures? So there was innovation in the time period between scriptures being written and saints, but nothing since? How does that work for the more recent saints?
    chimpanzee
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Zobel said:

    That's a tired argument, but at any rate it requires us to doubt the Holy Spirit. Either the church maintained the truth, or one of those separate groups was real Christianity and it died. Evil won. You can't really get around that problem.

    At any rate it also isn't true. The Bishops frequently found themselves on the outs with the guys with swords, over and over. You're focusing on a medieval western view which really isn't emblematic of the history of the faith as a whole.
    I concede that I am focusing on the medieval western view, that was kind of my point. The continuity of the medieval western view carries a lot water in western ecclesiology, which has all kinds of holes in it with excommunications, anti-clericalism, schism-lites and so on. Officially, in the west, the Latin church and the Pope were always primary, but in practice, you can't really know in what area at what time how much the formal, hierarchical, bureaucratic machine that is the Magesterium was holding sway at any one time. Then the Reformation came and off you go. Even today the RCC has similar, if less sword-y conflicts going on.

    I suspect we're in more agreement than I am either implying or letting on, I'm not close to putting the thoughts down well here. The faith and the church should be unbroken from the time of Christ and the Apostles.
    Zobel
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG

    Quote:

    Sola scriptura is soley following the scriptures and nothing else. Right?
    It actually doesn't mean the scriptures and nothing else. It means that everything is subordinate to the authority of the scriptures. Or, maybe more radically, that there is no authority other than scripture. Everyone in mainstream Christianity says they follow the scriptures. The distinction is in the mechanism for understanding them.


    Quote:

    You're saying there is nothing new, no innovation. No changes from scriptures would be sola scriptura, right?
    The scriptures did not come first. The Church started at Pentecost and existed for decades before any gospel was written, centuries before the canon of scripture was fixed. The faith came first, delivered to us by God Himself in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, which was a fulfillment of what was prophesied by the Holy Spirit through the Prophets.

    There is nothing new, no innovation, from the faith passed down once for all to the saints (this is a quote of Jude 1:3). That includes the scriptures. That faith produced the scriptures - they are a witness to this revelation and were written from and through experience of God.

    The teaching comes from Christ, through the Apostles. It was taught and explained and illumined by the Holy Spirit. The Apostles passed this on, both in writing and in personal instruction (1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15; Titus 1:9). This teaching was public (2 Timothy 1:13, 2:2) and was entrusted to the Church, collectively, and to bishops, priests, deacons, and the laity individually. It included specific teaching, prayers, and modes of worship (Acts 2:42). It included specific symbols or formulas or creeds (Phil 2:6-11, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, 1 Tim 3:16). It also included ways of living, what we call Christian practice (2 Thessalonians 3:6), which was also public and mandatory (Romans 16:17).

    So, the Orthodox cannot accept that scripture alone is authoritative, because we see in the Holy Scripture itself that the scriptures reflect, and are truly part of and witness to the Tradition which preceded them, includes them, illumines them. And this Tradition was absolutely authoritative for teaching people about the faith, setting modes and norms of life and worship, and governing the Church.

    Quote:

    But you say the faith was passed down to the saints? Did they make innovations to scriptures? So there was innovation in the time period between scriptures being written and saints, but nothing since? How does that work for the more recent saints?
    I don't say that, the Bible does - Jude 1:3.

    There is no innovation, our mission as Christians is to hold fast to this faith that was deposited to the Church. It was public, it wasn't secret, and you can see the continuous teaching of the Apostolic faith in history from the beginning to now. It has not changed.
    Quad Dog
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Thanks for the clarification. If you had to pick a year or a person when innovation stopped, what would it be?
    Zobel
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    33AD? My point is there has been no innovation. The faith taught in the Church today is the same as that of the Apostles.
    UTExan
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    PacifistAg said:


    Quote:

    4.) LGBTQ activists in the church seem obsessed by sex.
    I notice the exact opposite, and it's the anti-LGBTQ activists who seem obsessed about sex and genitals (as it relates to transgender Christians...or trans people in general).
    Try being in a progressive church which regards itself as "inclusive".

    Then you will find out exactly how diverse they are. Of course, I speak from experience here, not speculation.
    It is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness- Sir Terence Pratchett
    “ III stooges si viveret et nos omnes ad quos etiam probabile est mittent custard pies”
    TxAgPreacher
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    S
    Sodomy is a sin period. Also gross.
    PacifistAg
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    UTExan said:

    PacifistAg said:


    Quote:

    4.) LGBTQ activists in the church seem obsessed by sex.
    I notice the exact opposite, and it's the anti-LGBTQ activists who seem obsessed about sex and genitals (as it relates to transgender Christians...or trans people in general).
    Try being in a progressive church which regards itself as "inclusive".

    Then you will find out exactly how diverse they are. Of course, I speak from experience here, not speculation.

    You say that as if I don't speak from experience.
    fat girlfriend
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AggieDub14 said:


    ARSENOKOITAI was the word originally used, which means boy molester.

    Arsenokoitai does not mean boy molester. It's a Greek word coined from the Greek translation of leviticus 19. (meta arsen koiten gynaikos "lying with a male")

    Leviticus 19 is clearly the referent of the new word, arsenokotai, which was coined by NT writers. An arsenokotai is a male who lies with a male as with a female.
    ramblin_ag02
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Quote:

    There is no innovation in the faith, this is the bedrock of orthodoxy. There is nothing novel, at all, because the faith was passed down once for all to the saints. Innovation is always to be avoided.
    That's stretching the language a bit. If you went up to Paul the Evangelist and asked him about how many natures, wills, and persons Christ had and asked him to sketch out the 5th Century Orthodox understanding of the Trinity, then he'd be baffled and probably have no idea what you are talking about. So at some point some doctrines arose that weren't explicitly considered and spelled out on the day of Pentecost.

    As far as practice, we know that all the earliest Christians were practicing Jews, and that many of the converts were not. So at some point Christian worship changed from the Jewish model to the different Christian model, but it seems like that took at least a generation and much more in some areas. So if you draw a line at say 200 AD, then you can say the worship service is unchanged and be mostly right. But you can't claim that modern orthodox worship services originated at Pentecost.

    So my issue is this very slippery definition of innovation. If you take innovation to mean anything new or novel, then Christian worship is an "innovation" to Jewish worship, and the change didn't happen overnight. Orthodox doctrine continued to "innovate" for centuries until the doctrine was pretty tightly locked down around 400-500 AD. The Catholic Church continued to "innovate" for another millenia with the doctrine of transubstantiation being the biggest "innovation" derived in the 13th Century.
    No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
    chimpanzee
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    ramblin_ag02 said:

    Quote:

    There is no innovation in the faith, this is the bedrock of orthodoxy. There is nothing novel, at all, because the faith was passed down once for all to the saints. Innovation is always to be avoided.
    That's stretching the language a bit. If you went up to Paul the Evangelist and asked him about how many natures, wills, and persons Christ had and asked him to sketch out the 5th Century Orthodox understanding of the Trinity, then he'd be baffled and probably have no idea what you are talking about. So at some point some doctrines arose that weren't explicitly considered and spelled out on the day of Pentecost.

    As far as practice, we know that all the earliest Christians were practicing Jews, and that many of the converts were not. So at some point Christian worship changed from the Jewish model to the different Christian model, but it seems like that took at least a generation and much more in some areas. So if you draw a line at say 200 AD, then you can say the worship service is unchanged and be mostly right. But you can't claim that modern orthodox worship services originated at Pentecost.

    So my issue is this very slippery definition of innovation. If you take innovation to mean anything new or novel, then Christian worship is an "innovation" to Jewish worship, and the change didn't happen overnight. Orthodox doctrine continued to "innovate" for centuries until the doctrine was pretty tightly locked down around 400-500 AD. The Catholic Church continued to "innovate" for another millenia with the doctrine of transubstantiation being the biggest "innovation" derived in the 13th Century.

    If it changed, then it wasn't The Faith (capital T, capital F), I can can somewhat get my head around that being self evidently true as God Himself has not changed, and our Faith, His Church are as close to Him as we can be, and there is no innovating that.

    But clearly things have changed that people control, write and believe doctrinally, in practice, etc. from the Apostles and their Apostolates in geographic isolation from one another through the Church Fathers, all the way to Joel Osteen's former basketball arena.

    It all falls in to a No True Scotsman fallacy pretty quick.
    Zobel
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG


    Quote:

    That's stretching the language a bit. If you went up to Paul the Evangelist and asked him about how many natures, wills, and persons Christ had and asked him to sketch out the 5th Century Orthodox understanding of the Trinity, then he'd be baffled and probably have no idea what you are talking about. So at some point some doctrines arose that weren't explicitly considered and spelled out on the day of Pentecost.

    There is a difference between dogmatic formulations and the faith itself. There is a tendency to conflate the two, especially in skeptic circles. That is to say, folks like Bart Ehrman argue similarly to you that if you used the word "trinity" in the first century people would be confused, therefore they didn't believe in the Trinity. This is incorrect. The dogmatic formulas codify the existing beliefs. They are ways to talk about the belief, they are symbols of the belief in the ancient use of the word symbol - that which implies the other.

    Technically speaking, the dogmatic formulas of the faith aren't strictly true. They imply the truth, which is beyond rhetoric or philosophy or formulas, and they are not false. But that's not to say they're true. They talk about God, who is beyond description.

    The fathers of the councils didn't make these things up out of whole cloth. They're clearly there in the belief structure, they are there in the scriptures, they're there in early Christian writings (those of the ante-Nicene fathers, etc). The faith is static, and over time we have developed ways to safely talk about these ineffable experiences and realities. This was usually a reactive process, not a proactive one. The chain is "As the prophets beheld, as the Apostles have taught, as the Church has received, as the teachers have dogmatized."

    We say, the faith of the apostles, the teaching of the apostles. Not the dogmatic formulations or technical language of the apostles. Those aren't in opposition. The faith and teaching remains intact, and wholly unchanged by later commentary and exposition.

    Quote:

    As far as practice, we know that all the earliest Christians were practicing Jews, and that many of the converts were not. So at some point Christian worship changed from the Jewish model to the different Christian model, but it seems like that took at least a generation and much more in some areas. So if you draw a line at say 200 AD, then you can say the worship service is unchanged and be mostly right. But you can't claim that modern orthodox worship services originated at Pentecost.
    Sure, Christ Jesus told them it would happen - they'd be kicked out of the synagogues. And He prophesied the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, so there would no longer be the ability for those in Jerusalem to worship as they did in the first days.

    But I disagree that worship changed. The model we see is that of daily liturgical prayers at defined hours, synagogue worship on Saturdays, and the Eucharist on the Lord's day. All of this is intact today. The expulsion from the synagogues prompted a consolidation of the day of worship to Sunday, but the entirety of the synagogue service is intact in the Liturgy of the Word - right down to some of the processions, the antiphonal singing of psalms, and the reading of the Scriptures. The daily cycle of prayers at the Hours is maintained faithfully in the Orthodox church, which is of course witnessed to in the OT and NT. And the Eucharistic meal is maintained - not only the celebration and communion in the form of the Gifts, but also the Agape feast which we now innocuously call "coffee hour." It is a teaching that this meal after the service in our Church is an extension of and truly part of the Liturgy. Some Christians no longer practice most or any of this. Some Christians are entirely divorced from the pre-Pentecost roots of the faith. But not all.

    Quote:

    So my issue is this very slippery definition of innovation. If you take innovation to mean anything new or novel, then Christian worship is an "innovation" to Jewish worship, and the change didn't happen overnight. Orthodox doctrine continued to "innovate" for centuries until the doctrine was pretty tightly locked down around 400-500 AD. The Catholic Church continued to "innovate" for another millenia with the doctrine of transubstantiation being the biggest "innovation" derived in the 13th Century.
    Meh, exposition is not innovation. Exposition is either correct or incorrect, but it does not change the underlying thing. The faith is, Christians live in the dogmatic fact of the life of the Church. If this lifestyle and communion with the Spirit is maintained, everything follows from there. The Western rational approach flips this on its head, making it incumbent on Christians to believe certain things, have the right formulation of salvation, and this is somehow how we are saved. It's totally backwards. Faith informs practice informs belief, not the other way around.

    The dogmatics come out of, and are formed in, and only can be understood within the life in Jesus Christ. St Paul said it in the beginning, what we believe is foolishness to those who are dying, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
    ramblin_ag02
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Pretty impressive mental gymnastics to say that dogma is not faith, but then to have a full and extensive history of excommunication and persecution based on differences in dogma. In every practical sense they are the same.

    I'll say the same thing in a different way. It is a principle that earlier saints are not judged by later conflicts. Otherwise Cyprian, for instance, would be judged a few hundred years later as a Donatist instead of a saint. Similar examples abound. So at some point, the faith went from accepting and celebrating someone like Cyprian to condemning him. And yet you would claim that nothing at all had changed about the faith during that time. That makes no sense to me.

    Quote:

    But I disagree that worship changed. The model we see is that of daily liturgical prayers at defined hours, synagogue worship on Saturdays, and the Eucharist on the Lord's day. All of this is intact today. The expulsion from the synagogues prompted a consolidation of the day of worship to Sunday, but the entirety of the synagogue service is intact in the Liturgy of the Word - right down to some of the processions, the antiphonal singing of psalms, and the reading of the Scriptures. The daily cycle of prayers at the Hours is maintained faithfully in the Orthodox church, which is of course witnessed to in the OT and NT. And the Eucharistic meal is maintained - not only the celebration and communion in the form of the Gifts, but also the Agape feast which we now innocuously call "coffee hour." It is a teaching that this meal after the service in our Church is an extension of and truly part of the Liturgy. Some Christians no longer practice most or any of this. Some Christians are entirely divorced from the pre-Pentecost roots of the faith. But not all.

    The most tangible expressions of the Hebrew worship (aside from the Temple) have been always been circumcision, the dietary laws, the Sabbath, and the Feast days. the Orthodox keep none of these, so I really don't see how you can argue that the worship is the same as it was at Pentecost. I'm not making a value judgement on the change, but there was clearly a change.
    No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
     
    ×
    subscribe Verify your student status
    See Subscription Benefits
    Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.