Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Who here has the courage to reject the Pericope Adulterae?
#46
Gentlemen: you are using the term "Protestant" equivocally. It doesn't mean "non-Catholic of any particular persuasion," but specifically refers to those churches and believers who hold to the teachings of the Reformation. This would exclude all anabaptists, cultists, and liberals despite how they may denominate themselves. There are a number of churches who call themselves Catholic (eg sedevacantists, rogue AC's, Old Catholic churches, etc) and Orthodox ( see <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Independent_Orthodox_churches">http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Independent ... x_churches</a><!-- m -->), but that doesn't make them so. If a church or individual believer is not confessionally Reformed, Lutheran, or Anglican, then the appellation "Protestant" doesn't apply.

As an historic confessional Protestant I feel free to remind you that so-called "apostolic" churches can't agree on the original language, manuscript, or even extent of the canon (this site boslsters my claim), yet believe themselves to be guided by the Holy Ghost - and then wag the finger at confessional Protestants; as for sacraments, I believe the ACOE differs from all vis-a-vis the sign of the cross. You can't have it both ways: either your particular body is the sole repository of truth, making all others usurpers, or we accept the Westminster Confession of Faith ch 25: "IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them. V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will."

The OT church had been pretty corrupt since the Hasmoneans, yet there was still truth in her and true believers (eg the Holy Family, Simeon, Anna, etc), so the idea that Reformers can whip moneychangers and overturn tables is not out of accord with Scripture. Whilst we will be led into all truth by the Holy Ghost (John 16.13), the clause "by close of business Friday" doesn't appear in the older manuscripts.

Believe as you wish, but debate and discuss cleanly so as to not bear false witness against fellow believers.
Reply
#47
Was waiting for you to bite doc!
Reply
#48
Shlama Paul,


John Marucci's online Beth Sapra Peshitta edition is identical to mine, as far as I can see. It has the pericope de adultera in its place within brackets, without any notes of explanation or script change. This can be found on <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org/beth-sapra/projects.html">http://www.peshitta.org/beth-sapra/projects.html</a><!-- m --> (Yes, Peshitta.org - Paul Younan's web site). Kiraz's online text of the John passage has no brackets or notes, either.

Why is mine "made in my image", while Marucci's is fit to post on your own web site?

You also say I dressed it up in DSS script. That is simply not true. I display the passage in an appendix in DSS script, to illustrate how it may have been accidentally omitted by a very early Peshitta copy (perhaps the first copy made of the original and progenitor of practically all remaining Peshitta mss.), by mistaking the first line of 8:12 for 7:53 in that particular script, It actually is a quite plausable explanation.
The text itself is in Ashuri script, the same original Online Bible OLBHEB font used throughout the NT. The Online Bible text had no notes or brackets at all for that or any other passage. There was no "dressing up" done anywhere.

I personally accept the pericope as originally written in Aramaic as part of John's Gospel. It would explain why the vast majority of Greek mss. of John, including D (5th cent) , some Old Italic mss., the Palestinian Syriac Version, and Apostolic Constitutions (AD 222), as well as other later church fathers, contain the pericope. Von Soden collated 900 Greek mss. containing the pericope. The mss. that omit it are Egyptian -a few papyrii and early Uncials.
Presumably, the Greek mss. are witnesses to the original Peshitta NT books, so about 99% of them attest to this passage as being found in the original Peshitta Gospel of John.

I know the COE does not have an official position on the authenticity or inspiration of the Western 5 books; apparently it has none on the pericope de adultera, or it would not be contained in John's Gospel, even with brackets and a note. Does not its presence there betray a doubt about its possible authenticity, as opposed to outright rejection?

You really are shooting from the hip a lot these days. What's the beef?

Qasheesha Dave
Reply
#49
Shlama Rev. Bauscher,

Appealing to Greek and Latin manuscripts doesn't make your position any more convincing to me ,personally, but I'm not the person you're looking to convince. The question originally posted was about the rejection of the Pericope Adulterae, and my response has simply been the same for years: it's not in the Peshitta, there is no Aramaic record of it until much later in the textual history and that fact is clearly demonstrated. I need not go into all the sordid details. But needless to say, the Church of the East agrees with the earliest testimony even from the Church of the West...this is a later (spurious) reading.

gbausc Wrote:I know the COE does not have an official position on the authenticity or inspiration of the Western 5 books; apparently it has none on the pericope de adultera, or it would not be contained in John's Gospel, even with brackets and a note. Does not its presence there betray a doubt about its possible authenticity, as opposed to outright rejection?

The Church of the East is not the publisher of the New York edition. It was the Chaldean Church, which broke off with the Church of the East in the 16th century and became subject to the authority of the Roman Church. You can guess why those 5 books, along with the pericope de adultera, are in that printed edition.

We don't change the scripture, period. We don't add anything, we don't subtract anything. To think that all those scribes for centuries literally counted letters back and forth until they went blind, to be sure no errors crept in....only to have people come along later and include things in brackets, as if the manuscripts ever read that way.

I said it before, and I'll repeat myself: I find nothing in the story that is unorthodox. I think it sounds like something Meshikha might have even said. It's a very touching story, spiritually edifying. But canonicity is something that, to our tradition, is strictly defined: it must have been written by one of the Apostles, or their immediate successors. And the story is not part of our textual history, nor that of the earliest manuscripts of the West.

gbausc Wrote:You really are shooting from the hip a lot these days. What's the beef?

Qasheesha Dave

Like you did on amazon.com? <!-- sConfusedarcasm: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sarcasm.gif" alt="Confusedarcasm:" title="Sarcasm" /><!-- sConfusedarcasm: --> I'll tell you what the beef is. To this day you have not apologized to Andrew, but just show up and act like nothing happened. Did you think we all forgot and all is forgiven?

I'm not resorting to the level that you did. I never attacked you personally, as you did to Andrew, calling him (among other things) a thief, and accusing him of plagiarism.

Shooting from the Hip insinuates that one speaks without being aware of the repercussions of his words. I am fully aware of the repercussions of my words. Everyone who knows me, or who has been here for any length of time, knows that my words are never meant to be mean spirited, or an attack on a person. Can you say the same thing about how you treated Andrew?

+Shamasha
Reply
#50
Paul Younan Wrote:...canonicity is something that, to our tradition, is strictly defined: it must have been written by one of the Apostles, or their immediate successors.

Akhi, you have perked my curiosity but since we don't yet know each other well I should give some disclaimers. Please don't take my questions as mean hole-poking; I just like things to make cohesive sense to me and I gravitate to apparent inconsistencies so to have them clarified or repaired. Also, I'm not a big fan of Dave here so far, so I'm not trying to score points for him.

All that said however, I must humbly ask: In your view, how does Luqa fit into your above canonicity algorithm? Are Luqa's books acceptable because of the tradition that Luqa wrote for Shaul/Paulus, or is there some other extenuating rule? I ask because I am not aware of Luqa being either Shlikha(sp?) or successor to one.
Reply
#51
rramlow Wrote:All that said however, I must humbly ask: In your view, how does Luqa fit into your above canonicity algorithm? Are Luqa's books acceptable because of the tradition that Luqa wrote for Shaul/Paulus, or is there some other extenuating rule? I ask because I am not aware of Luqa being either Shlikha(sp?) or successor to one.

I was trying to avoid using Islamic terminology, but substitute "companion" for "successor" in the algorithm.

+Shamasha
Reply
#52
Shlama Akhi Paul,

If Andrew wants to hash out the matter of his plagiarism again, let him answer for himself.
I have nothing for which to apologize. I have written the truth and am well prepared to defend it.
What I wrote on Amazon was only a relatively small sample and summary of the evidence.

[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0$dwqd 0xwrb yl9 dhoSm yny9rw 0n0 lgdm 0lw 0xy$mb 0n0 rm0 F$wq[/font]

Dave
Reply
#53
gbausc Wrote:Shlama Akhi Paul,

If Andrew wants to hash out the matter of his plagiarism again, let him answer for himself.
I have nothing for which to apologize. I have written the truth and am well prepared to defend it.
What I wrote on Amazon was only a relatively small sample and summary of the evidence.

[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0$dwqd 0xwrb yl9 dhoSm yny9rw 0n0 lgdm 0lw 0xy$mb 0n0 rm0 F$wq[/font]

Dave
Let him answer for himself?
And you are still waiting for an answer which had come already?!
<!-- s:oha: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/oha.gif" alt=":oha:" title="Oha!" /><!-- s:oha: -->
Who are you? Are you representing Paul Younan?!

You are giving no respect to Mr Younan, ok, not to mention a bit of self-respect.

I've learnt a lesson today. Fact=/=Truth.

The world loves biased fact over rational judgement. And I think we have to change this attitude.
Reply
#54
Paul Younan Wrote:
rramlow Wrote:All that said however, I must humbly ask: In your view, how does Luqa fit into your above canonicity algorithm? Are Luqa's books acceptable because of the tradition that Luqa wrote for Shaul/Paulus, or is there some other extenuating rule? I ask because I am not aware of Luqa being either Shlikha(sp?) or successor to one.

I was trying to avoid using Islamic terminology, but substitute "companion" for "successor" in the algorithm.

+Shamasha
Thank you, Akhi Paul! That was a helpful reply.
Reply
#55
dr p Wrote:Gentlemen: you are using the term "Protestant" equivocally. It doesn't mean "non-Catholic of any particular persuasion," but specifically refers to those churches and believers who hold to the teachings of the Reformation. This would exclude all anabaptists, cultists, and liberals despite how they may denominate themselves. There are a number of churches who call themselves Catholic (eg sedevacantists, rogue AC's, Old Catholic churches, etc) and Orthodox ( see <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Independent_Orthodox_churches">http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Independent ... x_churches</a><!-- m -->), but that doesn't make them so. If a church or individual believer is not confessionally Reformed, Lutheran, or Anglican, then the appellation "Protestant" doesn't apply.

As an historic confessional Protestant I feel free to remind you that so-called "apostolic" churches can't agree on the original language, manuscript, or even extent of the canon (this site boslsters my claim), yet believe themselves to be guided by the Holy Ghost - and then wag the finger at confessional Protestants; as for sacraments, I believe the ACOE differs from all vis-a-vis the sign of the cross. You can't have it both ways: either your particular body is the sole repository of truth, making all others usurpers, or we accept the Westminster Confession of Faith ch 25: "IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them. V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will."

The OT church had been pretty corrupt since the Hasmoneans, yet there was still truth in her and true believers (eg the Holy Family, Simeon, Anna, etc), so the idea that Reformers can whip moneychangers and overturn tables is not out of accord with Scripture. Whilst we will be led into all truth by the Holy Ghost (John 16.13), the clause "by close of business Friday" doesn't appear in the older manuscripts.

Believe as you wish, but debate and discuss cleanly so as to not bear false witness against fellow believers.

Sorry I am so late to this thread, but I just wanted to say, dr p, that was an awesome post! My question, though, is when do we say a church has degenerated to the point of becoming a synagogue of Satan and is no longer a true church? Could anyone give me some examples?

Thanks,
Keith
Reply
#56
Hi Rafa,
Thanks for the response...and let me say, perhaps this could become a new thread as it no longer really pertains to the Pericope Adulterae. But, Rafa, what I was trying to ask was when does a valid church slide so far away that it can no longer be considered a church? In the examples you gave (Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc....) I would argue, and I think many others as well, is that they NEVER were a valid church to begin with, so there was nothing for them to "degenerate" from. Of those types of churches, sadly I agree that there are far too many examples. But what I wanted to know, are there any examples from history of an Apostolic church deteriorating to the point that it was no longer considered a true church. I guess the basic question I am asking is "When must one leave a church?" If all churches are a mixture of truth and error, how much error does one tolerate before they have to leave? Just to give you one example: I currently live in Germany and one of the main churches here is the EKD, Evangelische Kirche Deutschland, the "Lutheran" church. They ordain both women and homosexuals. They seem to also have a love of all things "new age" and the local church here just today sponsored a class on meditative dance, whatever that is. Valid church? (Just as a side note, last year the head bishop had to resign because she (yes, she) ran a red light and got busted for driving while intoxicated. Not that we can judge an entire church based on one sinful person's actions, of course, just thought you might be interested.) I am not a member of this particular church by the way, only curious as to people's thoughts on whether someone in this church has an obligation to stay or go.

Keith
Reply
#57
Shlama,


concerning the Pericope here:

i recently was doing some reading in the Talmud, and it stated that the punishment of stoning for adultery was reserved only for a betrothed virgin between the ages of 12-14 years. otherwise, if the female was older, the punishment during the first century for adultery was strangulation. so there's a detail worthy of note IF the P.A. was indeed an accurate portrayal of a true event: we're dealing with a very young girl as opposed to a full grown woman.

i'm still not convinced it actually happened, but am not against the possibility.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#58
billman Wrote:Hi Rafa,
Thanks for the response...and let me say, perhaps this could become a new thread as it no longer really pertains to the Pericope Adulterae. But, Rafa, what I was trying to ask was when does a valid church slide so far away that it can no longer be considered a church? In the examples you gave (Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc....) I would argue, and I think many others as well, is that they NEVER were a valid church to begin with, so there was nothing for them to "degenerate" from. Of those types of churches, sadly I agree that there are far too many examples. But what I wanted to know, are there any examples from history of an Apostolic church deteriorating to the point that it was no longer considered a true church. I guess the basic question I am asking is "When must one leave a church?" If all churches are a mixture of truth and error, how much error does one tolerate before they have to leave? Just to give you one example: I currently live in Germany and one of the main churches here is the EKD, Evangelische Kirche Deutschland, the "Lutheran" church. They ordain both women and homosexuals. They seem to also have a love of all things "new age" and the local church here just today sponsored a class on meditative dance, whatever that is. Valid church? (Just as a side note, last year the head bishop had to resign because she (yes, she) ran a red light and got busted for driving while intoxicated. Not that we can judge an entire church based on one sinful person's actions, of course, just thought you might be interested.) I am not a member of this particular church by the way, only curious as to people's thoughts on whether someone in this church has an obligation to stay or go.

Keith

G'day mate,

I think that a church ceases from being a church when valid Apostolic succession no longer pertains to the church in question. It is rather dangerous though to judge if they are excluded from being part of the mystical body of Christ. Do they cease being a group of believers? Depends on their deeds, If they are rolling around on the floor and howling or partaking in Holy laughter then it is safe to assume that these people have nothing to do with Christ. If the church is ordaining homosexuals then it is safe to say they are not working with the Spirit of God but rather the spirit of disobedience.

St Paul warned that in the end times people will heap up teachers for themselves, to scratch their itching ears, this explicitly reiterates that we cannot become leaders of a church without AUTHORITY that comes from God through the laying of the hands. Sadly, due to the fallacy of sola scriptura, people are interpreting scripture as they see fit, this is the direct result of the reformation.
Reply
#59
Dear family in our Moran,Alaha and Makydoneh Yashua Msheekha,Berek Alaha! I agree that the account of the woman caught in adultury is true to the gospel of St.John and that our Lord dealt with the matter perfectly as the very situation and accusation were not done according to the torah.The man was not there,there was no formal trial prior to them bringing her to our Mari,and they were prepared to execute her on Holy ground in the temple which also would have been forbidden.Our Lord's unparalleled mercy,compassion and forgiveness solidify the account as he forgave her as He is Maryah incarnate as Alaha the Son and Miltha.By rejecting this account because it isnt in some ancient manuscripts is dangerous.I remember reading a long time ago that the entire second half of Mark 16 was added later which deals with the great comission in Marks gospel and the ascension.This passage however was in all the other ancient manuscripts besides the few it wasnt in.Also what about the authenticity of the western 5 from John,Peter,jude and Revelation.These are truely scripture on par with the rest of the New Testament even though they are not present in the most ancient Peshitta manuscripts but were put in later proving their canonicity.It just took a little longer to make them a part of the Holy Eastern Peshitta canon. I would certainly not question the story of the woman caught in adultury as it has the breath of the Spirit about it and truely belongs there as true Holy scripture and the Divine utterances of our Mari.The Peshitta is the true original Holy Gospels and New Testament straight from the Holy lips of our Saviour and written in the original Aramaic by the Evangelists and the epistles by there Spirit filled writers.We must continue to spread this good news of the Peshitta to all who wish to follow the true Holy Gospels and New Testament of our Mari.The KJV and the NKJV are good and descent translations but lack the subtle profundity and depth that can only be found in the original Aramaic Peshitta and in good English translations of the Peshitta wich we are now blessed to have a strong handful of now and are not entirely reliant upon Murdocks,Etheridges and Lamsas,all of which are good but needed a newer,more modern linguistic approach and aside from Lamsa,as he was correctly a Aramaic primacist,the blooming garden of new Peshitta translations are all being made properly by Aramaic primacists thanks be to MarYah.In Yashua,D.Michael
Reply
#60
Don't Forget to add William Norton's Translation. William Norton translated from Romans to 1 John around 1889. I think he is the first person to introduce Aramaic Primacy in Europe. And I thought his translation was very good.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)