08-28-2008, 08:09 PM
Paul, I say things the way I do because I have come across as "caustic" or offensive to folks in the past and I feel the need to clarify myself or "qualifty" certain words. The Scriptures are pretty clear on how we should converse with people. I don't know how deep people's skin is on this forum. We are not all made the same, you know. Some people's feelings get hurt alot easier than others. The only thing that should be offensive is the gosple messege of Ye'shua and even than we have to be very careful not to "speak down to people." I also try to be careful in what words are used as the Tanakh (Old Coveneant) is clear in some places that words can be used very destructively or very constructively. Actually the New Cov't as well covers this and I will stop this subject at this point.
Now, let me address what you said. You asked if I "get what you are trying to say." Actually, Paul, yes and no. Because it appears you have said one thing in one of your posts and then turned around and said something that sounds directly against it. I think in point "c" you stated that"The church of the east LIKE the Greek and Latin churches were given the Scriptures by the Apostles and their immediate disciples". Well, apparaently not. I think I know what you are attempting to say. But if the Coptic church has a 35 book NT canon and the church of east has a 22 book NT canon and all the rest (mainly we here in the West) have a 27 book canon than we were not given the Scriptures in LIKE manner. We have a different canon. It is actually fairly new to me (just this year as a matter of fact) that there has never been a universally accepted and NT canon of all the same books. I did not know that. But, as I think or as I thought , until today, that this was a matter of theology and not linguistically - which leads to my next point in what you said:
This statement bothers me the most: "Therefore, we have no opinion on them one way or the other. If they were given to us by the Apostles in the language of Christ and the Apostles, then we would have them in our canon." Now Paul, this is almost precisely a 180 degree statement opposite in your post previous to your last which was something to the nature that it actually did not matter at all in which language these "Western 5 books" are in, whether Greek, Swahili(that is the term you used) Chinese or even Aramaic (hope you did not mind my paraphrasing you). So, now you say in your last post had they been written in Aramaic the church of the east would have them in their canon. So, up to today I thought that there was a theological reason that the coe did not accept these books. Now it appears that it is a linguistic reason/language that they did not accept them into the canon. Something is amiss here Paul. I thought they the church had no opinion of them. But had they been believed to have been written in Aramaic all of a sudden the c.o.e should have accepted them. Paul, I don't get it. Can you see that these statments of yours come across as contradictory??
Also, I think I have to stick to my guns on your statement - "However, I do not expect Andrew or any other Aramaic Peshitta Primacist to make a case for any particular example by appealing to the (later) Aramaic translation of 2 Pet {2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation}. This of course would be absurd." Mr. Lancaster is an Aramaic Primacist. Apparently he is not aware that these 5 Western books have no Peshitta or Aramaic basis. Yet he still is appealing to them. I should ask a dumb question. Does he know?? Was he informed of this?? Paul, did you not give him any advice that to employ a book like Revelation as an example for Aramaic Primacy was not sound??
Tks Paul. and I am not the best. Of course, I know what you meant.
May we both ask Aloha for the Wisdom that is from above.
Mike
Now, let me address what you said. You asked if I "get what you are trying to say." Actually, Paul, yes and no. Because it appears you have said one thing in one of your posts and then turned around and said something that sounds directly against it. I think in point "c" you stated that"The church of the east LIKE the Greek and Latin churches were given the Scriptures by the Apostles and their immediate disciples". Well, apparaently not. I think I know what you are attempting to say. But if the Coptic church has a 35 book NT canon and the church of east has a 22 book NT canon and all the rest (mainly we here in the West) have a 27 book canon than we were not given the Scriptures in LIKE manner. We have a different canon. It is actually fairly new to me (just this year as a matter of fact) that there has never been a universally accepted and NT canon of all the same books. I did not know that. But, as I think or as I thought , until today, that this was a matter of theology and not linguistically - which leads to my next point in what you said:
This statement bothers me the most: "Therefore, we have no opinion on them one way or the other. If they were given to us by the Apostles in the language of Christ and the Apostles, then we would have them in our canon." Now Paul, this is almost precisely a 180 degree statement opposite in your post previous to your last which was something to the nature that it actually did not matter at all in which language these "Western 5 books" are in, whether Greek, Swahili(that is the term you used) Chinese or even Aramaic (hope you did not mind my paraphrasing you). So, now you say in your last post had they been written in Aramaic the church of the east would have them in their canon. So, up to today I thought that there was a theological reason that the coe did not accept these books. Now it appears that it is a linguistic reason/language that they did not accept them into the canon. Something is amiss here Paul. I thought they the church had no opinion of them. But had they been believed to have been written in Aramaic all of a sudden the c.o.e should have accepted them. Paul, I don't get it. Can you see that these statments of yours come across as contradictory??
Also, I think I have to stick to my guns on your statement - "However, I do not expect Andrew or any other Aramaic Peshitta Primacist to make a case for any particular example by appealing to the (later) Aramaic translation of 2 Pet {2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation}. This of course would be absurd." Mr. Lancaster is an Aramaic Primacist. Apparently he is not aware that these 5 Western books have no Peshitta or Aramaic basis. Yet he still is appealing to them. I should ask a dumb question. Does he know?? Was he informed of this?? Paul, did you not give him any advice that to employ a book like Revelation as an example for Aramaic Primacy was not sound??
Tks Paul. and I am not the best. Of course, I know what you meant.
May we both ask Aloha for the Wisdom that is from above.
Mike