09-04-2008, 05:24 AM
Paul Younan Wrote:No way, there are plenty of things composed in Aramaic in the 1st century AD that I do not consider scriptural. I mean things like the Odes of Solomon - so Orthodox in it's message, it could be placed right up there next to the Psalms. But it wasn't written by an apostle or an immediate disciple, so it won't make it into any canon just because of the language of composition.
I don't get how any church considers 1Clement scriptural, broad or narrow. The book is obviously validating paganism, and what of this priesthood in Egypt it speaks about? This is a priesthood of what? A mythical fire-bird?
Shlama Akhi Paul:
Do you consider the W-5 on the same level of spiritual content as I Clement? Also, Have you found anything in the W-5 that contradicts anything in the 22 book Peshitta or the T"NK?
Some years ago I presented to you the unavoidable truth that II Peter 1:4 is the only place in the "western" 27 book New Testament canon that contains the phrase "divine nature". To your understanding, as an Assyrian Christian, is the context of this phrase in accordance with the teaching of the nature of godliness in the CoE? Put another way Akhi Paul, is the context of this Aramaic phrase [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0yhl0 0nykd[/font], "of the divine nature" or "of the nature of godliness", translated from Greek into Aramaic by both Philoxenus' recension and Thomas of Harkel's revision of II Peter 2:4, considered either pagan or heretical by the CoE? Is there anything that is spiritually/doctrinally unsound at all in the Western Five?
Shlama,
Stephen