Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Revelation Good case for Aramaic Primacy?? Come on now
#36
Shlama Akhi Stephen,

Stephen Silver Wrote: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?

I do think I wrote somewhere earlier on this thread, and others in the past, that there is nothing theologically significant within the W-5 that is not already present in other scriptural texts. That being the case, these books which make up the W-5 are orthodox and useful for teaching, growing in the faith and personal study. But in the practice of the CoE that does not scripture them make.

We call them "pious books" as a friendly gesture to our sister churches who do accept these books as canonical and do read from them in their liturgy. We accept their value based on the witness of our fellow believers in Messiah. However, our liturgical cycle (as written in the book of KHudra), has been set for a long time and it cannot be changed.

No, of course I do not rank Jude up there with 1Clement or the book of Mormon, but I am a bit bothered that it quotes from what is universally considered an apocryphal book, Enoch. How could we consider Enoch to be uninspired if we consider Jude to be inspired, and Jude quotes from Enoch? The Church fathers, eastern and western, struggled with questions just like this for a long time before the western canon finally included Jude.

Stephen Silver Wrote: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

Actually your point is well taken, the CoE would have been served well during the theological wars that raged in the 5th century if it had appealed to 2Peter, however including a book in your canonical list simply because it supports your theological position is a wrong reason.

Akhi, it's the late age of these books that really killed it for them in the east, and almost in the west. Their apostolic origin could not be easily verified, their chain of custody was disputed. By the time they made it to us it was way too late. And they didn't have an easy time in the west, either.

We're talking about books, with the exception of Revelation, that are really minor and insignificant. Revelation just gives a lot more detail to what we already knew would happen, the end of the world is coming, the Kingdom is coming, Messiah will reign, the adversary will be defeated. Meshikha taught us these things, as did the Prophets.

+Shamasha
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Revelation Good case for Aramaic Primacy?? Come on now - by Paul Younan - 09-04-2008, 06:14 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)