Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: Rebuilding a Conservative Movement I
Source:
Sultan Knish blog
URL Source: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/201 ... s+The+Stories+Behind+the+News%
Published: Sep 25, 2015
Author: Daniel Greenfield
Post Date: 2015-09-27 19:03:36 by Rufus T Firefly
Keywords: None
Views: 50119
Comments: 199
The trouble with the donor class, by and large, is that it is resistant to change because it doesn't want to change. The Democratic and Republican donor classes donate for their business interests, but the Democratic donor class has a radical edge. Groups like the Democracy Alliance want a fundamental transformation of the country. And they understand how they can make money off that. There are too many Republican single issue donors who are fairly liberal on everything outside that issue. And there are too many big business interests and financial folks who live in major cities and only differ from liberals in their economic policy. The trouble with fiscally conservative and socially liberal is that the left is not a buffet. You don't get to pick a combo identity. Fiscally liberal follows socially liberal as day follows night. All those single people, their babies need assorted government benefits. No amount of lectures on "liberty" will change that. Austrian economics is never going to displace food stamps for the socially insecure. A lot of the Republican donor class would like to have its cake and eat it too. It wants the fun of a liberal society without having to pay the bill. It wants cheap Third World labor without wanting to cover their health care, the school taxes and all the other social welfare goodies. But it doesn't work that way. There's no free ride. Yes, they can move to a township where the property taxes are killer, and dump their pool guy and tree trimmer and maid in some city to live in housing projects at the expense of that city's shrinking middle class and working class. And it can work for a while, until all those cheap laborers get community organized and the organizers take over the city. And then the state. And then there are housing projects in the township, everyone is plugged into the same statewide school tax scheme and the left runs everything and taxes everything. The wealthier members of the donor class can outrun this process longer. Or just live with it while funding groups that promote "Liberty", the way the Koch Brothers do, but the bill always comes due. You can't outrun the political implications of poverty in a democracy. And you can't stop those political trends without addressing the social failures that cause them. A socially liberal society will become politically and economically liberal. Importing Third World labor also imports Third World politics, which veer between Marxism and Fascism all the way to the Islamic Jihad. Everything is connected. You can't choose one without the other. We're not going to have some libertarian utopia in which everyone gets high and lives in communes, but doesn't bother with regulations and taxes. The closest thing you can find to that is Africa. Nor are we going to be able to import tens of millions of people from countries where working class politics is Marxist without mainstreaming Marxism as a political solution in major cities across America. People are not divisible that way. Human society is not a machine you can break down. The left has fundamentally changed America. Much of the donor class hesitates to recognize this or prefers to believe that it can isolate the bad changes from the good changes. It doesn't work that way. Getting the kind of fiscal conservatism that a lot of the donor class wants requires making fundamental changes to the country. You can't just tinker with economic regulations in a country where schoolchildren are taught to demand taxes on plastic bags to save the planet or where a sizable portion of the population is dependent on the government. Those tactics can rack up ALEC victories while losing the war. Fiscal conservatism requires a self-reliant population that believes in the value of honesty and hard work. Those are not compatible with social liberalism or casual Marxism. Individually, yes. It's possible to make money while being a leftist. But spread across a large population with different classes and races, those individual quirks will not be replicated. And you can't create that population with slogans. You have to be able to shape national values, not just economic policy. That's the hard truth. There are no single issue solutions. At best there are single issue stopgaps. But the left is not a single issue organization. It has narrowed down most of its disagreements and combined its deck of agendas. Its coalition supports a large range of programs from across the deck. It's still possible to be a pro-abortion Republican, but the political representation of pro-life Democrats is disappearing. You can be a Republican who supports the Muslim Brotherhood, but a Democrat who says anything too critical about Islam has a limited future in his party at any national level. The same is true across the spectrum. Kim Davis is a Democrat. How much of a future do Democrats opposed to gay marriage have? Meanwhile it's possible to be a pro-gay marriage Republican. The Republican "big tent" is more a symptom of ideological disarray, as we've seen in this primary season, by a party that doesn't really know what it believes, than of tolerance. But the left has taken over the Democratic Party and made its agendas into the only acceptable ones. There are still some national Democrats hedging weakly on gun control and environmentalism, but they're going to be purged. Their party will abandon them and Republicans will squeeze them out. A lot of the donor class is really seeking an accommodation with the left. The election was warped when the Koch brothers decided to find common ground with the ACLU on freeing drug dealers. They dragged some good candidates in with them and down with them destroying their credibility on key issues. You can't have an accommodation with the left. The left isn't seeking a compromise. It wants it all. The left has to be fought all the way or surrendered to all the way. There's no middle ground here regardless of what philosophical objections are introduced, because that is what the left is doing. It's easily observable just in Obama's two terms. The left has defined the terms of battle. And its terms are total control over everything. You can't be pro-life and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-business and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-Israel and pro-Obama. You can't be fiscally conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be socially conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be anything less than full leftist and pro-Obama. The left has to be fought totally or not at all. Single issues can be important and it's good for people to pick one or two things to focus on, but that has to come with the understanding that there can be no accommodation with it in any other area. An organization fighting gun control is doing important work, but its backers should never fall under the illusion that the 2nd amendment can be maintained if the left wins on all the other fronts. As Benjamin Franklin said, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately". The quote is true today in all its implications as it was then. We must have a conservative movement that is united in a common front or we will be dragged down one by one. There will be no conservative issue islands left to stand on if the red tide comes in. The final point is that it is not enough to resist. That's just delaying the inevitable. Even the strongest resistance can be worn away with time. If the left can't win directly, it focuses on the next generation. If cultural barriers are in the way, it goes for population resettlement, as it's doing in parts of this country and Europe. There is no such thing as an impregnable issue island. Winning means pushing forward. Winning means advocating for change, not just fighting to keep what we have. Winning means thinking about the sort of free society that we want. Winning means having a vision to build, not just resist. Winning means advancing forward. To do that, we have to accept that fundamental change is necessary. Right now we're fighting a losing battle. We're trying to keep the tide out, when we must become the tide. Poster Comment: Money quote: You can't be pro-life and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-business and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-Israel and pro-Obama. You can't be fiscally conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be socially conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be anything less than full leftist and pro-Obama. The left has to be fought totally or not at all.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 101.
#1. To: Rufus T Firefly (#0)
The left has to be fought totally or not at all. Well, if that's the agenda, then you cannot win as the right. Pro-life is a moral necessity. Right now there is no pro-life party either. Life begins at conception. Anything that says otherwise is a lie. That means that there cannot be a RAPE EXCEPTION. To abort the baby born of rape is to commit premeditated murder. That's just a fact, and there can be no compromise on it. Now, if you take that correct and true stance, you have to abandon fiscal conservatism, and here is why: 2 million babies, 75-80% of them poor, are aborted in America every year. Rape accounts for practically none of them. Good old red-blooded recreational sex is the cause. And you cannot legislate against THAT or make it stop. People are gonna do it, sin or not, and contraception is gonna fail. Right now, it fails (or is ignored) about 2 million times every year, and about 1.6 million of those times, the baby that is conceived is conceived in the womb of a woman who will most certainly need social welfare to raise that child. So, if we do the right thing on abortion, we will increase the social welfare state by 1.6 million souls per year, year after years. The school systems will have to get bigger, the housing projects will have to get bigger. You have a choice: be pro-life, and accept a LARGER social welfare state, or be pro-choice (which is to say, a murderer) and keep costs down. The choice that does not exist is the make-believe of the right: no abortion AND smaller social expenditures. That is ABSURD. it's ridiculous. It's physically IMPOSSIBLE. And it will never happen. Pro-business is fine, BUT AGAIN if you are pro-life, that MEANS a LARGER social welfare state, so UNLESS you CUT SOMETHING ELSE (namely, the military) you are going to have to increase taxes. And that's not business friendly. A large military and military intervention plus pro-life plus lower expenditures is fantasy land stuff. It is impossible. Which brings is to the "pro-Israel" part. 50% of our foreign aid budget goes to Israel. Why, exactly, is it in the US national interest to pour such money into a white colony in the Middle East? How is that in any way in AMERICAN national interest? It certainly isn't CHRISTIAN. Jesus doomed ancient Israel and God destroyed it for good. This thing that calls itself "Israel" is a white European ethnic enclave carved out of Arab land because of white guilt over what happened to the Jews in World War II. It would have made a great deal more sense to give the Jews Bavaria and deport all of the Germans from that province, expropriating everything as punishment, and then requiring every European state that shipped Jews to the camps to provide financial aid for a generation. That would have been justice. Creating a European colony in the Middle East that has to be propped up forever by American taxpayers and American armies is ridiculous, and it is ridiculous that Americans permit it. If you're going to be pro-life and stop abortion, you cannot pay for the large expansion of social welfare that will be required and ALSO maintain a world military empire with half of the foreign aid budget going to Israel. if you're going to be pro-life, you are going to have to cut off Israel. The article concludes that the Left has to be fought totally, or not at all. The problem is that if you're going to be pro-life, you cannot simultaneously be fiscally conservative. Pro-life is by its nature socially conservative. And if you are going to take the proper stance on life, that means that you have to start formally teaching sexual morality. So, you have to be socially conservative or you will break the bank. But that will not be enough, because you cannot impose harsh punishment for sexual liberty - the nation will never allow it. Which means that pro-life inevitably leads to a permanent expansion of the social welfare state. To be socially conservative, if pro-life is to be included in that, you have to be fiscally liberal when it comes to the social welfare state - because all of those babies have to eat - and even then the military empire cannot be sustained with a full-on pro-life agenda. For American babies to live, the American empire, and huge American aid to Israel, has to die. Socially conservative, fiscally liberal, and pacificistic is the only thing that will actually WORK, if pro- life is part of the socially conservative aspect. And if pro-life is not part of social conservatism, then that form of social conservatism is an evil sham that should lose anyway. These are hard truths. American conservatives have to face them.
Bullshit! Nothing but pure religious dogma by an Stalinist organization that seeks nothing less than world-wide domination.
Bullshit! Nothing but pure religious dogma Actually the reverse is true. Biologically human life DOES start at conception. You are confusing this scientific fact with religious doctrine of ensoulment - when human living being receives soul. Dogmatically this question is tricky. I can speak from the Orthodox perspective; Fathers of the Church had different opinion, some of them thought that ensoulment happens in moment of conception, others at 40 days after,others at the moment of quickening (first independent movements), others when body is perfectly formed, etc ... But in order to avoid possible homicide Orthodox Church assumes the earliest moment of conception, to err on the side of caution. Personally I tend to think that soul finds its fleshly home in the nervous system, so when nervous system appears and shows any activity before neuronal - when glial cells start to function as a network. (BTW, I suspect that glial cells are seat of consciousness/psyche as neurons are more like fast computer circuits under glial control. Still it is only my uncertain opinion so I would support most cautious assumption - moment of conception.
To me, God is clear in Scripture. Go back to Genesis and take a good, perceptive look at the description of lives. This works in Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, and English - it isn't an artifact of language, it's what the text says. It refers to the lives of each of the patriarchs, the lengths of those lives, and then describes the beginning of each life. And the WAY it does, is, e.g.: "Noah begat Ham", or "Enoch begat Methuselah". Begat. The lives are each measured by the FATHERLY principle of reproduction, not birth from the mother, but begetting by the Father. And that only occurs once, at the very beginning, with intercourse and fertilization. The father's begetting is punctiliar - he BEGETS a child when the sperm fertilizes the egg. And every life in Genesis is measured from THEN, not birth. Scripturally, life begins at conception.
You pervert the Bible. The Bible says if you don't work you don't eat. Don already proved it to you but you ignore it. Also there is no pope in the Bible. He is a false leader. A piece of shit. Your left wing ideology is the opposite of what Christ taught.
You want to apply that to the retirees, including people in nursing homes? How about children? Should they all work too if they want to eat? I'm just curious how broadly you want to apply the work-to-eat principle and where your exemptions begin.
God created the family for a reason. To take care of each other. He created the church for a reason too. Part of that was to help people. The government stealing money indiscriminately and giving it to losers is not the plan laid out in the Bible by the creator God. It is the parents job to take care of their kids. The kids are supposed to help their parents when they get old. When Joseph ruled Egypt he showed that there is a role for government in helping people. We just subsidize losers with money from people who need the noney also.
He created the church for a reason too. Part of that was to help people. The scripture you cited doesn't make those exceptions. It says work-to-eat. Period. Obviously, you want to enforce the work-to-eat principle but only when it suits you.
Here's the entire passage with several commentaries if you guys are interested.
I liked Gill's comments. He is one of the few who ever pay attention to the Ethiopic manuscripts since the rest of Christendom simply pretends they don't exist. Actually, Vic is the only person I've ever noticed who even mentions the Ethiopic canon and manuscripts and my own knowledge of it is limited to Gill's remarks. Gill habitually looks at other ancient manuscripts like the Syriac, the ancient church fathers, etc. And he was in particular a notable Hebraicist, fleshing out the general cultural attitude and colloquial sayings and writings of Jewish leaders of the era which I like because, while we should know the sayings of Jesus and the writings of the disciples, we should also have some idea of the mental and cultural baggage of those who first heard Jesus teach or the disciples preach His message. We can't understand precisely the full impact of Jesus' teachings unless we have some idea of prevailing Pharisaic and scribal teachings and how Jesus differed with the major established schools of thought among Jews of His era. Sometimes you don't have as precise an idea of what is being said by Jesus and the disciples unless you know a bit about who they were saying it to and their ideas about religion and the social order.
And he was in particular a notable Hebraicist, fleshing out the general cultural attitude and colloquial sayings and writings of Jewish leaders of the era which I like because, while we should know the sayings of Jesus and the writings of the disciples, we should also have some idea of the mental and cultural baggage of those who first heard Jesus teach or the disciples preach His message. We can't understand precisely the full impact of Jesus' teachings unless we have some idea of prevailing Pharisaic and scribal teachings and how Jesus differed with the major established schools of thought among Jews of His era. Sometimes you don't have as precise an idea of what is being said by Jesus and the disciples unless you know a bit about who they were saying it to and their ideas about religion and the social order. I agree with all of this. "All Scripture is God breathed" - Paul said that. But neither Paul nor anybody else in the Scripture delineated exactly what Scripture IS. After all, in Greek, "scripture" is just the word "writing". Obviously everything WRITTEN isn't God-breathed - Paul mean SACRED writings - but there's no list. The lists were drawn up by various Churches. The Jews, for their part, did not have a written list either. They didn't formalize anything until a generation after the Temple came down, and by then there were fierce polemics with the Christians. The Christians, for their part, didn't agree. The Eastern and Western Catholic Churches never fully agreed on an official canon - there are a handful of additional books and parts of books in the Greek Canon that are not in the Catholic Canon (though the difference is less important than it may seem, because neither the Orthodox nor the Catholics are Sola Scripturalists, both think that the traditions of the Church are ALSO inspired by God, and they all agree that all of the writings that some take as canonical are good for reading, holy and orthodox...just not at the level that should be called "necessary" canon. There are differences between the Greek Orthodox Canon and the Russian Orthodox Canon also. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, for its part, is as old as the Apostles, as old as any other Church (see the story of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts), and its canon is the longest, containing several books otherwise lost to history. St. Jude speaks of the Book of Enoch. Well, we only HAVE the book of Enoch because the Ethiopians preserved it and consider it Scripture. Enoch is interesting because Jesus seems to quote it extensively. Also, among the various books that are not in the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant canons but that are nevertheless considered canonical by an ancient Church, Enoch is the only one mentioned BY NAME in the New Testament, and is the only one that really provides insights into things that are not otherwise revealed in the Bible (such as the names and motivations of the angels who fell and took human wives and made Nephilim came from). There are books mentioned in the Old Testament - Jubilees, Jasher, etc. that are also in the Ethiopian Canon. Whether or not the Ethiopian books are really copies of the original, I cannot say. What I CAN say about Enoch in particular is that either Jesus read it extensively, or whoever wrote it did so with the Gospels in hand (except there's so much that is strange and not otherwise in the Scriptures in it), or it contains truth that Jesus knew and spoke independently, which rather strongly vouches for the actual inspiration of at least some of it. I see no basis to reject the books of the Ethiopian Canon. After all, the Greek Orthodox and Latin Catholic canons are not identical, but that never divided the Church and provoked a schism. The extra books in the East add details of history that otherwise are not there. The so-called "Apocrypha", which I definitely consider canonical because Jesus quotes them so often, contain the whole suite of spiritual history from Malachi to Jesus. So, my view is expansive. If it's in any of the Orthodox Canons, I consider it important. And Enoch is particularly important because Jesus said so many of the things in it, and Jude quoted it by name. Peter referred to it very clearly also, though not by name. I suppose if I were a Protestant, Sola Scriptura doctrine and tradition would make me frightened of these books, but I'm a Catholic and the Ethiopian and Catholic Churches were once in unity, and never separated over this then. Enoch is probably at least partially inspired by God, and contains information that cannot be gotten anywhere else, so I read it. But when I discuss things on boards with Protestants, I limit myself to the KJV, because things are already so contentious that adding pre-packaged conflict is...well, that's not what I'm about. I want to find consensus and see Christians form ranks in a common army to face the ENEMY, not each other! (If I were feeling disputatious, I would use the so-called "Apocrypha", because they are translated and printed in the 1611 KJV.
St. Jude speaks of the Book of Enoch. Well, we only HAVE the book of Enoch because the Ethiopians preserved it and consider it Scripture. Enoch is interesting because Jesus seems to quote it extensively. Also, among the various books that are not in the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant canons but that are nevertheless considered canonical by an ancient Church, Enoch is the only one mentioned BY NAME in the New Testament, and is the only one that really provides insights into things that are not otherwise revealed in the Bible (such as the names and motivations of the angels who fell and took human wives and made Nephilim came from). There are books mentioned in the Old Testament - Jubilees, Jasher, etc. that are also in the Ethiopian Canon. It is interesting once you learn a bit about it. Certainly, there is much to interest even lay people in the history of the Ethiopian Orthodox. The Orthos, as a club, are certainly the most conservative of churches. They just don't change. Or ever throw anything away. : ) It's no great reason to feel compelled to embrace the Ethiopic either. Even so, it does have a certain historical interest, regardless of which canon of scripture you prefer. As I said before, Gill is the only writer I've ever read who even mentioned it as a canon and as manuscript evidence for particular readings of a verse. As I recall it, the Ethiopian Orthodox differ as much in their creedal disagreement with the other churches that are Orthodox or Catholic. So there are some doctrinal differences. Also, the Ethiopian church was established in very ancient times when Christianity spread across regions of Africa. Over the centuries, Ethiopian Christianity became geographically isolated for many centuries. So many of the issues that became quite important in the West or in Byzantium never penetrated some of the remote churches of the Copts or the Ethiopian Orthos or the Syrian or Mesopotamian churches.
Ethiopians have the same faith as Copts and Armenians. They derive from those who rejected dogmatic definitions of the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon.
I am more modernist than the Oriental churches in your diagram. I do harbor doubts about the filioque from the later Synod of Toledo in 589AD. Nothing good ever comes from Toledo. : ) Nice chart though.
Filioque is right or wrong, depending on what you understand by saying it. Spirit is breath. Holy Spirit is the breath of God, the animating power of life and creation. Both the Holy Spirit and the Son ultimately originate, at their first beginnings, in the Father. If we look at the Son as an aspect of God that was WITHIN the Father until begotten and placed outside of the Father in a second person then he was indeed with the Father always, and certainly was beside the Father before the beginning of time. And yet the Father is the Father, and superior to the Son, not in divinity, but in primacy. God's divine breath creates. The First Breath, the Holy Breath, the Holy Spirit, began with the Father. And yet the Son also breathes, and the Son is divine, and the breath that proceeds out of the Son is divine - of one divine essence with the Father. Jesus breathed the spirit into the Apostles, remember. So the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit reposes on the question of WHEN. If speaking of the very beginning of beforetime, there was the Father, and the Father begat the Son and breathed out the Spirit. So at the first, before all time, The Holy Spirit AND the Son both originally proceeded out of the Father, certainly. But NOW, with Jesus enthroned at the right hand of the Father awaiting enthronement on the Earth, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the divine, and Father and Son are both divine, and both breath out the Spirit. Jesus breathed it into the Apostles and the Church. Nicaea and Toledo are both right. And the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are both right also, just in different contexts. Or, and the miaphytism of the Oriental Orthodox - that's just exactly the right way to look at it too.
Uh-oh. You're treading on the thin ice of "eternally begotten Son". : )
Not a bit. "Eternal" refers to TIME. Endless time. Time begins with creation. And the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit have been there from the beginning of time, and for all time. But BEFORE time, before anything that we would call existence, BEFORE the beginning, there was the Father, El, and El begat YHSWH and breathed out the Holy Wind. And THEN the beginning began. All of this is actually WITHIN the first word of Genesis, B'reshiyt, which we translate as "In the beginning", but the translation is shaky because it's really "in head" And the pictographic sentence WITHIN that word, WITHIN the beginning of "the beginning" are Within Head El division-into-two arm pointing to the Cross. That is what the pictographs of B'reshiyt SAY, when read as a sentence themselves. Then next comes "bara" BRA - a repetition within head God - then the word Elohiym, which is the PLURAL of El - the first PLURAL use of El, the name of the Father, since the beginning - now that El has divided into two pointing to the Cross and in the head of God - Elohiym. And Elohiym is God - Sheperd staff (the Lord is my shepherd) breath/spirit arm upon the chaos/waters, followed by the unstranlsated word AT - which is Alpha-Omega in Greek - from El to the Cross. The transition from El to Elohiym before the beginning of the world but IN the beginning of the beginning - literally WITHIN it - is actually toid out loud, in a series of sentences. We read the Hebrew words these letters form, and that's fine. But if we read the hieroglyphic sentences that form these words, we see the begetting of the son, the fore indication of the Cross from the beginning, and the breathing out out of the Spirit - and then the hand upon the chaotic waters...which the surface words will go on to tell in the first two verses. Genesis is a fractal, and it's all right there...in the Hebrew pictographs, which is why the LXX is wonderful for being able to match NT Greek words to OT Greek words, so that meaning is conveyed across the language change, but why preserving the Hebrew of the Torah is so vital: the pictographs themselves are full of fractal meaning that can be read as sentences. Were I to be free one day of the obligation to work. I would write out the Bible pictographic sentences in English, at least for the first chapters of Genesis. After that, when it comes to the story of Abraham and onward, the surface words convey the story. But in the very dense creation story, where God had to dictate everything, and where the meanings of words themselves have not yet been defined, the fractal density is...well...it's supernatural. And when you see it, you realize that you are peering into the mind of God.
#102. To: Vicomte13 (#101)
I was a little tongue-in-cheek. The "eternally begotten" phrase seems to beg the question instead of answering it.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestYou can't be pro-life and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-business and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-Israel and pro-Obama. You can't be fiscally conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be socially conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be anything less than full leftist and pro-Obama.
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
Life begins at conception. Anything that says otherwise is a lie.
#17. To: sneakypete, Vicomte13 (#12)
"Life begins at conception. Anything that says otherwise is a lie."
#22. To: A Pole (#17)
But in order to avoid possible homicide Orthodox Church assumes the earliest moment of conception, to err on the side of caution.
#30. To: Vicomte13 (#22)
#34. To: A K A Stone (#30)
The Bible says if you don't work you don't eat. Don already proved it to you but you ignore it.
#35. To: TooConservative (#34)
#38. To: A K A Stone (#35)
God created the family for a reason. To take care of each other.
#42. To: TooConservative, A K A Stone (#38)
2 Thessalonians 3:10
#44. To: Rufus T Firefly, Vicomte13 (#42)
#48. To: TooConservative (#44)
I liked Gill's comments. He is one of the few who ever pay attention to the Ethiopic manuscripts since the rest of Christendom simply pretends they don't exist. Actually, Vic is the only person I've ever noticed who even mentions the Ethiopic canon and manuscripts and my own knowledge of it is limited to Gill's remarks. Gill habitually looks at other ancient manuscripts like the Syriac, the ancient church fathers, etc.
#73. To: Vicomte13 (#48)
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, for its part, is as old as the Apostles, as old as any other Church (see the story of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts), and its canon is the longest, containing several books otherwise lost to history.
I see no basis to reject the books of the Ethiopian Canon. After all, the Greek Orthodox and Latin Catholic canons are not identical, but that never divided the Church and provoked a schism.
#78. To: TooConservative, Vicomte13 (#73)
As I recall it, the Ethiopian Orthodox differ as much in their creedal disagreement with the other churches that are Orthodox or Catholic.
#92. To: A Pole, Vicomte13 (#78)
Ethiopians have the same faith as Copts and Armenians. They derive from those who rejected dogmatic definitions of the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon.
#96. To: TooConservative (#92)
#97. To: Vicomte13 (#96)
If speaking of the very beginning of beforetime, there was the Father, and the Father begat the Son and breathed out the Spirit.
#101. To: TooConservative (#97)
Replies to Comment # 101.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 101.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]