"after three nights and three days I will rise again"
Comments
-
MJ. Smith said:
My casual statistical analysis of this thread does not support your star hypothesis
Quite frankly if u geta star you should be held to a higher standard. The "stars" drive much of the discussion. Can u say post count? Cmon seriously? If the line is crossed its crossed lets not blur the issue.
0 -
Nathan Barnes said:
Quite frankly if u geta star you should be held to a higher standard.
I agree.
Nathan Barnes said:If the line is crossed its crossed lets not blur the issue.
As I'm sure you have noticed in the forums, I'm not one who views the world in black, white or lines drawn in the sand. If I were, my foster kids wouldn't have been teenagers.[:D] Or perhaps I should say that if I did it would terrify me; it would mean I'd settled for belief rather than knowledge.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Nathan Barnes said:
Quite frankly if u geta star you should be held to a higher standard.
That is what has kept me from joining this discussion. I apologize for offending you.
0 -
JRS said:
http://reformedperspectives.org/newfiles/ver_poythress/ver_poythress.Literal.Interpretation.pdf
It's a five minute, thought provoking read ... and well worth it., imho.
Thanks JRS, It is an interesting read. Well done, too. But I must point out it is from "Reformed Perspectives Magazine" and any time someone's theological views (Dispensationalism in this case) are defined by someone who is diametrically opposed to those views (Reformed in this case) there will be those "lines drawn in the sand" that MJ refers to and a color-blind world where there is no room for the rest of us who neither fit into one extreme or the other.
There are, after all, more places to stand in the spectrum. One can be a Christian without being a Dispensationalist or Reformed. Currently in Pre-Pub is this resource: Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters http://www.logos.com/products/prepub/details/6063 . On page 417 of the print copy we find just such a moderate stance held by Desiderius Erasmus :
"..he was quite critical of the allegorization of Origen and other church fathers and set forth the principle of simplicity in exegesis: "in divine literature the simplest and least forced interpretations are more satisfactory." (Erasmus 1974.6). In his last great work, the Ecclesiastac (1535), Erasmus set forth a middle way between literalism and wild allegorization.
In addition to the literal and allegorical sense, the tropological was especially important to Erasmus. Not all of Scripture can be interpreted allegorically , but passages can be accomodated to the moral sense. In fact the moral sense was so significant to him that he permitted a departure from the literal sense of the passage. "provided it is of value for the "good life" and "agrees with the remaining passages of Scripture." (Erasmus 1703-5, V274D).Being neither wholly dispensational nor wholly reformed, some may find themselves standing near Erasmus and I suspect there are even other spots to stand that don't resemble any posted in this thread.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
Thanks JRS, It is an interesting read. Well done, too. But I must point out it is from "Reformed Perspectives Magazine" and any time someone's theological views (Dispensationalism in this case) are defined by someone who is diametrically opposed to those views (Reformed in this case) there will be those "lines drawn in the sand" that MJ refers to and a color-blind world where there is no room for the rest of us who neither fit into one extreme or the other.
Hmmmm ...
If I may, Matthew, I think you are reading too much into the comment and the article link that I posted. That article is actually an extract/chapter from a book that Poythress wrote in the 80's called, Understanding Dispensationalism. And while Dispensationalism is the backdrop, it was not the motive for the reference or the comment. Nor am I trying to promote Poythress (never met him and actually have read very little of his work), or Reformed Theology, or to beat down Dispensationalism (although I will admit to a bit of tweak with respect to my earlier post in response to the citation of John MacArthur's Study Bible note - which I think is, in reality, a very good hermeneutical principle).
By the way, the article is posted on several websites - I just happened to select one called "Reformed Perspectives". There was no subterfuge intended or implied.
The whole point was to show that the term "literal" as thrown around by many [and NOT necessarily exclusively by Dispensationalists], is empty because it has so many different meanings. Many have suggested that it is often used as a sort of a magical incantation or prophylactic against what is feared to be heresy (be it classical liberalism, or the so-called spiritualizing of the amil/postmil crowd, or whomever or whatever). I just happen to think that Poythress did an outstanding job showing that the term "literal" can have any one of several meanings when applied to a phrase or a sentence or an extended passage and, as a result, really should be expunged from from the hermeneutic discussion because of it's ambiguity. Hence, the title, What IS Literal Interpretation? [emph mine] If Walvoord or Ryrie had authored the article and I had found a link to it at the BibSac website, I would have been just as happy to cite it.
My apologies if I was inadvertently misleading you or anyone else.
Instead of Artificial Intelligence, I prefer to continue to rely on Divine Intelligence instructing my Natural Dullness (Ps 32:8, John 16:13a)
0 -
JRS said:
Nor am I trying to promote Poythress (never met him and actually have read very little of his work), or Reformed Theology, or to beat down Dispensationalism
Fair enough. I'm not attacking or promoting Dispensationalism or Reformed theology either. I guess my response proves your point. I was reading it literally. [:^)]
I must admit I have not read all of Erasmus either. My post quoted him from the 16th century and his writings are on many web sites too. [:P] Again, literally. [H]
In a post last year we came to a concensus the term "Evangelical" had lost any useful meaning today because it means so many different things to different people. Could it be the word "literal" is falling upon the same sword? "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." –Bill Clinton, [6]
Now that is being literal! [8-|]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Jesus foretold his death in both ways, so they must be equivalent:
Matthew 16:21 (ESV)
Jesus Foretells His Death and Resurrection
21 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.
Matthew 12:40 (ESV)
40 For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
0 -
EDIT: Post deleted after reading Romans 16:17
This is not a commentary on other posters in the thread.
fyi: I re-examined my purpose in posting and came up wanting.
Thanks for the edit feature!
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
EDIT: Post deleted after reading Romans 16:17
This is not a commentary on other posters in the thread.
fyi: I re-examined my purpose in posting and came up wanting.
Thanks for the edit feature!
Matthew,
I had just finished reading your post via e-mail when I visited the forum thread to discover that you had deleted it. I honor your decision. Thanks for a powerful example of self-accountability.
Blessings,
Bill Coley
0 -
Interesting discussion J
Here’s what I have found after studying this out. I know of
no one within historic Christianity that disputes the fact that Jesus arose on
Sunday morning, the debate is what day He was crucified. Several have argued
whether the prophesy by Jesus was literal or metaphorical, or possibly even an
idiom.After reviewing the discussion it comes down to many trying
to justify that part of Friday is day one; Saturday, day two; and if He arose
sometime Sunday morning – that counts as day three. This explanation presents several serious
problems to me.It has been argued that the Jews did not reckon time the way
we do. The Jewish day ended at sundown (6:00 p.m.) and the new day began at
sunrise (6:00 a.m.). Their Sabbath Day began at sundown Friday (about 6 p.m.)
and ended at sundown Saturday. In Genesis 1:5 after
the first day of creation, ". . . and there was evening and there was
morning, the first day."The word "day" used by itself only refers to a
period of time. The word has to be
modified to specify what period of time it means. For example: Acts 10:40 "but God raised him on the
third day and made him to appear, "
The word day is modified by the word "third" so we know it
refers specifically to only the third day. Acts 20:7 refers to Sunday...the
"first day" of the week. The modifier makes is specific as to the
period of time. Grammatically three days
and three nights means three twenty four hour periods of time.If Jesus had been crucified on Friday and rose anytime after
6 p.m. Saturday (the Jewish Sunday) He could not have been in the tomb
("heart of the earth") three full days and three full nights as He
said He would be. Some have tried to dismiss the importance of Jesus'
statement, but I can’t get past the fact that He said it would be a sign to the
Jews proving He was the Messiah. If He was not actually in the grave three full
days and three full nights there would be no way to authenticate the sign, so
He had to be in the tomb the full time as He stated.In the Jewish way of reckoning time, from Friday at 6 p.m.
to Saturday as 6 p.m. would have only been twenty four hours if Jesus was
buried before 6 p.m. From Saturday at 6
p.m. until Sunday morning at day break would have been a maximum of twelve
hours. That gives a total of only thirty
six hours, not the seventy two hours the Bible records that He was in the
grave. Jesus said He would be in the
grave for seventy two hours and therefore, in my thinking, He could not have
been crucified on Friday.Friday afternoon to Saturday 6 PM = 24 hours. Saturday 6 PM
to Sunday 6 AM = 12 hours. Total 36 hours.
(Not enough time)Dr. Charles Halff, Director of the Christian Jew Foundation,
in writing "The Fallacies of Easter" stated:"Sometimes people ask, 'Didn't the Jews count part of a
day as a whole day or part of a night as a whole night?' Let me say this, beloved. Whenever you have
the expression 'day and night' mentioned together in the Hebrew Scriptures, it
always means a full day and a full night.
. . For instance, if you will turn to Esther 4:16; 5:1; 1 Samuel; 30:12-13,
and of course Jonah
1:17, you will find the expression 'three days and three nights.'
And in every instance it means full days and full nights - not part of a day
and part of a night."From Friday to Sunday is not three 24-hour days. Jesus said he would be resurrected after
three (3) days. (Mark
8:31: " And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must
suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the
scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again." Counting backwards from Sunday three days,
you will not arrive at Friday. Remember, we have to count the way the Jews in
that day did.From Saturday 6 p.m. to Friday 6 p.m. = 1 day; From Friday 6
p.m. to Thursday 6 p.m. = 1 day; From Thursday 6 p.m. to Wednesday 6 p.m. = 1
day. Total 3 days.The question then becomes how could Wednesday be the day
before the Sabbath? The answer lies in the fact that the Jews celebrated more
Sabbaths than just the weekly Sabbath. There were a number of feast days that
were "High Sabbaths," or high days. He arose on the first day of the
week after the Sabbaths* (plural). Sometime after 6 p.m. Saturday, at the end
of the Jewish day. Matthew
28:1 says, "Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the
first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. "
The word Sabbath here is σαββατον which is plural, so the day after the crucifixion was not the
regular (Saturday) Sabbath but a Special ("High" - Greek,
"megas", large) Sabbath. John 19:31 states that
Sabbath day was a high day.The Jews observed several "high" Sabbaths in
obedience to Leviticus
23:3-6. The Feast of the Passover (a high Sabbath) and the Feast of the Unleavened Bread (another high
Sabbath) were celebrated on April 14th and 15th respectively. Sunset initiated
the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. So Nisan 15 was a "high
day", a non Saturday Sabbath. So the
day Jesus died was the preparation day (Wednesday) of the Passover celebration
on Thursday (John
19:14, 31).
Therefore Passover (Nisan
"Aviv" 14 ) was on Thursday, that year, the Feast of Unleavened Bread
began on Friday (seven day feast last to Nisan "Aviv" 21), and the
regular weekday Sabbath was on Saturday.Jesus was crucified in the morning on Wednesday and placed
in the tomb before 6 P.M. He arose from the grave sometime after 6 P.M. on
Saturday, which would be early Sunday morning, the first day of the week,
according to Jewish time-keeping. This
explanation fits Jesus' prophecy in Matthew 12:40 that He would be "three
days and three nights in the heart of the earth."Further proof from Scripture is that the women purchased
spices "after the Sabbath" or the Passover (Nisan "Aviv" 14
- Thursday) which would have been Friday
as Mark 15:42
and Luke 23:52-54
state, since they would not have broken the Law and purchased anything on the
Day of the Passover, or the regular Sabbath on Saturday. Luke 23:56 says they returned and prepared
the spices and "on the Sabbath they rested" which was the regular
Sabbath on Saturday. Then on the first
day of the week, Sunday morning they went to the tomb to prepare the body.This is the only view that fits the biblical account. Jesus
was crucified on Wednesday and buried before 6:00 PM that day. The Jewish day
began at 6:00 PM which was the Passover (Nisan "Aviv" 14). Therefore the Passover began on Wednesday
after 6:00 PM which would actually be Thursday in the Julian calendar. The women brought the spices on Friday,
rested on Saturday and went on Sunday morning after 6:00 AM and found that
Jesus had been resurrected. This series of events is in agreement with Jesus'
statement in Matthew
12:38-40. Jesus was in the grave three full days and three full nights.0 -
Bill Coley said:
Matthew,
I had just finished reading your post via e-mail when I visited the forum thread to discover that you had deleted it. I honor your decision. Thanks for a powerful example of self-accountability.
Blessings,
Bill Coley
Uh Oh. Thank you Bill Sorry you had to read the initial post.
. I just learned another important reason to think twice before posting I never thought of my posts going out to email subcribers...... That is also another argument for using spell-checkers. (I'm notorious at using the edit feature for correcting my two finger typing errors.)
For the sake of everyone who gets email notices from the threads....I will strive to think thrice before posting
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
jwsheets said:
Jesus was crucified in the morning on Wednesday and placed in the tomb before 6 P.M. He arose from the grave sometime after 6 P.M. on Saturday, which would be early Sunday morning, the first day of the week, according to Jewish time-keeping. This explanation fits Jesus' prophecy in Matthew 12:40 that He would be "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
This is the view of my New Testament professor (I casually mentioned in a previous post in this thread.)
jwsheets said:I know of no one within historic Christianity that disputes the fact that Jesus arose on Sunday morning,
Except for Dr. Charles Halff who, as you mention, leaves open the possibility that Jesus arose after 6pm on Saturday (being the beginning of the first day of the Jewish week but the traditional last day in the Western calendar.
EDIT: Last comment deleted due to 3rd party complaint. I neither intended to endorse nor villify your comments.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
jwsheets;
You are absolutely right, Wednesday is the only day that fits with scripture! If you read Exodus 12:1-11, then John10,11 and 12, you will find the "Triumphant Entry" was on a Sabbath, not a Sunday. There are very good clues if you read it close. Also Palm Sunday and good Friday don't fit, Sunday would be Nisan 10 and that would make good Friday Nisan 15, a day late.
Check out what R A Torrey says:
"Difficulties in the Bible"
21
WAS JESUS REALLY THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE HEART OF THE EARTH?
Matthew reports Jesus as saying, "As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale ("sea monster," RV marg.), so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (12:40). According to the commonly accepted tradition of the church Jesus was crucified on Friday, dying at 3:00 p.m., or somewhere between 3:00 p.m. and sundown, and was raised from the dead very early in the morning of the following Sunday. Many readers of the Bible are puzzled to know how the interval between late Friday afternoon and early Sunday morning can be figured out to be three days and three nights. It seems rather to be two nights, one day and a very small portion of another day.
The solution of this apparent difficulty proposed by many commentators is that "a day and a night" is simply another way of saying "a day," and that the ancient Jews reckoned a fraction of a day as a whole day, so they say there was a part of Friday (a very small part), or a day and a night; all of Saturday, another day, or a day and a night; part of Sunday (a very small part), another day, or a day and a night.
There are many persons whom this solution does not altogether satisfy, and the writer confesses it does not satisfy him at all. It seems to him to be a makeshifts very weak makeshift.
Is there any solution that is altogether satisfactory? There is.
The first fact to be noticed in the proper solution is that the Bible nowhere says or implies that Jesus was crucified and died on Friday. It is said that Jesus was crucified on "the day before the sabbath" (Mark 15:42). As the Jewish weekly Sabbath came on Saturday, beginning at Sunset the evening before, the conclusion is naturally drawn that as Jesus was crucified the day before the Sabbath He must have been crucified on Friday. But it is a well-known fact, to which the Bible bears abundant testimony, that the Jews had other Sabbaths beside the weekly Sabbath which fell on Saturday. The first day of Passover week, no matter upon what day of the week it came, was always a Sabbath (Exodus 12:16; Leviticus 23:7; Numbers 28:16–18). The question therefore arises whether the Sabbath that followed Christ’s crucifixion was the weekly Sabbath (Saturday) or the Passover Sabbath, falling on the 15th of Nisan, which came that year on Thursday. Now the Bible does not leave us to speculate in regard to which Sabbath is meant in this instance, for John tells us in so many words, in John 19:14, that the day on which Jesus was tried and crucified was "the preparation of the Passover" (RV), that is, it was not the day before the weekly Sabbath (Friday) but it was the day before the Passover Sabbath, which came that year on Thursday. That is to say, the day on which Jesus Christ was crucified was Wednesday. John makes this as clear as day.
The gospel of John was written later than the other gospels, and scholars have for a long time noticed that in various places there was an evident intention to correct false impressions that one might get from reading the other gospels. One of these false impressions was that Jesus ate the Passover with His disciples at the regular time of the Passover. To correct this false impression John clearly states that He ate it the evening before, and that He himself died on the cross at the very moment the Passover lambs were being slain "between the two evenings" on the 14th of Nisan (Exodus 12:6, Hebrew; cf. RV marg.). God’s real Paschal Lamb, Jesus, of whom all other Paschal lambs offered through the centuries were only types, was therefore slain at the very time appointed of God.
Everything about the Passover lamb was fulfilled in Jesus. (1) He was the Lamb without blemish and without spot (Exodus 12:5). (2) He was chosen on the 10th of Nisan (Exodus 12:3), for it was on the tenth day of the month, the preceding Saturday, that the triumphal entry into Jerusalem was made, since they came from Jericho to Bethany six days before the Passover (John 12:1—that would be six days before Thursday, which would be Friday); and it was on the next day that entry into Jerusalem was made (John 12:12 ff.), that is, on Saturday, the 10th of Nisan. It was also on this same day that Judas went to the chief priests and offered to betray Jesus for thirty pieces of silver (Matthew 26:6–16; Mark 14:3–11). As it was after the supper in the house of Simon the leper, and as the supper occurred late on Friday, that is, after sunset, or early on Saturday, "after" the supper would necessarily be on the 10th of Nisan. This being the price set on Him by the chief priests, it was the buying or taking to them of a lamb which according to law must occur on the 10th of Nisan. Furthermore, they put the exact value on the lamb that Old Testament prophecy predicted (Matthew 26:15; cf. Zechariah 11:12). (3) Not a bone of Him was broken when He was killed (John 19:36; cf. Exodus 12:46; Numbers 9:12; Psalm 34:20). (4) And He was killed on the 14th of Nisan between the evenings, just before the beginning of the 15th of Nisan at sundown (Exodus 12:6, RV marg.).
If we take just exactly what the Bible says, that Jesus was slain before the Passover Sabbath, the type is marvelously fulfilled in every detail; but if we accept the traditional theory that Jesus was crucified on Friday, the type fails at many points.
Furthermore, if we accept the traditional view that Jesus was crucified on Friday and ate the Passover on the regular day of the Passover, then the journey from Jericho to Bethany, which occurred six days before the Passover (John 12:1), would fall on a Saturday, that is, the Jewish Sabbath. Such a journey on the Jewish Sabbath would be contrary to the Jewish law. Of course it was impossible for Jesus to take such a journey on the Jewish Sabbath. In reality His triumphal entry into Jerusalem was on the Jewish Sabbath, Saturday. This was altogether possible, for the Bible elsewhere tells us that Bethany was a Sabbath day’s journey from Jerusalem (Acts 1:12; cf. Luke 24:50).
It has been figured out by the astronomers that in the year 30 A.D., which is the commonly accepted year of the crucifixion of our Lord, the Passover was kept on Thursday, April 6, the moon being full that day. The chronologists who have supposed that the crucifixion took place on Friday have been greatly perplexed by this fact that in the year 30 A.D., the Passover occurred on Thursday. One writer in seeking a solution of the difficulty suggests that the crucifixion may have been in the year 33 A.D., for although the full moon was on a Thursday that year also, yet as it was within two and half hours of Friday, he thinks that perhaps the Jews may have kept it that day. But when we accept exactly what the Bible says, namely, that Jesus was not crucified on the Passover day but on "the preparation of the Passover," and that He was to be three days and three nights in the grave, and as "the preparation of the Passover" that year would be Wednesday and His resurrection early on the first day of the week, this allows exactly three days and three nights in the grave.
To sum it all up, Jesus died about sunset on Wednesday. Seventy-two hours later, exactly three days and three nights, at the beginning of the first day of the week (Saturday at sunset), He arose again from the grave. When the women visited the tomb just before dawn the next morning, they found the grave already empty. So we are not driven to any such makeshift solution as that any small portion of a day is reckoned as a whole day and night, but we find that the statement of Jesus was literally true. Three days and three nights His body was dead and lay in the sepulcher. While His body lay dead, He Himself, being quickened in the spirit (1 Peter 3:18), went into the heart of the earth and preached to the spirits which were in prison (1 Peter 3:19).
This supposed difficulty solves itself, as do so many other difficulties in the Bible, when we take the Bible as meaning exactly what it says.
It is sometimes objected against the view here advanced that the two on the way to Emmaus early on the first day of the week (that is, Sunday) said to Jesus in speaking of the crucifixion and events accompanying it, "Besides all this, today is the third day since these things were done" (Luke 24:21); and it is said that if the crucifixion took place on Wednesday, Sunday would be the fourth day since these things were done. But the answer is very simple. These things were done just as Thursday was beginning at sunset on Wednesday. They were therefore completed on Thursday, and the first day since Thursday would be Friday, the second day since Thursday would be Saturday, and "the third day since" Thursday would be Sunday, the first day of the week. So the supposed objection in reality supports the theory. On the other hand, if the crucifixion took place on Friday, by no manner of reckoning could Sunday be made "the third day since" these things were done.
There are many passages in Scripture that support the theory advanced above and make it necessary to believe that Jesus died late on Wednesday. Some of them are as follows: "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40). "This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days" (Matthew 26:61). "Thou that destroyest the temple and buildest it in three days, save thyself" (Matthew 27:40). "Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again" (Matthew 27:63). "The Son of man must suffer many things, and be killed, and after three days rise again" (Mark 8:31). "They shall kill him, and when he is killed, after three days he shall rise again" (Mark 9:31, RV). "They shall scourge him, and shall kill him, and after three days he shall rise again" (Mark 10:34, RV) "Destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands" (Mark 14:58, RV). "Ah, thou that destroyest the temple and buildest it in three days, save thyself!" (Mark 15:29). "Besides all this, today is the third day since these things were done" (Luke 24:21). "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou raise it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said" (John 2:19–22).
There is absolutely nothing in favor of Friday crucifixion, but everything in the Scripture is perfectly harmonized by Wednesday crucifixion. It is remarkable how many prophetical and typical passages of the Old Testament are fulfilled and how many seeming discrepancies in the gospel narratives are straightened out when we once come to understand that Jesus died on Wednesday and not on Friday.
need more proof I have 2 youtube videos out there, even explains Luke 24:21
0 -
You realize that you responded to a thread dead for 4 years! And do read the forum guidelines re: theology as we now have christiandiscourse.com for this sort of post - something we did not have 4 years ago.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ
Yesterday I did a google search on "in a Hebrew mind set what does 3 days and 3 nights mean" ,and this was one of the links. The only way I know to reply on this to get it in the google link is to reply in Logos forum. I actually copied and pasted out of a resourse in my Logos software program.
So going to "Christian discoarse" wouldn't have gotten the same result.
Is that wrong?
0 -
wrong no ... but the forum guidelines ask us to stay away from interpretation and theology and stick to software in the forums ...interpretation and theology belong on christiandiscourse.com which Faithlife provides for that purpose. And as a general rule one doesn't resurrect old thread ...
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0
