Help Needed Making a Decision

Dear Logos family,

My academic discount runs out in the next few weeks, and I'm considering using it make a purchase on a more expensive product. My two choices are Learn to use Biblical Greek & Hebrew, or the Early Church Fathers.

I'm thinking about Learn To Use because I've done one year of Biblical Greek but forgotten most of it already, and I'd really like to be able to make more use of it.

I'm thinking about Early Church Fathers because I know that it is a rich and valuable source of historical theology.

Out of those two, which, in your opinion and/or experience, do you think would be most profitable?!

Go...!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Fabrice

Hey Richard,

I've made a post asking about the Learn Greek and Hebrew with Logos software. Actually I'm not that convinced it's worth the money (even with the Academic discount) for the reason that there are only videos showing how to use the Logos software focusing on the languages. But no real lessons as a professor would teach in college. I'm personally still hesitating getting this product. I do have NT Greek and will follow Hebrew course next year so I wonder if this will add consequent knowledge to it. That's why I'm hesitating. Well, I think we can trust Logos that it's worth the price.

I'd be more certain about the early Church Fathers collection. They are real resources we know are worth the price.

Also, without the academic discount, the Church Fathers collection will maybe be more suitable to special savings later on in the year. I imagine Logos will never offer any special savings on the Greek and Hebrew lessons. In that sense, it's maybe better to get the Greek and Hebrew lessons with the academic discount.

Todd Phillips

I'm thinking about Early Church Fathers because I know that it is a rich and valuable source of historical theology.

ECF is included in Scholars Silver. Check your upgrade price to that level. It may be a better buy to move to Silver.

Evan Boardman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324027#Comment_324027

Better yet get more for your money.......http://www.logos.com/product/13201/catholic-scripture-study-library

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324027#Comment_324027

I'm thinking about Early Church Fathers because I know that it is a rich and valuable source of historical theology.

ECF is included in Scholars Silver. Check your upgrade price to that level. It may be a better buy to move to Silver.

Scholar's Silver also includes "Cascadia Syntax Graphs of the New Testament" that is shown while talking about 4 words in accusative case in simple apposition (one sentence had 4 objects).

In April 2011, Logos offered a sale price for => Learn to Use Biblical Greek and Hebrew with Logos Bible Software see thread => Best Bargain in Facebook Sale?

By the way, reply => http://community.logos.com/forums/p/29725/220079.aspx#220079 has Hebrew resource links along with inclusion in various base packages; that thread => Learning Biblical Greek and Hebrew has several opinions about Logos videos.

Keep Smiling [:)]

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324046#Comment_324046

Better yet get more for your money.......http://www.logos.com/product/13201/catholic-scripture-study-library

Depends on base package, => Catholic Library Builder (238 vols.) may be more attractive since has Early Church Fathers, but does not have as many original language resources as other Logos base packages. The Early Church Fathers (Protestant Edition) in Scholar's Silver has more footnotes => http://community.logos.com/forums/p/14141/108653.aspx#108653

Scholar's Platinum includes Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of HistoricalResearch

Edit: another Greek bundle to consider is => Greek New Testament Discourse Bundle (9 vols.) that has a corresponding video => Introducing New Testament Discourse Grammar: Video Series

Hebrew Discourse bundle is a pre-pub gathering interest => Lexham Discourse Hebrew Bible Bundle (6 vols.)

Keep Smiling [:)]

Evan Boardman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324056#Comment_324056

Plus if you have an interest in the Fathers you might be interested to bid on this before Friday noon( we are almost to $70) http://www.logos.com/product/15152/the-medieval-preaching-and-spirituality-collection

Jose Martinez

Hi Richard,

I bought the Learn to Use a couple of months ago and I am now taking an intensive greek at seminary. Now I am sincerely enjoying the videos since they make a lot more sense to me than before. They really show how to set up Logos to be able to maximize the greek studies. My initial bundle has the early fathers but I havent use them very much. In a nutshell, my suggestion is to get the videos if you really are planning to commit to greek study of the NT. If not, you can always use the standard tools and help to do some basic greek analysis.

Hope this helps.

Jose Martinez

William

Although the video series is good.....I personally would go with the early church fathers. I guess the reason why I say that.....is ECF is a book. If logos ever decides to do more with language stuff...this video product might become obselete....There is really no way to get another ECF....The Fathers have came, saw, and conquered.

Just my .02

William

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324046#Comment_324046

Better yet get more for your money.......http://www.logos.com/product/13201/catholic-scripture-study-library

Well, you get more for your money while getting less for your money. The Church Fathers is the Catholic Edition (anyone surprised?) which is the same as the Protestant Edition with some notes left out. I'm always suspicious when they start doing that. I would recommend that you get the Protestant Edition and be your own censor.

As regards a choice between the two resources originally mentioned, I would get the Church Fathers and add Greek resources. One year of Greek really isn't much. What you need is a reading program in which you read a variety of Greek works. Include various books of the NT and also the LXX, Philo, Josephus and the classical Greek writers in the Perseus collection. The more you read the better your Greek will become. Be sure to get BDAG and LSJ (Lust can sometimes be helpful too). When you look up a word in the lexicon, really devour the article. Look at the passages cited and see why one understanding of the word is to be preferred over another. Don't simply look through the glosses until you find one that you like.

David Carter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324299#Comment_324299

Lust can sometimes be helpful too

I always thought lust was a sin. It certainly is in the Catholic edition [:D][:D]

Evan Boardman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324299#Comment_324299

The Church Fathers is the Catholic Edition (anyone surprised?) which is the same as the Protestant Edition with some notes left out.

Not with a debating spirit, but one helpful to Richard: The notes would be nice but if you was to buy just the Father and the works of Aquinas separately it would come to about around the same cost if you bought the Catholic Package. With all the extras I would gladly go without the added notes.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324565#Comment_324565

The Church Fathers is the Catholic Edition (anyone surprised?) which is the same as the Protestant Edition with some notes left out.

Not with a debating spirit, but one helpful to Richard: The notes would be nice but if you was to buy just the Father and the works of Aquinas separately it would come to about around the same cost if you bought the Catholic Package. With all the extras I would gladly go without the added notes.

Comment deleted. See comment in other post.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324537#Comment_324537

Lust can sometimes be helpful too

I always thought lust was a sin. It certainly is in the Catholic edition

Even Jimmy Carter confessed to committing adultery in his heart. [:D] [:D]

David Carter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324591#Comment_324591

Lust can sometimes be helpful too

I always thought lust was a sin. It certainly is in the Catholic edition

Even Jimmy Carter confessed to committing adultery in his heart.

I would like to clarify that although we share the same surname and reside in the same state, the former President and I are not related [:D]

David Paul

Out of those two, which, in your opinion and/or experience, do you think would be most profitable?!

Go...!

Nothing trumps original language knowledge. I don't think the EFC is worth the sand it's written on. I use it for examples of faulty logic. Better to draw your own conclusions than depend on the conclusions of others.

Of course, critically important is coming to a right conclusion.

Evan Boardman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324618#Comment_324618

I don't think the EFC is worth the sand it's written on

So you dont think Church history is important?

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324618#Comment_324618

Out of those two, which, in your opinion and/or experience, do you think would be most profitable?!

Go...!

Nothing trumps original language knowledge. I don't think the EFC is worth the sand it's written on. I use it for examples of faulty logic. Better to draw your own conclusions than depend on the conclusions of others.

Of course, critically important is coming to a right conclusion.

And you think that your understanding of the message of the gospel trumps that of everyone who has ever preceeded you. What chutzpah!

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324619#Comment_324619

I don't think the EFC is worth the sand it's written on

So you dont think Church history is important?

No, I don't.

The Bible is important. Reading it in original languages is needful.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324631#Comment_324631

And you think that your understanding of the message of the gospel trumps that of everyone who has ever preceeded you. What chutzpah!

I prefer the term "vision".

One day, you will understand exactly why I say so, though you may never agree.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324537#Comment_324537

Lust can sometimes be helpful too

I always thought lust was a sin. It certainly is in the Catholic edition

Not when it results in children, I believe. [:D][:D][:D]

The Church Fathers is the Catholic Edition (anyone surprised?) which is the same as the Protestant Edition with some notes left out. I'm always suspicious when they start doing that.

If they'd edited the texts of the Fathers themselves, I'd agree with you, but here I get the impression -- correct me if I'm wrong; I haven't personally studied the differences -- that it's rather the other way around: the Protestant editor couldn't accept how Catholic these texts are, so he had to insert notes to explain it away. The Catholic editor then removed those and let the text speak for itself. (Something I think you usually applaud.)

As an edition of Schaff, the text is, of course, mutilated; as an edition of the early Church Fathers, I haven't heard anything that indicates that it is (except, naturally, in the choice of works to include).

I vote for the ECF or a package that includes it. The DVD you can always try to borrow or hire, or you can look for it second hand, and then sell it again afterwards.

Oldnewbie

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324631#Comment_324631

George,

In a previous thread you expressed what seemed like a similar sentiment regarding original languages having priority but I believe that was regarding older devotional commentaries (e.g. Harry Ironside). Am I getting that right?

David Paul,

Are you saying that even the Ante-Nicene Fathers have little or no value for you? Is that because they are primarily Gentile writers? Please do not take my comments as anything other than a question regarding your comment. I simply wish to know how you came to that conclusion.

Oldnewbie

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324708#Comment_324708

Lust can sometimes be helpful too

I always thought lust was a sin. It certainly is in the Catholic edition

Not when it results in children, I believe.

The Church Fathers is the Catholic Edition (anyone surprised?) which is the same as the Protestant Edition with some notes left out. I'm always suspicious when they start doing that.

If they'd edited the texts of the Fathers themselves, I'd agree with you, but here I get the impression -- correct me if I'm wrong; I haven't personally studied the differences -- that it's rather the other way around: the Protestant editor couldn't accept how Catholic these texts are, so he had to insert notes to explain it away. The Catholic editor then removed those and let the text speak for itself. (Something I think you usually applaud.)

As an edition of Schaff, the text is, of course, mutilated; as an edition of the early Church Fathers, I haven't heard anything that indicates that it is (except, naturally, in the choice of works to include).

I vote for the ECF or a package that includes it. The DVD you can always try to borrow or hire, or you can look for it second hand, and then sell it again afterwards.

I thought the Logos site says that the Catholic version is the same as the Protestant version "without the front matter". Here is the quote from the Catholic ECF page:

"The Early Church Fathers comes in two versions, Protestant and Catholic. Simply put, the difference is that the Protestant edition contains additional front matter written at a later date. There is no difference in the actual ECF text."

That would seem to indicate that the Protestant version came later. Also, are you saying that Schaff's translation is bad or that any translation wouldn't do the texts justice?

Friedrich

Dear Logos family,

My academic discount runs out in the next few weeks, and I'm considering using it make a purchase on a more expensive product. My two choices are Learn to use Biblical Greek & Hebrew, or the Early Church Fathers.

I'm thinking about Learn To Use because I've done one year of Biblical Greek but forgotten most of it already, and I'd really like to be able to make more use of it.

I'm thinking about Early Church Fathers because I know that it is a rich and valuable source of historical theology.

Out of those two, which, in your opinion and/or experience, do you think would be most profitable?!

Go...!

wow, richard . . . I have both. I suppose I have used ECF more. I got the videos, back when there were some quality control issues, and never picked them back up again. (I need and WANT to!). Whereas I have often referred to the ECF when studying passages. (and I sure love how it works off of Catena Aurea and ACC series).

That said, being able to really use Greek is a life long tool/resource for you, that you can build on. If you have the desire, that may be the place to start. And, who knows, maybe you'll be able to acquire the ECF in one of the several ways you have mentioned through a windfall of cash . . .

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324727#Comment_324727

That would seem to indicate that the Protestant version came later. Also, are you saying that Schaff's translation is bad or that any translation wouldn't do the texts justice?

As I understand it, it's the same translation. The Catholic edition = the Protestant edition - some introductory stuff and some notes.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324717#Comment_324717

George,

In a previous thread you expressed what seemed like a similar sentiment regarding original languages having priority but I believe that was regarding older devotional commentaries (e.g. Harry Ironside). Am I getting that right?

I don't recall specifically what I may have said in connection with Ironside, but my favoring of the original language texts is well-known. This does not mean, however, that I should not consider the views of others in Church history. If I begin to think that I am the only one who can properly interpret the original language texts, I then arrogate too much authority to myself. I may not always agree with their interpretation, but I should always consider it and detail where and why I disagree.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324727#Comment_324727

"The Early Church Fathers comes in two versions, Protestant and Catholic. Simply put, the difference is that the Protestant edition contains additional front matter written at a later date. There is no difference in the actual ECF text."

That would seem to indicate that the Protestant version came later. Also, are you saying that Schaff's translation is bad or that any translation wouldn't do the texts justice?

That is not what a former Logos employee told me when I asked so I would require some documentation regarding that. Since those translating the texts were themselves Protestants, I suspect that the Protestant edition was first.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324743#Comment_324743

That is not what a former Logos employee told me when I asked so I would require some documentation regarding that. Since those translating the texts were themselves Protestants, I suspect that the Protestant edition was first.

I interpret "written at a later date" as "later than Patristic times", not "later than the Catholic edition".

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324749#Comment_324749

I interpret "written at a later date" as "later than Patristic times", not "later than the Catholic edition".

That doesn't make any sense to me since any introduction written by a translator will be later than patristic times.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324708#Comment_324708

Lust can sometimes be helpful too

I always thought lust was a sin. It certainly is in the Catholic edition

Not when it results in children, I believe.

That gives me a new answer for strangers who ask if I am Catholic or Mormon......I'll just tell them I am a Baptist with a lust problem. [:D] [:D] [:D] [:D]

fyi: My wife and I are Baptist and we have thirteen children. No offense intended for anyone else.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324758#Comment_324758

I interpret "written at a later date" as "later than Patristic times", not "later than the Catholic edition".

That doesn't make any sense to me since any introduction written by a translator will be later than patristic times.

Yes, but look at that sentence again: "the Protestant edition contains additional front matter written at a later date". "Additional front matter" doesn't necessarily mean an "introduction written by a translator", does it? I'm guessing that without the "written at a later date" some would have interpreted that to mean that the Protestant edition contains additional Patristic material at the front. Remember that the majority of Logos users are Evangelicals who've hardly even heard about the early Church Fathers -- or any Church Fathers for that matter.

But my interpretation may of course be wrong.

Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324844#Comment_324844

I interpret "written at a later date" as "later than Patristic times", not "later than the Catholic edition".

That doesn't make any sense to me since any introduction written by a translator will be later than patristic times.

Yes, but look at that sentence again: "the Protestant edition contains additional front matter written at a later date". "Additional front matter" doesn't necessarily mean an "introduction written by a translator", does it? I'm guessing that without the "written at a later date" some would have interpreted that to mean that the Protestant edition contains additional Patristic material at the front. Remember that the majority of Logos users are Evangelicals who've hardly even heard about the early Church Fathers -- or any Church Fathers for that matter.

But my interpretation may of course be wrong.

That is simply not true. You have used a fallacy of logic to make a point - hyperbole. I know a many of Protestants and Evangelicals who are familiar with the Church Fathers. Please feel free to state opinions but don't use brush strokes to paint a group of believers a color they don't deserve.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324844#Comment_324844

Remember that the majority of Logos users are Evangelicals who've hardly even heard about the early Church Fathers -- or any Church Fathers for that matter.

If they've ever read Calvin, they know about the Church Fathers.

Oldnewbie

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324740#Comment_324740

George,

In a previous thread you expressed what seemed like a similar sentiment regarding original languages having priority but I believe that was regarding older devotional commentaries (e.g. Harry Ironside). Am I getting that right?

I don't recall specifically what I may have said in connection with Ironside, but my favoring of the original language texts is well-known. This does not mean, however, that I should not consider the views of others in Church history. If I begin to think that I am the only one who can properly interpret the original language texts, I then arrogate too much authority to myself. I may not always agree with their interpretation, but I should always consider it and detail where and why I disagree.

Thanks, George, that''s what I thought. I believe it was on a thread regarding trying to get some movement on Patrologia. Glad to see they finally moved it to CP.

erik sietsema

I'm not gonna wade through the full set of discussion posts... so if I repeat please forgive me. I have the early church fathers through my logos base package and would argue for the base package as the best way to acquire these resources. That having been said, it all depends on what you plan on using it for. I preach and am a student and have found the fathers to be a less than stellar resource for this purpose. I have used them in papers, but I am guessing with your academic discount ending you won't be writing papers much longer. In regards to the fathers as a preaching resource, i am not crazy about them. They are not that useful. A good commentary set is far more valuable to a guy doing weekly sermons. Though this may be a point of disagreement for some, The Greek videos may be quite valuable but I have found that the wiki site and the home made instructional videos have really filled in the gap for me on how to use the language tools. If given the choice I vote for the fathers, but I'd broaden my consideration based on what you will be doing with the resources.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324902#Comment_324902

I'm not gonna wade through the full set of discussion posts... so if I repeat please forgive me. I have the early church fathers through my logos base package and would argue for the base package as the best way to acquire these resources. That having been said, it all depends on what you plan on using it for. I preach and am a student and have found the fathers to be a less than stellar resource for this purpose. I have used them in papers, but I am guessing with your academic discount ending you won't be writing papers much longer. In regards to the fathers as a preaching resource, i am not crazy about them. They are not that useful. A good commentary set is far more valuable to a guy doing weekly sermons. Though this may be a point of disagreement for some, The Greek videos may be quite valuable but I have found that the wiki site and the home made instructional videos have really filled in the gap for me on how to use the language tools. If given the choice I vote for the fathers, but I'd broaden my consideration based on what you will be doing with the resources.

[Y] What he said. [:D]

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324717#Comment_324717

David Paul,

Are you saying that even the Ante-Nicene Fathers have little or no value for you?

Yes.

Is that because they are primarily Gentile writers?

In this sense, Lk. 21:24 -- Yes.

Please do not take my comments as anything other than a question regarding your comment. I simply wish to know how you came to that conclusion.

This is a delicate topic, and not so much because of the forum guidelines, but for much bigger reasons. Basically, to put it in the smallest nutshell I can, I believe that the history of the Church (and you are free to interpret that as broadly as you like) is also the history of the strong delusion (i.e. working of error) of 2 Thes. 2. That is precisely why it is A STRONG DELUSION...virtually the entire history of the church is under that spell...which Amos called the "famine of the word" (Am. 8:11).

I really can't say more, because it just isn't time yet. But I will say that no one that I have shared this info with, many of whom were not predisposed to believing it, has, after hearing it, made any attempt to challenge the above statement. These are people as bright and open-minded (and closed-minded) as anyone on this forum. Some have been persuaded, others have said they see it but don't want to hear more of it, and the person who put up the biggest resistance later came up to me and said, "You know, if you're right..."

Literally, all 66 books back up this assertion. Let me put it to you this way--the fact it can't generally be seen doesn't mean it isn't there. The keys to prophecy are in the Hebrew. One key, once procured, causes the next lock to become visible. Daniel is sealed, and yet the whole book is right there in front of you. The whole book of the Bible is that way. It's precisely why Yeishuu`a spoke in parables, why the prophets spoke in riddles, and why Jeremiah says "YHWH, you have deceived me and I was deceived." It is why Prov. 25:2 says "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter (lit. word), and the glory of kings to search out a matter (word)." It's why Messiah says what He says in Mt. 13:13-17. People read that, get to Mt. 13:16, and assume that v.16 applies to them, immediately forgetting (sound familiar?) that they just finished reading Mt. 13:14-15 (Isa. 6:9-10) too. His words apply all the moreso to the Church as they did to Israel.

People think that the Anti-Messiah is the enemy of YHWH. That is true in only the least important way. The Anti-Messiah is chosen by YHWH to do what he does because he is the punishment for disobedience.

Why? Because the Church does not value what YHWH values, in EXACTLY the same way Israel didn't value what He values. The Church is guilty of EXACTLY the same thing Israel was guilty of. I can't and won't say more on these forums.

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324917#Comment_324917

If the Church is being supernaturally deluded how can you find it guilty?

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324920#Comment_324920

The book explains that...read it with a willingness to see.

I, of course, know you meant "He" rather than "you". It isn't my call.

Ok, I'll give you a hint...2 Thes. 2:10-12.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324917#Comment_324917

This is a delicate topic, and not so much because of the forum guidelines, but for much bigger reasons. Basically, to put it in the smallest nutshell I can, I believe that the history of the Church (and you are free to interpret that as broadly as you like) is also the history of the strong delusion (i.e. working of error) of 2 Thes. 2. That is precisely why it is A STRONG DELUSION...virtually the entire history of the church is under that spell...which Amos called the "famine of the word".

I really can't say more, because it just isn't time yet.

Break out the tinfoil hats.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324924#Comment_324924

This is a delicate topic, and not so much because of the forum guidelines, but for much bigger reasons. Basically, to put it in the smallest nutshell I can, I believe that the history of the Church (and you are free to interpret that as broadly as you like) is also the history of the strong delusion (i.e. working of error) of 2 Thes. 2. That is precisely why it is A STRONG DELUSION...virtually the entire history of the church is under that spell...which Amos called the "famine of the word".

I really can't say more, because it just isn't time yet.

Break out the tinfoil hats.

LOL. I'm sure you can do better than that, George.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324925#Comment_324925

Tinfoil hats! [:D] LOLOLOL I love that. My sides are hurting. LOLOL

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324927#Comment_324927

Thanks, George. I'll always remember that the first stone was tinfoil hat!! LOLOLOL

Oldnewbie

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324917#Comment_324917

David Paul,

Are you saying that even the Ante-Nicene Fathers have little or no value for you?

Yes.

Is that because they are primarily Gentile writers?

In this sense, Lk. 21:24 -- Yes.

Please do not take my comments as anything other than a question regarding your comment. I simply wish to know how you came to that conclusion.

This is a delicate topic, and not so much because of the forum guidelines, but for much bigger reasons. Basically, to put it in the smallest nutshell I can, I believe that the history of the Church (and you are free to interpret that as broadly as you like) is also the history of the strong delusion (i.e. working of error) of 2 Thes. 2. That is precisely why it is A STRONG DELUSION...virtually the entire history of the church is under that spell...which Amos called the "famine of the word" (Am. 8:11).

I really can't say more, because it just isn't time yet. But I will say that no one that I have shared this info with, many of whom were not predisposed to believing it, has, after hearing it, made any attempt to challenge the above statement. These are people as bright and open-minded (and closed-minded) as anyone on this forum. Some have been persuaded, others have said they see it but don't want to hear more of it, and the person who put up the biggest resistance later came up to me and said, "You know, if you're right..."

Literally, all 66 books back up this assertion. Let me put it to you this way--the fact it can't generally be seen doesn't mean it isn't there. The keys to prophecy are in the Hebrew. One key, once procured, causes the next lock to become visible. Daniel is sealed, and yet the whole book is right there in front of you. The whole book of the Bible is that way. It's precisely why Yeishuu`a spoke in parables, why the prophets spoke in riddles, and why Jeremiah says "YHWH, you have deceived me and I was deceived." It is why Prov. 25:2 says "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter (lit. word), and the glory of kings to search out a matter (word)." It's why Messiah says what He says in Mt. 13:13-17. People read that, get to Mt. 13:16, and assume that v.16 applies to them, immediately forgetting (sound familiar?) that they just finished reading Mt. 13:14-15 (Isa. 6:9-10) too. His words apply all the moreso to the Church as they did to Israel.

People think that the Anti-Messiah is the enemy of YHWH. That is true in only the least important way. The Anti-Messiah is chosen by YHWH to do what he does because he is the punishment for disobedience.

Why? Because the Church does not value what YHWH values, in EXACTLY the same way Israel didn't value what He values. The Church is guilty of EXACTLY the same thing Israel was guilty of. I can't and won't say more on these forums.

Thanks, David. Please accept my apology if answering my question causes any problems regarding forum guidelines. I spoke to a Jewish believer some time ago who expressed some of the same sentiments but not as comprehensively. I extend my apology to all on the forum if this exchange offended anyone. It was not my intention in any way.

Evan Boardman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/325280#Comment_325280

David

The Church is guilty of EXACTLY the same thing Israel was guilty of.

I agree but does that mean theirs no good to be found in the Fathers? I believe It was you (correct me if Im wrong) was one who would like to see the classic commentary on Revelation go thru...I bet you more than one of those commentaries will quote Augustine.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/325283#Comment_325283

David
The Church is guilty of EXACTLY the same thing Israel was guilty of.

I agree but does that mean theirs no good to be found in the Fathers? I believe It was you (correct me if Im wrong) was one who would like to see the classic commentary on Revelation go thru...I bet you more than one of those commentaries will quote Augustine.

I am not saying I never, ever read the ECFs, ante or post. I'm not saying Augustine is incapable of speaking a truth occasionally. The proverbial broken clock is right twice a day. My comments, in response to the OP's request for input, were that orginal languages acquisition is of INFINITELY more importance than what the old, dead guys said 1500-2000 years ago...not the least reason being that the gross majority of what they say is false and wrong.

That said, I do read commentaries. But like I said, I read those I disagree with all the time, primarily in order to test and confirm my conclusion that they are indeed mistaken. My current conclusions are not set in stone--if I found something in the ECFs, or a more contemporary commentary, that contradicted my understanding with undeniable truth, I would indeed force myself to adjust my understanding. At this point, though, I am rarely called on to do more than tweak a given issue. For the most part, I read commentaries searching for the most representative, iconic (pun intended), and flagrant un-Biblical statements contained within them. It isn't a difficult task.

My concern is that folks think there is some greater wisdom in the ECFs that is substantially worthy of extended study. That is simply false, and any amount of time spent in them is time that would be far, far, far better spent learning primarily Hebrew, and also Greek.

Let me put it another way. Wisdom can be earned through the painful experience of sin, but sinning to gain wisdom is foolishness. Significant time studying the ECFs is time that can be better spent in more profitable pursuits.

Let me add, because it would be remiss of me not to do so, that I do occasionally find things in commentaries that are valuable which I had never considered before. I do see value in getting plenty of input, even if most of it ends up in the round file. A nugget of truth, wherever it is acquired, is still a nugget of truth.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/325309#Comment_325309

Here is what I was told by a scholar (that is somebody a lot smarter and studious than me [*-)] .)

Philip Schaff translated the set we call the Early Church Fathers into English. Schaff did not complete ALL material that could be called Patristic writings. He did not complete but a fraction of what he deemed the major league players.

Schaff was a protestant familiar with church history, creeds and major shifts of doctrine. Philip Schaff added notes to the English translation he had done. His notes were necessarily Protestant. Catholic readers prefer to read only what the Church Fathers wrote and politely give a pass on Schaff's notes. Therefore the Catholic Version of ECF is "just the facts, Ma'am" as Sgt. Joe Friday would say. Whereas the Protestant edition is the Monday Night Football color-commentary edition. (pardon my liberal TV descriptions.)

The end result is no matter which "version" of the ECF you read in English, you will get the same content. You can go back to the originals like Schaff started with and see if he did a good job or not.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/325322#Comment_325322

In consideration of your general comments here, I draw attention to this CP offering.

I do, however, strongly recommend learning Hebrew and Greek above acquiring this resource. Of course, probably only someone familiar with Greek would get this resource.

J.R. Woods

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324056#Comment_324056

Greek New Testament Discourse Bundle (9 vols.)

This really has been the greatest blessing for me as a Greek NT student. Understanding how the authors intended their Greek to function

in a social discourse context not only helped me understand the people who used it, but also works the best way in my experience to communicate the text

to others today (e.g., preaching it). In terms of applicability with the Greek NT, understanding the discourse Grammar has had the greatest level

of return for me. I'm sure others could chime in as well.

erik sietsema

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/324924#Comment_324924

Tin foil hats, bendy straws and duct tape