Timeline for Was the word ἐπιούσιον used prior to the Lord's prayer? What does it mean?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 5, 2013 at 15:07 | comment | added | user1985 | But I not have time to explain. I did not even explain in my answer, it was edited with that. I agree mostly, but I think you are limiting sacrament to special things not everything. God is everywhere present and fillest all things. | |
| Mar 5, 2013 at 15:03 | comment | added | user1985 | Everything is sacramental in Orthodox, not just water, wine and bread. Because we believe matter is sacred, we not pagan dualists like most evangelical. | |
| Mar 1, 2013 at 17:21 | comment | added | swasheck | Additionally, this is quite the ad hominem don't you think? "Most evangelicals assert that it simply means "daily" and thus avoid the sacramental and eschatological language concerning the 'nature/essence' of the bread ..." I'd ask you to do a better job explaining this please. Are you saying that the Orthodox perspective is that ever meal is sacrament, or are you saying that this prayer is only for Eucharist? Before you attack/accuse my questions, I'd like you to know that either is fine with me, I'm just asking the context from which you are asking these questions. | |
| Mar 1, 2013 at 17:17 | comment | added | swasheck | @theosis I think you'd find that actual Evangelical scholars would not approve of such a dichotomy. I'd happily stand corrected if you could cite your sources and not your straw men. Please be more careful about not flippantly bandying about such accusations. | |
| Feb 28, 2013 at 23:56 | comment | added | user1985 | Yes this is what I meant, but why waste time explaining all that? Good for you. If they just read their own history they would know this. I have no interest in explaining things anyone can read book to learn. I want to talk about stuff no books written yet for. | |
| Feb 28, 2013 at 23:53 | history | edited | Dan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Re-added final statement and gave explanation
|
| Feb 28, 2013 at 23:46 | comment | added | Dan | I also noticed that @JonEricson left your last statement mostly intact, yet you removed it. I happen to agree with that last statement (although not the 'tone' in which it was delivered), so I'm also going to add it back in with a slight explanation so that it comes off less as an accusation and more as an explanation. PLEASE review it to ensure I have captured your original intent. | |
| Feb 28, 2013 at 23:43 | history | edited | Dan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Grammar and spelling changes
|
| Feb 28, 2013 at 23:36 | history | edited | Dan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added lexicon entry to support answer
|
| Feb 28, 2013 at 23:28 | history | edited | user1985 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Making people happy; edited body
|
| Feb 28, 2013 at 17:22 | comment | added | Jon Ericson | Howdy, theosis! I've hunted down an article that I think explains the Latin translation and why you might think it's wrong. You would be much better served by summarizing that (or something like it) rather than simply asserting "Truth". Our site prioritized the display of your exegetical process more than individual conclusions. (As an Evangelical, I'd prefer if you engaged more with the text and less with Church history, but that's your call, really.) | |
| Feb 28, 2013 at 17:19 | history | edited | Jon Ericson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added a link and removed the needless insult. (But left the needed one. ;-)
|
| Feb 28, 2013 at 13:54 | history | edited | user1985 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 21 characters in body
|
| Feb 28, 2013 at 7:07 | history | answered | user1985 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |