Zuckerberg's Vandalism Continues

Is AI a Threat to Man? · Still Censored (for Fast Typing?) · Well, I was after all ... · Zuckerberg's Vandalism Continues · Yes, as Said ... · Blockade Over After All? · Or Maybe Not? · Could not Post to Page Wall · OK, Not Over · Still Not Over · FB Censors Links

I was trying to respond to Craig Crawford.

I was giving the following answer and pretyping it on a notepad before posting:

"So this was no ordinary obscure birth, but all of Judaea was abuzz. Obviously the miraculous birth of the Christ did not go without notice, and was not forgotten, especially by His mother the Theotokos! The knowledge of the date of Chirst's birth was preserved and passed down by the Church."

I agree, but the date is still from tradition, not directly from the Bible.

St, Ambrose; "Zacharias seems here to be designated High Priest, because into the second tabernacle went the High Priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and the sins of the people."

Note, seems. It does not stand in the text itself, and St Ambrose basically admits that.

"Here it is in your native tongue:"

French is not that. I was bilingual in Swedish and German from smallest childhood, or perhaps German starting one year later, learnt English from age 9 (or a few months before) and French from age 13.

I find it disruptive during Lent to have to deal with English speakers who presume my English is deficient because I have some quirks of usage they would not make, and then also presume my French is better, while French in their turn presumes my French is deficient and one volunteered to speak to me in German instead. While my German really is deficient by now, somewhat, since I have not spoken it since 11 years and 6 months except on very few occasions or short durations.

"Here is an excerpt from a machine translation from the French."

Beware of machine translations.

Do you have the text in English at all?

"And by where will we be ensured of this time? by the divine Writings, by consulting the Evangile saint who says that Zacharie was in the Holy of Holies, when the angel announced the happy news to him, and the birth of Jean predicts to him."

In the text Douay Rheims offers, it does not say "holy of holies" in so many words.

Exodus 26:34 has "holy of holies", in LXX it says ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ τῶν ἁγίων.

In St Luke (edition Nestle Aland 28) we find ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῷ ἄγγελος κυρίου ἑστὼς ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου τοῦ θυμιάματος, but we do not find ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ τῶν ἁγίων.

I am not saying St John Chrysostom need have been wrong, it could be he had another text and it could be he had access to sacerdotal (cohanic) tradition that the altar of incense was inside the holy of holies. This is however not saying he could deduce this from the text as such itself, without such information - unless of course there is a passage in the Torah stating so, which I am unaware of, or stating incense was only used on Day of Atonement.

I am not a Jew, I have not been circumcised, nor made a Bar Mitsva, it could be I missed a passage in the law which implies this about the text we have in St Luke.

If the liturgic text you use in Greek liturgy says ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ τῶν ἁγίων that is another matter. If all the fathers (which is a few more than the ones you cited, but even so) read that, that would normally be the correct text.

Then this happened:



Was there anything I would have added after the above comment, if I hadn't been blocked? Yes. But that would at the length of comments and at the speed of internet debates not have been avoided anyway if I had typed each word individually in the combox. In some debates, there is always sth to add.

Added after trying in vain to post above as an answer:

"When Zacharie made its function of priest in front of God in the row of his family, the fate decided, according to payments' of priesthood, that it would enter the temple of the Lord for y (178) to offer the perfumes. All the multitude of the people was outside, making his prayer per hour that the perfumes were offered. (Luc, I, 5,10.) You, my brothers recall, the passage which says: That no man is not in the gate vault of testimony, when the pontiff enters the Holy of Holies in order to request, until it left there. (Lév. I, 17.)"

It so happens, Leviticus I 17 refers to a holocaust of an animal victim, while Luke I clearly refers to a sacrifice of incense.

"[17] And he shall break the pinions thereof, and shall not cut, nor divide it with a knife, and shall burn it upon the altar, putting fire under the wood. It is a holocaust and oblation of most sweet savour to the Lord."

"[9] According to the custom of the priestly office, it was his lot to offer incense, going into the temple of the Lord. [10] And all the multitude of the people was praying without, at the hour of incense. [11] And there appeared to him an angel of the Lord, standing on the right side of the altar of incense."

A holocaust and an incense offering are two different things.