Hear! Hear! Bravo & Amen! Gleaning from pre-Enlightenment (or more accurately pre- Endarkenment) commentaries & catenas is most rewarding! Thank you for this presentation! ✅🙏📖
I found your comment about consulting pre-modern commentaries interesting. A few years ago I ran across some commentary recommendations by Charles Spurgeon. Spurgeon mentioned commentaries like Matthew Poole's Annotations, Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible, Calvins Commentaries, Robert Hawker's Poor Man Commentary, John Gill's Expositions on the OT and NT, along with several others. I've found them to be great resources for Bible Study. It doesn't hurt that they are usually readily available and often free of charge or inexpensive compared to most commentaries.
Macarius, Apocriticus III: 16: Again, consider in detail that other passage, where He says, "Such signs shall follow them that believe: they shall lay hands upon sick folk, and they shall recover, and if they drink any deadly drug, it shall in no wise hurt them." So the right thing would be for those selected for the priesthood, and particularly those who lay claim to the episcopate or presidency, to make use of this form of test. The deadly drug should be set before them in order that the man who received no harm from the drinking of it might be given precedence of the rest. And if they are not bold enough to accept this sort of test, they ought to confess that they do not believe in the things Jesus said. For if it is a peculiarity of the faith to overcome the evil of a poison and to remove the pain of a sick man, the believer who does not do these things either has not become a genuine |86 believer, or else, though his belief is genuine, the thing that he believes in is not potent but feeble. Porphyry, Against the Christians (2004). Fragments. The Pagans had no problem making fun of the traditional ending of Mark which CT Only folk say didn't exist Blessings.
Thanks doe adding this. Yes, early references to the traditional ending from Christian AND pagan sources are overwhelming. No need to doubt the antiquity and authenticity of Mark 16:9-20.
I have several of the ACC series, including Mark. Some of the comments are good, others are fanciful and/or allegorical. I personally wouldn't use them as a primary commentary, but as a collection of how early Christians interacted with the text. Nevertheless, they are well worth having. A knowledge of Christian history and tradition is generally lacking today in protestant and evangelical churches. This lack has led many to embrace all too quickly ideas influenced by modern secular culture, as well as repeating errors that have been dealt with in the past. The modern church would do well to rediscover our heritage, both of the early fathers and the reformers.
![Learn Bible and Theology from the Early Church Fathers [Ancient Christian Commentaries]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/S0w6DwoOV_o/mqdefault.jpg)
Hear! Hear! Bravo & Amen! Gleaning from pre-Enlightenment (or more accurately pre- Endarkenment) commentaries & catenas is most rewarding!
Thank you for this presentation! ✅🙏📖
Sounds like a very good resource. Considering the available source materials, a catena format makes sense. Thank you very much!🙏📖
I found your comment about consulting pre-modern commentaries interesting. A few years ago I ran across some commentary recommendations by Charles Spurgeon. Spurgeon mentioned commentaries like Matthew Poole's Annotations, Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible, Calvins Commentaries, Robert Hawker's Poor Man Commentary, John Gill's Expositions on the OT and NT, along with several others. I've found them to be great resources for Bible Study. It doesn't hurt that they are usually readily available and often free of charge or inexpensive compared to most commentaries.
Macarius, Apocriticus III: 16:
Again, consider in detail that other passage, where He says, "Such signs shall follow them that believe: they shall lay hands upon sick folk, and they shall recover, and if they drink any deadly drug, it shall in no wise hurt them." So the right thing would be for those selected for the priesthood, and particularly those who lay claim to the episcopate or presidency, to make use of this form of test. The deadly drug should be set before them in order that the man who received no harm from the drinking of it might be given precedence of the rest. And if they are not bold enough to accept this sort of test, they ought to confess that they do not believe in the things Jesus said. For if it is a peculiarity of the faith to overcome the evil of a poison and to remove the pain of a sick man, the believer who does not do these things either has not become a genuine |86 believer, or else, though his belief is genuine, the thing that he believes in is not potent but feeble. Porphyry, Against the Christians (2004). Fragments. The Pagans had no problem making fun of the traditional ending of Mark which CT Only folk say didn't exist Blessings.
Thanks doe adding this. Yes, early references to the traditional ending from Christian AND pagan sources are overwhelming. No need to doubt the antiquity and authenticity of Mark 16:9-20.
@@wordmagazine Keep up the good fight. Blessings.
I have several of the ACC series, including Mark. Some of the comments are good, others are fanciful and/or allegorical. I personally wouldn't use them as a primary commentary, but as a collection of how early Christians interacted with the text. Nevertheless, they are well worth having. A knowledge of Christian history and tradition is generally lacking today in protestant and evangelical churches. This lack has led many to embrace all too quickly ideas influenced by modern secular culture, as well as repeating errors that have been dealt with in the past. The modern church would do well to rediscover our heritage, both of the early fathers and the reformers.