Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
We already determined she is Jimmy Hoffa.
They are not canonized saints, correct.
Twelve stars, what would those mean if it was Mary?
That she had twelve children?
Genesis 49:28 ¶All these are the twelve tribes of Israel: and this is it that their father spake unto them, and blessed them; every one according to his blessing he blessed them.
That would be pure speculation on my part, as the scripture does not interpret Apocalyptic numerology at all, but yes, I think they represent either the twelve tribes of Israel or the twelve apostles. Twelve generally represents completeness.
Genesis 22:17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
Genesis 26:4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
Teamsters. Told'ya.
I was just going from memory when I said this, but I may have lucked into a hit with this:
1 Sam. 2:13-15 : 13 Now it was the practice of the priests with the people that whenever anyone offered a sacrifice and while the meat was being boiled, the servant of the priest would come with a three-pronged fork in his hand. 14 He would plunge it into the pan or kettle or caldron or pot, and the priest would take for himself whatever the fork brought up. This is how they treated all the Israelites who came to Shiloh. 15 But even before the fat was burned, the servant of the priest would come and say to the man who was sacrificing, "Give the priest some meat to roast; he won't accept boiled meat from you, but only raw."
Mmmmmmmm. ..... raw meat.
Our jaws and teeth are really not suited to eat meat -- that's why we need our meat cooked, and we need tenderizers. Now, I think God gave us fire and tenderizers much later.
But if you believed in a young earth, like me, then we've basically always had fire, so all is as it should be. :) Besides, I watched "Survivor", so I know that if you're hungry enough, you'll eat raw meat and be just fine! :)
No, we don't do that "in order" to become Christ-like; the faith converts our hearts. We grow in Chirst. We seek God to lead us, we willingly ask of Him to grant us the grace; we do so through prayer. God, in turn, gives us opportunities to put what we believe in practice.
I thought theosis was achieved by becoming Christ-like to a certain degree. How is this accomplished if not through acts or deeds? Are not deeds necessary to achieve theosis?
The Canon was no problem for the local churches.
It was only a problem for the intellectuals.
I made that very clear in my post on the compilation of the NT. the Church is not a disembodied spirit, it is the Body of Christ present on earth. Christ founded only one Church that had a defined leadership
The early church was made up of house churches.(Rom.16:5)
Once the Apostles faded out at the end of the 1st century with the death of John, the local church leadership was composed of individual Pastors (Bishops) and Deacons (1Tim.3, 1Pe.5)
Exactly. Every church (as a building) under a bishop provides fullness of faith and sacraments, regardless of size or location. Individual churches are not "body parts," but one and the same Organism.
There are only two ordinances, adult Baptism (once, as a symbol of faith-1Pe.3:21) and the Lord's Supper, done in remberance of what the Lord did and His physical return to set up His kingdom (1Cor.11).
As for the church, it is a spiritual body, made up of all true believers,(who have believed in the saving work of Christ by faith alone-Rom.5:1, Gal.2:16), making up the Bride of Christ (Eph.1:23, 5:30)
The Roman Catholic system did not even come into existance until the 4th century and has been evolving (leaven-Matthew 13:33) ever since
But what is your analysis if you look to the point of each statement? It seems to me that in the Matt. 1 statement, the point was to be clear that Joseph did not "know" her before or during her pregnancy. But then after she gave birth, they lived as husband and wife. OTOH, the verse at the end of Matthew seems to emphasize that He will be with His children always during the time of "the world". The implication that He will continue to be "with us" (for us) after this time period is obvious. There is no such obvious implication with Mary to remain celibate, after she gave birth. In fact, isn't the implication just the opposite? To this day I do not understand the wish for Mary to not have been a wife to her husband, as if sex within marriage was dirty or wrong.
I do find it interesting, though, that St. Matthew would take the time to point out that fact and say it in that way. It was already clear from vs 18 that Joseph could not have been the father of the child. I'd be interested in the Protestant explanation for why this verse existed or why they think that Joseph wouldn't have 'known' her...
I don't know what the official Protestant view is, but I'd be happy to give you my two cents. :) To me, verse 18 establishes the virgin birth, along with verse 25. One important point is that even in verse 18, they were not yet actually married. Not even in verse 19, despite words like "husband" and "divorce". They were still in a state of betrothal. My understanding is that betrothal was a far more serious thing to the people of that time than it is to us today. No one backed out of a betrothal, unless of course the woman showed up pregnant by another man! :) It was a de facto marriage, but without the benefits. :)
This would explain why he did not "know" her. He was not married to her until after the angel had appeared to him and explained the situation. I take verse 24 as the first sign of actual marriage. Verse 25 would not make sense if they were not married at that time.
Theosis is achieved by becoming Christ-like, through faith, not through amibition.
You ougth to know...
The early church was made up of house churches (Rom.16:5)
Nonsense. You are confusing a church building (a temple as it is still called in the Orthodox East) with the Church.
Once the Apostles faded out at the end of the 1st century with the death of John, the local church leadership was composed of individual Pastors (Bishops) and Deacons(1Tim.3, 1Pe.5)
The Apostles did not "fade away" actually died martyrs' deaths, something most Christians today would probably not do. I love the way Protestants show cntempt for everyone but themsleves.
Bishops were direct successors of Apostles, who ordained them. The Church therefore did not change with their "fading away."
There are only two ordinances, adult Baptism (once, as a symbol of faith-1Pe.3:21) and the Lord's Supper, done in remberance of what the Lord did and His physical return to set up His kingdom (1Cor.11).
There is no limit as to the number of Mysteries (Sacraments) spelled out in the Scripture.
The Roman Catholic system did not even come into existance until the 4th century and has been evolving (leaven-Matthew 13:33)
And this is related to the Church canonizing Apostolic teaching in which way?
Pecca fortiter, Protestant! That was Luther's suggestion.
knowing they can have a "priest" absolve them
What talent!
Your explanation makes sense, and it is a legitimate one.
The point is not that sex within marriage is dirty or wrong. This is not the motivation for our belief that the Theotokos was a life-long virgin.
The reason we have the tradition is that it is the account passed down within the Church from the earliest times (this is in part what a tradition is.)
If you have a family story where your father tells you that his father told him that your grandfather told him that your great-grandfather did X -- then you will in turn tell your son the same thing, because you believe that your father didn't lie to you, nor his to him, etc...
Even if someone later comes along and tells your son that this story doesn't seem plausible, and that something else probably happened, you will stick with your family story unless there is hard proof that the other idea was true.
This is our "family story" passed down from the earliest times, and there is no convincing evidence to believe otherwise. And turn it from a "family story" to a tradition that is passed on within the living Body of Christ, and you will see why we really don't consider believing otherwise.
I certainly can understand why Protestantism would choose a different explanation. Since you believe that the only evidence that is valid from the 1st c. is what is found in the New Testament, and reject all histories other than the NT (at least all other Christian histories), then based only on the NT, your beliefs are reasonable..
Very well said.
It was a comment originally from a Catholic poster.
You don't want to attack him do you????
Actually, the priest was a pretty good representative of your faith. It was on a Christian television station about 20 years ago, with a sort of panel discussion with a Lutheran, a Baptist, and a Catholic for clergy.
The Catholic pretty much cleaned up, from my perspective (I was a Protestant at the time.) He was calm, had tightly reasoned arguments, etc... He explained what a tradition was for the first time in a way that I could understand it. I was already drawn to the "catholic" world from a liturgical and sacramental standpoint, but had a long way to go in the theology department to accept some of the things I had been taught were wrong as a Protestant. It was a helpful moment for me, even though I would never end up a Catholic.
Anyway, he certainly did not portray the idea that Mary didn't die as the mainstream view, but simply said that there was no consensus within the Catholic church on the question when the then Pope asked Catholic clergy around the world to tell him what they understood the tradition to be. Thus the ambiguous wording of the declaration. As to whether it is allowable piety today, I don't know, but it certainly was allowable piety at some point.
And actually, the Immaculate Conception does have consequences for Orthodox beliefs about the Theotokos.
There are any number of implications, but the main one is that if the Theotokos was born without the effects of the ancestral sin, she would really not be like those of us who are, and wouldn't be an example for us to emulate in the same way that she is in the Orthodox view.
Christ lived a sinless life and we certainly imitate him in every way that we can, but of course he was God, so he had a bit of an advantage in following the command "be ye perfect"! Certainly he was tempted in all ways as we are, and his human nature was like ours in all ways except for sin -- his was a "pre-fall" human nature, unlike ours.
The Theotokos had a post-fall human nature. Her sinlessness was achieved with the same tools at her disposal that we have at ours. Even though she was morally guiltless in her life, she still needed a Savior just as we do -- because of her inheriting the effects of the ancestral sin. Without a Savior, death would hold her captive. She was born with corruption and death and the tendency to sin, just as we are. Her holy life was in no small part the result of the faithfulness of her parents and the piety of her extended family. All of human history led up to the birth and rearing of this one little girl who would be a vessel worthy of bearing the eternal God.
The Catholic view is certainly that she needed a Savior, and that the merits of Christ's sacrifice were applied to her "preveniently." But as to her life, she began it filled with "excess" Grace from the moment of her conception (thus her "extra" grace can be applied to others.)
I'll give it another try:
Do you believe those in heaven are aware of us, our actions, repentance, etc?
Do you believe those in heaven are like angels? Less than angels?
Jesus being fully divine and fully human is a mystery and certainly one valuable for us to take in contemplation. Here's the portion of your post that struck me:
Christ lived a sinless life and we certainly imitate him in every way that we can, but of course he was God, so he had a bit of an advantage in following the command "be ye perfect"! Certainly he was tempted in all ways as we are, and his human nature was like ours in all ways except for sin -- his was a "pre-fall" human nature, unlike ours.On first reading the initial portion seemed in contradiction to what followed.
When I contemplate the sorrowful mysteries, for example, it is me in the place of Christ being tortured and shamed.. sharing this in human nature in compassion with Jesus. If He had "a bit of an advantage" here, then..?
But I don't think this is what you refered to in "be ye perfect" though I think it can't be separated?
Secondly, I'm not familiar with the difference in Jesus's human nature and ours vis a vis "pre/post-fall."
As far as our human nature, don't we both start at the same place, if we are baptised? Doesn't this place us both at pre-fall?
Mostly, this, to me is a key focus of contemplation of the mystery of the Incarnation and I benefit from others discussion of it. If you have time for further comment, thank you..
I can't help but think of the movie "Bruce Almighty" when I read this.
Bruce ridicules God and God says, "ok, you be God; in this neighborhood, you're God."
Bruce goes on an Almighty tear, but it happens that Bruce's girlfriend Grace is fed up with him and Bruce tries to win her back using all his now-divine powers. Surely he can do it, he's God after all.
But God has one rule for Bruce - you can't force her to love you. Bruce is appalled that he has all this power and still.. and God says something like, "welcome to my world.."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.