Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
And? Surely you're not expecting me to disagree with my own words? :-)
We have given you a reason that explains her response very adequately (I'm not asking you to accept the explanation, but it wouldn't hurt you all that much to acknowledge that it does explain it.)
We're still waiting for an explanation for her response to the angel that is consonant with your belief that there is absolutely *no* way that the traditional Christian teaching on this matter (held universally for 16 centuries) could be true.
And thus the Reformation. Thank God.
Nice quote. And without all that bulky context. You know, the stuff that gives the quote it's intended meaning.
Time to get a new gag, Doc.
Well, this is not classic Protestantism, to my knowledge. It sounds Wesleyian. Luther and Calvin claimed that man continued to be "sin", even after regeneration, since he had no ability to participate in salvation, even after regeneration. God did everything. No free will. No responsibility. No perseverance. No obedience expected. What you say makes more sense than Luther and Calvin claims that man is spiritually dead and must take on some sort of legal, external justification to be saved.
Well, I'll have to ask for some help then, because if you had asked me I would have said that this is EXACTLY classical Protestantism. :) At regeneration, I do believe that the old (sinful nature) is gone and the new (God-pleasing nature) has come. However, a remnant of the sinful nature remains, hence we still sin. I don't understand the concept of us actually "being" sin, although I would say that we are born dead "in" sin (i.e. much worse off than only wounded).
I do think that man is responsible for his sin, that the elect do persevere, and that obedience is expected of men. I just give God all the credit when this (the good) happens. Certainly, whenever I face a moral dilemma I perceive that I have a choice. When I choose poorly, then that is my responsibility and I should seek forgiveness. When I choose correctly, then I give thanks to God for His working through me.
Joseph received his own revelation regarding Mary, so there was no fraud of any kind. The custom of temple virgins existed and their betrothal was practiced, albeit rarely; it did not imply or requre a sexual union. This is how the Protoevangelium of James describes it, -- note that it is clear that the marriage was not to be sexually consummated (emphasis mine):
And [Mary] was three years old, and Joachim said: Invite the daughters of the Hebrews that are undefiled, and let them take each a lamp, and let them stand with the lamps burning, that the child may not turn back, and her heart be captivated from the temple of the Lord. And they did so until they went up into the temple of the Lord. And the priest received her, and kissed her, and blessed her, saying: The Lord has magnified thy name in all generations. In thee, on the last of the days, the Lord will manifest His redemption to the sons of Israel. And he set her down upon the third step of the altar, and the Lord God sent grace upon her; and she danced with her feet, and all the house of Israel loved her.8. And her parents went down marvelling, and praising the Lord God, because the child had not turned back. And Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there, and she received food from the hand of an angel. And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of the priests, saying: Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, test perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord? And they said to the high priest: Thou standest by the altar of the Lord; go in, and pray concerning her; and whatever the Lord shall manifest unto thee, that also will we do. And the high priest went in, taking the robe with the twelve bells into the holy of holies; and he prayed concerning her. And behold an angel of the Lord stood by him, saying unto him: Zacharias, Zacharias, go out and assemble the widowers of the people, and let them bring each his rod; and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. And the heralds went out through all the circuit of Judaea, and the trumpet of the Lord sounded, and all ran.
9. And Joseph, throwing away his axe, went out to meet them; and when they had assembled, they went away to the high priest, taking with them their rods. And he, taking the rods of all of them, entered into the temple, and prayed; and having ended his prayer, he took the rods and came out, and gave them to them: but there was no sign in them, and Joseph took his rod last; and, behold, a dove came out of the rod, and flew upon Joseph's head. And the priest said to Joseph, Thou hast been chosen by lot to take into thy keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel. And the priest said to Joseph: Fear the Lord thy God, and remember what the Lord did to Dathan, and Abiram, and Korah; how the earth opened, and they were swallowed up on account of their contradiction. And now fear, O Joseph, lest the same things happen in thy house. And Joseph was afraid, and took her into his keeping. And Joseph said to Mary: Behold, I have received thee from the temple of the Lord; and now I leave thee in my house, and go away to build my buildings, and I shall come to thee. The Lord will protect thee.
[...]
13. And she was in her sixth month; and, behold, Joseph came back from his building, and, entering into his house, he discovered that she was big with child. And he smote his face, and threw himself on the ground upon the sackcloth, and wept bitterly
[...]
15 [...] Joseph, whom thou didst vouch for, has committed a grievous crime. And the priest said: How so? And he said: He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord, and has married her by stealth, and has not revealed it to the sons of Israel
Mat 14:28-29 Peter said to Him, "Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water." And He said, "Come!" And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus.
What I posted in 5,622 and Kolokotronis posted in 5,881 (second icon) are both icons of the Resurrection. The esthetic difference and the detail of the bound Satan are permissible varuiations within the iconographical canon.
Orthodox teaching is also that the Theotokos did not experience the ordinary pain of childbirth. As well as being the tradition handed down within the Church from the beginning, it is at the very least inconceivable to us that God the Son would inflict pain on his mother.
Given the fact that we believe that she was born with the effects of the ancestral sin, there is no reason why she could not have experienced pain (if one was willing to believe that God would not act in such a way as to spare her that pain), since pain in childbirth is part of the human condition. But the Orthodox tradition on this is very clear, so we don't need to rely on deductive reasoning.
I'm not sure that it has any dogmatic significance, but as with so many things, an Orthodox Christian will generally not see any reason to disbelieve traditional accounts.
We also see the Theotokos as a second Eve. We also see a symmetry. The first Adam had only to keep from eating the fruit. The second Adam had to go through the incredible condescension of becoming a man, suffering our lot with us, and then being crucified and dying. It was a lot bigger job to undo the sin of Adam than it would have been to avoid it in the first place.
What you seem to be describing is that God gave a "do-over" to mankind by having Mary born in the same pre-fall state as Eve was created in. Only this time he filled the second Eve with so much excess grace that it was pretty much a done deal that she would make the right decision. (Forgive me for painting with a broad brush -- I'll let you do the detail work!)
The Orthodox understanding is that this was not a "do-over" -- it was an undoing. And as with all undoings, this was extremely difficult. It took thousands of years to arrive at that point in time with that family, with that one young girl. And it was not a done deal (although of course the usual stipulations of God's foreknowledge, being outside time and history, still apply.)
If this was an act of God to create (so to speak) de novo a second Eve who would be free from sin and filled with grace from the beginning such that she wouldn't sin, then there is the question of why God would wait so long. The Orthodox understanding is that God didn't wait so long -- mankind *took* so long...
Likewise, the Theotokos accomplished what she did without the benefit of being free from corruption and the effects of the ancestral sin. Again, what the second Eve did was much greater than what the first Eve would have done had she refrained from disobeying God.
If anything, the Orthodox view of what the Theotokos accomplished is more elevated than the Catholic view, precisely because we believe that she had to overcome the tendency to sin and the corruption of body that comes with being born with the effects of the ancestral sin.
At least this is how I understand it.
We never change our "substance" which is a Greek fallacy which the RCs seem to emulate. We are born human and we die human. But...
Christ takes on our sins and pay for them, so we are actually judged "innocent" by the substitution of His virtue for our lack of it, while we remain always the creature whom God created.
This is one of the areas where I think Reformed theology is most profound. There is nothing in man which is righteous or God-pleasing. We are blood and bones and instinct.
But we are graciously saved from God's wrath by the perfection of His Son whom God mercifully has given to us and placed inside our hearts. All that is good and God-pleasing is from Him, by Him, through Him, for His glory alone.
Other faiths spend a great deal of time and effort trying to detail the righteousness of men.
It's a losing attempt, as old as man himself.
Maybe I'd add that we can thank God for both the "good" and the "bad." That's one of the perks that comes with being a child of God. We know whatever befalls us, it is meant for our good and His glory, either by way of instruction or correction.
We know that God gathers all our tears into His bottle and that...
"They that sow in tears shall reap in joy." -- Psalm 126:5
A miracle that qualifies for sainthood is a miracle occuring after the death of the candidate saint, as a result of a prayer to him. The candidate saint then intercedes from Heaven and the Holy Ghost performs the miracle. The miracle has to be objectively verifiable, typically, a healing. No medical treatment must have been applied that could have been the cause of healing. Presently, many are praying to the late Pope John Paul for healing and there are reports of some possible situations under considerations, as there is a strong belief that he is a saint. At the same time, the fact that a sick person got healed after a blessing of the late Pope when he, the Pope, was alive, do not qualify.
There is also a requirement of martyrdom, sometimes waived. Since the late Pope did not die of his wound, it is not clear if he can be considered a martyr, although we now know tha the was in constant pain following the assassination attempt.
I'm glad that others responded regarding Joseph's role. He is most certainly *not* overlooked in the Orthodox Church, although he is certainly a peripheral figure compared to his more central role in Catholicism.
If I have time, I'll try to look up and quote some hymnology that speaks to the incredible faith and devoutness of Joseph the Betrothed (as he is titled in the Orthodox Church.)
I'm not sure, Harley, exactly what form you thought our overlooking of Joseph was taking. What we have been discussing is the exchange between the Theotokos and the archangel, and the explanation for why she responded as she did. At that point, the need for faith on Joseph's part hadn't yet entered the picture.
Ripeness is all.
"We never change our "substance" which is a Greek fallacy which the RCs seem to emulate..."
*Pagan* Greek, I hope you mean. There is absolutely no idea anywhere in Greek Christianity (i.e. Orthodoxy) that a human being's substance ("essence" is the word we use) can or will ever change into something else.
This sounds like a description of animals. I'm wondering if you see any difference between humans and animals in their nature. Also, does this view mean that man as created in Genesis was changed at the fall? I.e., humans after the fall are created as animals only?
I'm sure that has a lot of meaning in your other circles. Like under the fridge.
There is absolutely no idea anywhere in Greek Christianity (i.e. Orthodoxy) that a human being's substance ("essence" is the word we use) can or will ever change into something else.
Do you believe we are saved by Christ's righteousness imputed to us, or something else?
We are known by our fruits. Yours are passing their expiration date.
I am sure Harley recognized "You should read the Bible once in a while" as a common teasing that the Catholics are hearing all the time. Was my tease justified here? In his 5,629 Harley wrote:
Paul was NOT appointed through Apostolic succession. He was appointed by God and this was verified by Ananias in a vision. Now at the very least, if there were an Apostolic succession as you suppose, and Peter was the head of the Church, wouldn’t it make sense that God would have revealed Paul to Peter instead of Ananias, who wasn’t even an apostle? Instead the scriptures states that Ananias was a “disciple”-not even a church leader. And it was Ananias who laid hands on Paul so that he might regain his sight. It was after visiting with Ananias that Paul “immediately when out and preached”. My, my. He didn’t even get blessed by the first Pope.
As you can see Harley had claimed that Paul was not in any way blessed by St. Peter, and he confused healing by Ananias with a consecration to episcopate. My reaction was to the entire above quoted paragraph, but to conserve space I only quoted a short segment of it in my response.
Your version also does not include the bolded part.
Sure it does, I just checked. It is in the original. The only difference is that both King James and Douay place the "grace" clause in the beginning of the sentence, as is in the original.
Is it another random output from your quote-a-rama?
Men serve God. Animals serve man.
We were told earlier by an RC (I think on this thread) that animal masses were good and profitable, so it looks to be your side who's having trouble discerning the species.
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.