Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Every Jewish woman, and even now hope for, as they believe in a future messiah, wished and hoped to be the one to bear the messiah. Mary would certainly be aware of that honor, and hoped for it.
Well, as the historian Philip Schaff states,
The first express definition of the New Testament canon, in the form in which it has since been universally retained, comes from two African synods, held in 393 at Hippo, and 397 at Carthage, in the presence of Augustin, who exerted a commanding influence on all the theological questions of his age. By that time, at least, the whole church must have already become nearly unanimous as to the number of the canonical books; so that there seemed to be no need even of the sanction of a general council. (emphasis added) http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch12.htm
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.
No, the house churches were simple assemblies of believers, with no separation between 'clergy' and 'laity'.
Again, citing Schaff, Even in the Pastoral Epistles which present the most advanced stage of ecclesiastical organization in the apostolic period, while the teaching, ruling, and pastoral functions of the presbyter-bishops are fully discussed, nothing is said about a sacerdotal function. The Apocalypse, which was written still later, emphatically teaches the universal priesthood and kingship of believers. The apostles themselves never claim or exercise a special priesthood. http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch04.htm § 43. New Church Officers. The expansion of the church, the development of her cultus, and the tendency towards hierarchical pomp, led to the multiplication of offices below the diaconate, which formed the ordines minores. About the middle of the third century the following new officers are mentioned: http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch04.htm
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.
First, Not all the Apostles were martyred.
Second, more Christians were killed by the Roman Catholic church then were ever killed by the Roman Caesars, so Protestants are very aware of martyrs (see Foxes Book of Martyrs)
The 'gift' of Apostleship is no longer with us.
You had to see the Resurrected Christ to have that gift. (1Cor.15:7-8).
We know that Satan has false apostles (2Cor.11:13,Rev.2:2)
Bishops were direct successors of Apostles, who ordained them. The Church therefore did not change with their "fading away."
Scripture?
The gift of Apostleship was a unique gift for the establishment of the 1st century church before the completion of the NT.
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.
Well, there are only two listed.
All the others are not Biblical.
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?
The 'church' that decided what was scripture and what wasn't, was not the Roman Catholic System, but the true church of those who have believed on the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts.16)
The Church Council that stated the number of NT books was only stating what has already been accepted as fact long ago by the local churches.
See the quote from Schaff at the beginning of the post.
Amen.
The saints (all those who are saved) are very much alive in heaven.
What makes you think they know what is going on earth?
The only prayer stated in scripture by any saints in heaven are those who are martyred by the Anti-Christ, and they aren't praying for anyone, they are seeking justice. (Rev.6:9-10) on the one who had killed them-Rome (Rev.17:5-6)
I am delighted to see a Protestant make an argument from tradition.
I do not dispute that she did. I dispute that the question in Luke 1:34 is reflective of that hope. I think it is reflective of her intention to remain a virgin and not have sexual relations with Joseph.
If she expected to consummate her marriage in the sexual way, the natural response to the Annunciation in 1:31-33 would be either:
-- Looking forward to it. I am getting married, you know. Can't wait to tell Joseph my fiancee. (if unaware of Isaiah being fulfilled in her)or, if the connection to Isaiah's prophecy clear in her mind:
-- How am I to remain a virgin if I am betrothed to Joseph?
Instead she sees her virginality -- not her betrothal -- as inconsistent with the Annunciation.
What makes you think they know what is going on earth?
Jesus said those in heaven rejoice at our repentance for one thing.
"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." -- Philippians 2:13
Sure, I think of Noah's ark.
Thus, we can say that man did "x", though we also say that man cannot brag, because God "moved" him to choose "x", making it more to the man's desire. Man is given credit by God for choosing "x", he is given merit, since He cooperated with God's will.
So one key is what does "moved" mean? I don't see God's "moving" as His making of a generous offer. To me, "moving" brings up images of causation, which is the way I see it.
Merit is given to man because and ONLY because God binds HIMSELF to pay man a reward for his obedience - which God enables but not without the possibility of man's rejection.
But it is still merit. In your view, God makes a conditional promise and man has to earn the fulfillment of that promise. Man has to go first.
If The Plan of Salvation is tradition. Salvation is of the Jews ( John 4:22)
This is a Protestant myth.
Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. (James 5:14)Why couldn's a lay relative do that?
22 What, have you not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God; and put them to shame that have not? (Corinthians 11:22)Sounds like houses were for eating dinner and churches were for receiving the Eucharist
And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion. (Justin Martyr, First ApologyCHAPTER LXV -- ADMINISTRATION OF THE SACRAMENTSLooks like people had distinct roles in the Eucharist
John 4:22 did not tell you how every Jewish woman hoped to bring forth the Messiah and was aware of the prophecy of virginal birth. I do not dispute your knowledge, but it is extrascriptural knowledge from tradition. Anyway, do you have a substantive comment on Luke 1:34 in that regard?
All it says, substantively, is "how can I conceive, seeing as how I am not in a "relationship". Where you get the idea of ascending into Heaven without dying, out of this verse, is a great mystery.
Joseph's reaction I never considered until... oh, i dunno... what time is it? lol! Obviously, his behavior only makes sense if he draws the same [normative] conclusion. And why wouldn't he?
With the benefit of hindsight, we can look back and say, "Of course she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit! How else would God become incarnate?", but I seriously doubt this was even thinkable back then.
The word is not Priest, it is elder,
The Roman Catholic NAS has presbyters, not priests.
The 'elder's were the Pastors and Deacons.
22 What, have you not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God; and put them to shame that have not? (Corinthians 11:22) Sounds like houses were for eating dinner and churches were for receiving the Eucharist
No, that verse is talking about when the local church gathered, either in a building or someone's home (Rom.16:5)
Clearly, that passage states that a church was in someones home.
And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion. (Justin Martyr, First ApologyCHAPTER LXV -- ADMINISTRATION OF THE SACRAMENTS Looks like people had distinct roles in the Eucharist
Looks like some leaven had entered into the church.
I do not see any of that in the scriptures.
In private houses the room best suited for worship and for the love-feast was the oblong dining-hall, the triclinium, which was never wanting in a convenient Greek or Roman dwelling, and which often had a semicircular niche, like the choir290 in the later churches. An elevated seat291 was used for reading the Scriptures and preaching, and a simple tables292 for the holy communion. Similar arrangements were made also in the catacombs, which sometimes have the form of a subterranean church. The first traces of special houses of worship293 occur in Tertullian, who speaks of going to church,294 and in his contemporary, Clement of Alexandria, who mentions the double meaning of the word ekklhsiva.295
Regarding the citation by Justin Martyr, Schaff states,
We are not warranted in carrying back to this period the full liturgical service, which we find prevailing with striking uniformity in essentials, though with many variations in minor points, in all quarters of the church in the Nicene age. A certain simplicity and freedom characterized the period before us. http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch05.htm
So if it was a joke, but it was not meant for me to enjoy, then was it a remark made at my expense?
That's not very nice.
Do you have a substantive comment?
I do, but I prefer to think back on your comments that we should preach the Gospel to animals. It gives a whole new meaning (or does it?) to Matthew 7:6.
I think you're exactly right about this. However, that would put Mary in even more of a jam. :) If she never had any intention on having conjugal relations with a man, then she would be guilty of dishonoring her parents. "Wifely" speaking, she would be damaged goods, and would have been honor bound to inform her parents that she was not suitable to be given away in marriage.
I believe that your Tradition says that Joseph was a much older man (I have no opinion). If so, I doubt he would be interested in marrying any 16-year-old mostly for her sparkling conversation. Had the angel never appeared to Joseph, which Mary could not possibly have known would happen, then I think Joseph would have rightly felt ripped off. :)
Unbelievable that someone could think "creature" here meant cows, sheep, dogs etc. Every "creature" would mean a thinking creature, obviously. If there's a joke in there somewhere, I'm missing it as well.
You are welcome.
I hope I did not seem curt.
What makes you think they know what is going on earth? Jesus said those in heaven rejoice at our repentance for one thing.
Jesus said that there was joy in heaven over a sinner that repenteth. (Lk.15:7).
He then states that joy is in the presence of the angels (vs.10)
Nothing is said about the saints.
If I'm understanding your reply, you're saying when Jesus said those in heaven rejoice at our repentance he was speaking of angels?
That the angels are aware of us then?
Is that a correct stating of your interpretation?
Amen. More "revisions." 8~)
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.