Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
I always heard it was Arius that St. Nicholas slapped, at the 1st Council.
Regardless, you are absolutely right that these guys were deadly serious -- they were not sitting around smoking cigars and agreeing with each other out of politeness.
Ah, that's right. My bad. For some wierd reason, I get certain details of those concils (1st and 3rd) confused. Perhaps it due to the dream [some of] the bishops had at the 1st, where the BVM asks them to forgive St. Nicholas and let him back into the council.
Jesus didn't HAVE to die, He CHOOSE to die.
"Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father". John 10:17-18
if your salvation is up to you, why did Jesus have to die?
My salvation depends on my response to the Gift Christ has presented to me as a result of His death. I can choose to not believe, and be condemned, or I can choose to believe, and have life. Salvation is not earned by me - but I can refuse to accept the gift.
"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil". John 3:17-19
Regards
That's a good point. Knowledge is more than book knowledge. When Paul speaks about knowledge, he is speaking about experiencing something. Thus, the "knowing" of Christ is more than reading about the Gospel narratives, and why atheists get nothing from this "knowledge".
Regards
Something we sometimes forget is transformation. What repentance is, metanoia.
Jesus didn't say, 'read this' or 'study this' or 'know this' but 'do this.' We do not have to see this as earning salvation but as part of the means to experience transformation, to 'know' Christ, to 'know' the Kingdom.
I'm not saying that prayerful reading of scripture cannot be transformative, lectio divina for example (I believe Protestants have something similar). But the words alone are not magic. Something else, words +, is required for transformation. Transformation can even occur without words.
And I believe transformation, being born again, is what Christ calls us to, rather than getting the words or the story or the theology correct.
Scripture is useful, IMHO, as it serves to preserve and transmit the means and knowledge for this purpose, and as it aids the individual in his/her own transformation. Otherwise it becomes pure book knowledge, only history and philosophy.
I realize this thread is much about the theology and I'm learning a great deal of very interesting things from all the posters. I don't mean to denigrate this discussion at all, only to remind us, myself included, of the greatest value of our shared faith.
Theosis is achieved by becoming Christ-like, through faith, not through ambition.
So I'm pretty close then? I thought that you believe that deeds grow one's faith. "Faith without works is dead", etc. If that is right, then it is contrasted against my view that deeds (pleasing to God) are a natural fruit of a faith that is already there.
The disciples did ask Jesus how to pray and he responded by teaching them the Lord's Prayer. At no time did he tell them to run it by his mother first.
Well if this be true, we let loose a big can of wiggly worms. The Mormons experience a burning bosom, after reading the Book of Mormon, ostensibly after what the Christians on their way to Emmaus experienced when meeting the risen Christ. Then a whole array of "personal revelations" are unleashed and error runs amuck. Paul also said,
in Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Matthew 7:6 would prohibit givng any sacraments to animals, but it has never been traditionally understood as a prohibition on blessing them, -- or indeed teaching the Gospel to them in the ways that they can understand it. Obviously, there is no point in doing so verbally, but when we are kind to animals and give them our friendship, that is teaching them the Gospel.
You replied: Well if this be true, we let loose a big can of wiggly worms. The Mormons experience a burning bosom, after reading the Book of Mormon, ostensibly after what the Christians on their way to Emmaus experienced when meeting the risen Christ. Then a whole array of "personal revelations" are unleashed
You are correct, IF the Christian experience of the Resurrection and their faith experience were not grounded on objective historical truths of the Church's teachings. Mormonism isn't grounded on anything historical prior to the 1800's.
Regards
The Scripture doesn't say that Mary would spontaneously form a child, it says that she would be overshadowed by the power of the Holy Ghost, causing her conception -- that's pretty powerful stuff. There *was* a Father involved, even if we completely reject the Mormon idea that carnal relations took place
Yes there was a "Father" but in Adam's case there was no "Mother." Thus one more difference in this strange equation. Besides, why is God "the Father?" God revealed Himself to Moses as the one Who is (I am who I am); that is entirely genderless.
The fatherhood comes from the ancient stereotypes associating "blood line" with the male line of inheritance and the early polygamies. The reason why it is possible to have more than one wife and still maintain a family is because the father is always known; thus the lineage is established. In the opposite case, if a woman had many husbands, the father would be unknown and the family would be lost.
Thus it was the male who generated his offspring, and a woman was but a "suitable vessel" (a "pot," if you will) where this generation was "cooked." Besides, women had no property rights and could not work. So, of course, man was the master and therefore God, being the Supreme Master, is also "male." Note that there is no female divinity in Judaism/Christianity. Woman was but a "suitable vessel" for man's "deposit" for future generations.
There is one more curious thing about Christ's Humanity: St. Augustine apparently believed that Christ would have died a natural death had He not been killed by Romans (cf St. Augustine, De Peccat., II, 29; P. L., XLIV, 180).
This seems a little strange considering that we are told by St. Paul that death came into this world through the sin of one man (Adam). If Christ is a pre-Fall second Adam, differences not withstanding, why is He susceptible to the post-Fall consequences? This also makes Him, a pre-Fall man, mortal and "slave to death." This also makes His death a necessity and not a divine will. But we know that Christ did not (and if fact could not) sin and, being pre-Fall and sinless, would not suffer death.
There is one more aspect of the whole issue of humanity that is a puzzle: we are all born as infants, become babies, grow into boys and girls, and mature into men and women, and then begin to decline into the old age and die. Our "aging" process and susceptibility to death is often used as a visible sign of our fallen nature that makes maturation a consequence of our spiritual corruption made visible in our physical appearance.
Thus, by that definition, Christ should have never grown from an Infant into a Child, and finally into a 30-year-old Man, susceptible to death! Of course, we can always say that He willed it so, which makes His humanity appear even less "just like us."
What I am driving at is that it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, the divine from human; the inspired from rationalization; the ordained from man made, tec. I think one of the best examples of this mixture where human and divine is inseparable is the Orthodox fasting practice.
Not only did St. Paul "release" Gentiles from dietary restrictions of Pharisaical Judaism, but the disciples themselves were released from Judaic fasting practices until Christ's death. But early Christians, all of whom were Pharisees by worship, continued to fast twice a week. When Christianity spread into other areas, there were no specific rules as to when to fast, how long, or what not to eat. None of this is scriptural, of course and falls under the "Tradition."
The truth is that the Church eventually decided to "regulate" fasting and even insist on it to the point of excommunication! Thus, some Orthodox Churches teach that twice weekly fast is the same Fast as the Great Lent: no oil, animal products or wine; eat once (ninth hour), and always less than desired.
In the beginning, the Church regulated monastic fasts longer than that for laity. Many monastics have since then started fasting on Mondays as well, in order to "exceed the Pharisees" in righteousness.
All of this is man-made mumbo-jumbo for the lack of a better term and none of it Biblical or even Judaic or for that matter ethnic. Now, I am not saying that fasting is not good, because other religions recognize it as "purifying" and so on, but that is something that would come naturally with higher states of theosis, and not something that is pre-conditioned and imposed. The way it is can be likened to making a commitment before being in love.
Thus, whether we talk about the 'sola scriptura' which is an oxymoron because it is not independent of human rationalization (interpretation), or whether we speak of invented de-novo Church traditions, we see the same human element being the crucial hinge that seems to overlap everything else, including the imposition of a "gender," by necessity, to God.
OK, and thanks for the explanation. I suppose my sneaky little mind was wondering if this belief was somehow tied to another. :) IOW, is some other (really important) belief logically impossible UNLESS Mary remains a virgin. The obvious one is that Jesus could not then have blood siblings. But even here, I don't see how this is a world-ender in terms of importance. I can't figure how either of our respective core principles is strongly affected based on what the truth of this is, but I could be wrong. It's still fun to debate anyway. :)
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), ...
For myself, I wouldn't go so far as to say I throw out all histories except the NT. I remember one time I was teaching from John, and I made a big deal about the scene of Jesus crossing the Kidron Valley on His way to the garden to be arrested. After researching, I noted that the creek running through the Valley led up to the Temple where all of the sacrifices were being made.
It's a simple fact that with all the thousands of sacrifices, that there would be a lot of blood, and that blood had to go somewhere. I said that this blood was emptied into the creek. So, my point was to note the irony of Jesus literally stepping over a creek carrying sacrificial blood, as He himself went to become a sacrifice. All of this, of course, is extra-scriptural, but it was so beautiful, I couldn't resist sharing it. :)
No, we believe that faith moves you to do deeds in God's name. A faith that does not move you to do God's work is dead faith.
PS I'll let you in on a little secret: you can't please God, for He is not subject to pleasure.
Unless, as was the case, her parents Joachim and Anna intended the marriage to be a custodial marriage.
You seem to say First comes the Catholic church, then comes the historical Christian events, as if the Catholic Church alone determines authenticity. Or maybe I misunderstand. At any rate, let's leave the poor Mormons to their error for now, and look to Christian "experiences". When not grounded in the Word, and the Word alone, Catholics become prone to mysticism and Protestants to charismatism, if that's a word.
Depends on what it is knowledge of.
If it is knowledge of whether Mary was a virgin or Christ's Passion or the Ressurection or Transfiguration, then personal or subjective experience is not much of a guide. However if it is knowledge of God's love for me, for example, then knowing by direct personal experience is firmer.
Jesus loves me, this I know, for the bible tells me so
In addition to Kosta's spot-on remark, there is a simple scriptural reason: "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). Baptism is ordinarily necessary because Christ said so. The unbaptized baby does not have ordinary means of salvation applicable to him, i.e. baptism. He only relies on the extraordinary mercy of Christ, sometihng we surely hope for but cannot be assured of.
I am doing my best inserting some precision in your "its".
St. Paul is an apostle in his own right. He received apostolship directly from Christ. Since that was a private revelation the act of formal acceptance in the Apostolic college was necessary and was obtained, but you are correct that it is not a regular sacrament of the Holy Orders. It was a one of a kind event.
About Apollo we don't know anything except that he preached, and some of his preaching was corrected. No episcopacy was necessary for that.
If there is any anti-Catholic implication in any of that, as is the case in most of your posts, please spell it out.
Mary is a co-redeemer because of her unique status of the Mother of God. The Incarnation and Redemption has become possible through her. Hence she is the co-Redeemer.
Her sinlessness is not logically necessary for her co-redeemership. The sinlessness itself follows form the full message of the Gospel alongside the co-redeemership.
When it states [in Rom 3:23] that all have sinned it includes Mary
No it doesn't. The adjacent verses make clear that "all" refers to the Godless who toil uinder the law of nature or the law of Moses (compare verses 11-18). That passage stands in direct contrast to Luke 1:28, "hail full of grace". That grace is the grace of Christ that justifies the believer, starting with Mary, as Paul explains in verses 24-30.
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.