Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Using this reasoning, as the HS indwells believers, we also are divine vessels carrying God around. Perhaps we can be the ark of the covenant.
Before I used the words 'awe' and 'wonder'. These would be good examples of direct personal experience. Somewhat extreme, but fitting: the kind of thing you would say, "I can't put it into words, but..." Love can be personally experienced too, yes?
Jesus loves me, this I know, for the bible tells me so
And you believe the Bible, so you know Jesus loves you because the bible says so. You also know Jesus loves you in a deeper, more personal, more direct way.
[...]
On the other hand, the Orthodox belief is that Mary reached a state of theosis that can and never will be attained by anyone else
First, and as an aside to any Protestnat reading this, these are the superabundant merits of Christ that she dispenses, -- none of her own, as she remains fully human, -- in fact, more human than we are. There may be a difference indeed because as I understand the Orthodox Church teaches that the grace flows equally to all, whichis not the Catholic teaching in general (see the Parable of the Talents why).
The second part of your post shows that despite the great differences in theological method, we arrive in the same place insofar as our needs in praxis are concerned. Surely you don't think it ill-advised to ask for Mary's prayers, especially when in the hour of our death our own pious disposition might be not at its height.
Thank you for this truly comprehensive post.
I know that he died for me and there is no greater love
Joh 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
Perhaps it's the Puritan in us, but we are taught not to think about Christ's love in terms of earthly love.
The Protoevangelium says, he didn't, and beyond that we don't know.
8. [...] 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.
Note that the priest is described to act as if the arranged marriage to whoever received the divine sign was the only way to go about it.
The council of Ephesus confirmed that status in 4 century AD after Nestorius questioned it. Whoever "elevated" her, did so before the 4 Century. My bet is on Archangel Gabriel.
I know that it seems untherapeutic. However, it is entirely up to your free will to sin or not to sin. Don't sin, and bingo, absolute assurance. As St. Francis said, sainthood is easy: all you need to do is want it.
I think I understand what you mean. I wonder if love, all real love, isn't spiritual in some way though.
If you don't mind, could I ask what denomination, if any, you belong to? I hear quite a bit from Protestants about a 'personal relationship with Jesus' that may be something similar to what I'm trying to say here.
I appreciate your views and thank you for your reply.
http://www.biblebb.com/mac-a-g.htm
The natural assumption to Mary, if your theory about her were true, is that she will get married and get pregnant and have a baby son, who will have a great future. She was betrothed, remember?
The angel did not mean "right away". He said "thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son",-- indicating normal pregnancy,-- and ideed it took her the usual gestational 9 months, as the scripture tells us. Nothing in his speech prior to Mary's question in v.34 indicates anything extraordinary regarding the physiology of Jesus' birth. Where has your school of plain reading disappeared?
Because my view is also the faith of the fathers for 2000 years; yours isn't.
I am agreeing with people not only from just 500 years ago, but also with the writings of some early Church Fathers. Some of the writings of these Fathers (e.g., Augustine, Tertullian) were thrown out by the Church as heresy, but which support what I believe today on some subjects
The cornerstone of Protestant or Baptist beliefs - Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide or predestination of the reprobates were not taught by anyone prior to the Reformation. At best you have some writings of St. Augustine that can be bent the predestinationalist way despite his own clarifications to the contrary. There is nothing in the Reformed belief system that conforms with the consensus of the fathers at any time.
No, first comes the event, what we call the Paschal Mystery. With the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentacost, the Church is born. It is her witness to Christ that defines the "experience" - the "folly of the cross" as Paul says. It is the Christian explanation that defines what the Old Testament prophesies mean. These experiences of the Christian are based on a real event - the Risen Christ.
When not grounded in the Word, and the Word alone, Catholics become prone to mysticism and Protestants to charismatism, if that's a word.
When you capitalize "the Word", I presume you mean the Bible - correct me if I am wrong... In reality, the Word is the Second Person of the Trinity. Our religion is based upon His revelation to man, not the Bible alone.
Regards
CHAPTER 100
IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS [CALLED] JACOB, AND ISRAEL, AND SON OF MAN"Then what follows--'But Thou, the praise of Israel, inhabitest the holy place'--declared that He is to do something worthy of praise and wonderment, being about to rise again from the dead on the third day after the crucifixion; and this He has obtained from the Father. For I have showed already that Christ is called both Jacob and Israel; and I have proved that it is not in the blessing of Joseph and Judah alone that what relates to Him was proclaimed mysteriously, but also in the Gospel it is written that He said: 'All things are delivered unto me by My Father;' and, 'No man knoweth the Father but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him.' Accordingly He revealed to us all that we have perceived by His grace out of the Scriptures, so that we know Him to be the first-begotten of God, and to be before all creatures; likewise to be the Son of the patriarchs, since He assumed flesh by the Virgin of their family, and submitted to become a man without comeliness, dishonoured, and subject to suffering. Hence, also, among His words He said, when He was discoursing about His future sufferings: "The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the Pharisees and Scribes, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.' He said then that He was the Son of man, either because of His birth by the Virgin, who was, as I said, of the family of David and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham; or because Adam was the father both of Himself and of those who have been first enumerated from whom Mary derives her descent. For we know that the fathers of women are the fathers likewise of those children whom their daughters bear. For [Christ] called one of His disciples--previously known by the name of Simon--Peter; since he recognised Him to be Christ the Son. of God, by the revelation of His Father: and since we find it recorded in the memoirs of His apostles that He is the Son of God, and since we call Him the Son, we have understood that He proceeded before all creatures from the Father by His power and will (for He is addressed in the writings of the prophets in one way or another as Wisdom, and the Day, and the East, and a Sword, and a Stone, and a Rod, and Jacob, and Israel); and that He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, 'Be it unto me according to thy word.' And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.
When I capitalize "Word" I mean Christ first, bible second, church third.
Although very crudely stated, it is not incorrect at its core. Compare Luke 11:28. We venerate saints because we can become saints. We venerate Mary because we can become custodians of the Word in our walk of faith.
I'm not sure what other belief Mary's ever-virginity would be tied to in your sneaky mind. I can't think of why her not remaining a virgin after her birth would affect our salvation. We do believe that Joseph, after all of the visions and angels and shepherds and virgin birth and so forth realized that this child was the Messiah and that this Messiah was perhaps more than they had ever suspected he would be. Whether he fully realized from the first that Jesus was God, we of course do not know. But in light of this, we find it unlikely that he would treat Mary as an "ordinary wife."
This is of course a retrospective comment, and it is *not* the reason why we believe in the ever-virginity of the Theotokos. There is not a "she must have been ever-virgin in order that ____ could be true" involved at all.
"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."
I don't either. Which is why I am frankly surprised at the level of hostility to the belief in her ever-virginity amongst the Protestants on this forum. For her to be ever-virgin affects no Protestant doctrine whatsoever, and I don't think it affects our core doctrines, either. For that reason, I do not feel that I am being untrue to my own beliefs by saying that I can understand why Protestants would believe as they do -- and yet there is a rigid unwillingness on the part of Protestants on this thread to acknowledge that *just maybe* it is reasonable for us to believe as we do.
With regard to your story from your teaching, I'm afraid that you made my point. Protestants will mention interesting things from archeology, Jewish histories or traditions, and secular histories as being plausible and worth mentioning. But anything that is written by the Church of the early centuries is suspect at best, verboten at worst. There is a double standard at work, where the presumption is that what the Church believed in the early centuries (anything but the New Testament as read through Protestant eyes) is untrue unless somehow conclusively proved otherwise, whereas other archeological and historical accounts or theories are accepted with relative ease.
I just find it interesting.
Kindness is not the Gospel.
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.