Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
In English is one and the same word with one single meaning. And +Paul used exclusively haigios which is equivalent only most holy (chaciyd).
Again, this is an example of man-made bible, subject to faulty interpretation because of linguistic and other preferences of the author(s).
Faulty interpretation leads to faulty comprehension and faulty comprehension to faulty belief. That's why individuals cannot just read the bible and believe correctly.
ladyinred to Kosta: Protestants are Christians too !
The Arians, Monophysitists, Montanists, Docetists, Bogomils, LDS and the Jehova's Witnesses, even the Gnostics, to name just a few, will tell you the same thing.
They all believe they are Christians because they call on Jesus' name!
It is laughable, but it becomes pathetic when they tell someone else that he or she is not a Christian (by their standards).
I think they are wrong, as I think the Protestants are wrong, but I would defer the judgment as to whether someone is a Christian or not to God, unlike FTD. But, again, we all have choices, and he chose to make it.
I understand what’s left of the monophysites are close to returning to the fold... (aledgedly the beleive the same but worded it confusingly... )
If they believe as we do, all they have to do is recite the Nicene Creed (they, unlike Catholics, don't even have to be chrismated)! It's as simple as that.
So, there is no need for rationalizing, and re-writing their fals Christology to try to make it appear Orthodox.
The only reason they do is their goal of re-entering the Church by deception and not by renouncing, clearly and unequivocally, their false beliefs.
This is obvious from the fact that they steadfastly refuse to recognize Chaledon, and until such time — their smokescreens nothwithstanding — any discussion is superfluous.
WOULD that be all they need to do?
Either way i think any union without them reciting the creed is a false one as you said.
The article by the coptic priest tried to say it was political which is a red flag right there. The 7 Councils stand. They were not political charades regardless of whether the accusation comes from a Copt or a protestant..
They are Orthodox in every way but Christiology. They would simply need to recite the Creed and get rid of their heretical books.
I tought there were anathemas against them... wouldn’t that technically need to be repealed first?
Well do you want to use the Hebrew words of "faithful" and "holy" for earthly believers? Dictionary.com defines "saint" as a person of great holiness, virtue, or benevolence. The Psalms call believers "holy". Sounds like the same thing to me. The "faulty" interpretation is a stretch IMHO.
How would YOU define these Hebrew terms and does it make any difference?
I would imagine that once they officially accepted all Ecumenical Councils and recited the Nicene Creed, the anathemas would be withdrawn and consigned to oblivion.
But that goes directly against the liturgical tradition of Orthodoxy where we sing "Thou [Christ] didst descent into hell." The Apostolic Creed also establishes that. Even the Gospel expression "the gates of hell" suggests a physical place.
That's interesting. I have always thought of heaven and hell as places, even if in a dimension not currently observable to us. I actually have no problem with that idea. It's just that I am sure that no matter what happens I am going to exist, and I've always thought of existence as requiring space. But before I dig myself into too deep a hole, perhaps we should consult the resident expert on such matters. :) AG, could you please help us understand this?
She is not divine, true. We do not have to bow down or prostrate to her. We can, however, if we want to, and most do. Can we ask her to save us directly as if she were a savior? No, of course not, and we know that. When the Orthodox ask her to save us or the Catholic ask her to pray for us it is well understood that she is relaying our plea to Christ.
This is a good example of the "lens" (7/11's were not invented yet). You are of course correct that there was nothing of life-saving necessity in the Cana miracle, and the gospel makes it clear that the miracle was a signal to the first disciples that something of great importance was astir.
Nonsense. Show me a bible prior to the Reformation that does not have the disputed books. The Canons of Hippo and Carthage list them (late 4th and early 5c).
Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt (Rom 4:4)Indeed, works done for economic or social reward do not count for salvation.
No, not 10, but verse 7 speaks of eternal life, that is of salvation and not of a post-salvation reward.
James is speaking of what is seen, he is not speaking of being justified in the theological sense
This is your opinion, in which I am not interested. James uses both "saved" (James 2:14) and "justified" (James 2:24) in the same passage.
In Romans 4, v.5 speaks of works for reward and out of obligation, and in v.9 of works od ceremonial law. Indeed, neither is salvific.
[Luke 17:5-10] has nothing to do with salvation, it has to do with rewards Luke 17:5-10] explains how faith is increased, through works. And faith, we all agree, is salvific.
1Cor.3 is not proof text for the non-Biblical purgetory
The spelling is "Purgatory". Yes, it is such prooftext. We've been there a year ago.
offering a sin offering means that she was a sinner
What was her sin then? The offering in question is done after a woman gives birth. We don't consider giving birth sin. Do you?
Do you believe that God takes up space in a location or a dimension? How much does God weigh? How big is He? What area does He exist within this place called "heaven"? Perhaps for people who do not think much about it, heaven can be called a "place". But for theologians who take seriously the idea that God is a spirit (and spirits do not take up space), it would be better to consider heaven as a "state of existence" rather than a physical place. Such anthropomorphic views of God do not make sense with the view that God is spirit.
Regards
She believed before she understood; this is the model for all believers. Belief is what we do, not what we think. She did what god asked her to do from Annunciation to the Pentecost. This is perfect faith.
here she is chastising our Lord and Savior. Perhaps this is the better example of her possible sin.
This is a possible interpretation, that she is chastising Christ, yes. The literal text is "why hast thou done so to us? behold thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing". This is a complaint, not necessarily a chastisement. However, if it is, it is consistent with her role as a parent. In fact, St. Luke informs us that Christ was obedient to his parents (v 51), hence it is not possible to read sin into this.
Mary did not have understanding at the Temple, but now it is potential blasphemy to say she still didn't have it at Cana?
Oh, no, I was merely referring to the tone in which you describe the Cana miracle as "waving hands in the air". I agree that we are not told directly if Mary knew what exactly the miracle was going to signify; we do however know that she requested it, form Christ's reaction, and we know that it marked the beginning of Christ's ministry.
How can you assume Mary was asking for a miracle?
Unless you assume that Jesus traveled with a wine supply, she was. Supermarkets on every corner were not invented yet.
What is the significance of "the two" sacramental substances in this context?
The miracle led to the disipleship (v.11) and the disciples of Christ are sustained with water and wine, -- baptism and the Eucharist.
Is there no joy in that in itself without needing to give Mary credit for the assist?
Is the question "where do you find veneration of Mary in the gospel?" or is it "why don't you read the gospel in the same way I like to read it?". If it is the former, then I answered it. Here is an episode where Mary is an important participant, and that leads to the formation of the Church. We take it as a whole, and rejoice over the entire whole. You read and discard the implications you don't like, -- that is your choice, and we have ours.
You mean that I am intolerant because I don't read the relevant scriptures the same way you do?
I mean, you turn a blind eye to aspects of the scripture your pastors tell you to be blind to. Faulty mariology is faulty Christology.
It seems like your implying that Mary had a hand in forming the church. Is this the impression you want to leave?
I mean, you turn a blind eye to aspects of the scripture your pastors tell you to be blind to. Faulty mariology is faulty Christology.
Our churches are not autocratic hierarchies.
Are you now claiming that if we don't worship Mary we don't understand our Saviour?
HD, Christianity distinguished from the beginning that some people were "holier" than others. Those who distinguished themselves in their faith, and achieved what we Orthodox call "theosis" (santification) during their life time, were posthumously declared to be Saints, as we believe they are in heaven.
Obviously, not all believers are "saints" simply because they are believers. That is something +Paul invented, and something the Church never accepted. Being a Saint is a distinction among believers, not a common trait.
Some people attain holiness, others don't. That much is clear.
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.