Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
A8 is right. Your formulation is almost identical to the distinction Nestorius drew between the Divine Logos and the one from the Virgin.
If you don't believe there are two persons in Christ, and do believe that the Divine Logos and Jesus Christ are the same person, then you ought not use language that has the force of denying the unity of Christ's person. If you stop using such language now that the problem has been pointed out to you, you are not a Nestorian. No one is a heretic unless they persist in their erroneous views willfully after receiving correction from the Church (and you'll note, the East and the West are speaking with one voice on this).
If she saw herself as a literal fulfillment of Isaiah 7 in the sense of virgin birth (not the only reading of that passage, as you probably know), her question would have been "How can this be because I am engaged to be married?"
If she saw herself as a mother of the Messiah born through natural means, she would not have any question at all, as she was on her way to be mariied and soon a mother.
The only way her response in v. 34 makes sense is if she did not intend to have carnal relations with Joseph.
Are you the church that you are now correcting him?
So you've decided to abandon help from the East on this one and argue the unity of the Church based on the Papal claims?
I think it is entirely within what little authority I have as a mere Subdeacon of the Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church, privileged to serve the Patriarchate of Antioch (where the disciples were first called 'Christians), to report faithfully the position of the Holy Fathers of the Third Ecumenical Council, thereby speaking on behalf of the Church. I have no doubt my bishop, metropolitan and patriarch would all issue the same exhorations against FK's ill-chosen statement of Christology if they were participating on this thread.
But you are still building on what Scripture doesn't say ANYWHERE. If what you say is true, then why wouldn't she have said, "how can this be since I have pledged myself to God to be a virgin all my life?" Why would she allow herself to be betroathed? If she were dedicated to God alone, why would she become some man's wife and allow her attention to be swallowed up in her relationship with him?
As Paul says: 1 Corinthians 7:34
There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband
Of course, in this context virgin is better understood as unmarried woman since Mary was Joseph's espoused WIFE and still a virgin. But Jewish law and Christian instruction indicated that one shouldn't avoid sexual relations with their spouse except for short periods of time for specific spiritual purposes.
1 Corinthians 7:3-5
3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
So do you declare everyone outside of your faith a heretic?
Not everyone outside the Orthodox faith: only Christians who knowingly deny the Orthodox faith, while purporting to be Christians. Non-Christians aren't heretics, though if they used to be Christians, they are apostates.
I see. So what if someone converts to a non-Orthodox faith who previously was not of the Orthodox faith?
You seem to have confounded ontology and epistemology.
No one would ever have thought of quantum mechanics before classical physics broke down in the face of problems explaining the two-slit experiment and the photoelectric effect, but that doesn't mean electrons, photons and the lot haven't been quantum mechanical since the Creation.
God is always the All-Holy Trinity from before time. That He transcends the distinction between unity and multiplicity is plain enough as a conclusion from "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is One God" and "God is love". (Since how from before creation can one alone, one in the ordinary sense of unity conceived of in this-worldly terms, be love?) He reveals Himself as Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in the baptism of Our Lord in the Jordan, but indications of the Trinity are to be found in the Old Testament: How is it that the Lord speaks of Himself in plural, "Come let Us make Man in Our image and likeness"? "Before the morning star I begot thee. . ." Though neither verse can be used as a proof-text against Arius' error of holding the Word to be the first creature, both tell against the variation you propose of holding that God 'became' the Trinity when we learned that He is the Trinity.
-A8
Your post in response to my verbal poke is just. The problem I saw was that you were arguing unity based on the singleness of the Pope of Rome in the post to which I replied.
Unless a protestant becomes convinced of the authority of the ancient Church it is unlikely that he will come to accept either the Latin or the Greek approach to ecclesiology, and arguing the case from the specifically Latin position, to which a protestant is certain to be resistant for obvious historical reasons, is less likely to move him than staying close to the founding of the Church where we can speak with one voice. Once you use the papacy as the locus of unity, rather than the Apostolic Faith, you, indeed lose help from the East, since we are bound to uphold our own understanding of ecclesiology.
Speaking of firstborn... ;)
I heard a song today that made me wonder...
About the plagues and Passover and whether this has any application to the argument a while back over firstborn:
When the "firstborn" of Egypt died and the "firstborn" of Israel were spared, did this only apply to the firstborn with siblings?
The Hebrew word was b'kowr which means Eldest son or preiminent in an order of things. First.
The Bible doesn't say one way or another what this meant if the child were an only child. Taking it 100% literally, however, it seems to indicate that the oldest of others was killed by the death angel. Can't be dogmatic on it. Just looking at the actual word though.
I understand. But in Catholic theology, we do not have to choose between the papacy and the Apostolic Faith as the loci of unity. My original point to Blogger (in 2756) was that if we go by our own personal interpretation of Scripture we end up with division upon division. And I think that is also true if we each go by our own determination of the "Apostolic Faith". Without a living authoritative judge of what is the "Apostolic Faith", views will be all over the map.
-A8
thanks. I read that it also included livestock.. and that there was some debate over whether girls were included.
The feast and plague is called "Firstborn." (In all the English references I've found.) You saying that's not a proper translation.
All over the map on non-essentials for the most part. Pretty close together on most essentials for Protestants.
We may differ on mode and reason for baptism, and on such things as speaking in tongues and eschatology (timing); but on the essentials, such as who Jesus is, what the Trinity is, Virgin birth, sacrificial death, etc., you will find a lot of unity.
Of course, you have some liberal groups in all religions (including Catholics) that have thrown the basics (including Scripture) out altogether since they reject the miraculous. I'm not speaking of them, nor do I think you would put them in your fold.
The contention is that this is what is conveyed by "I know not man". Why St. Luke did not elaborate is a good question, but a similar elaboration is missing on the essentials of the Faith, such as the Trinity, -- the stone of stumbling of the early Church or the exact relationship between the works and the faith, which putatively caused the Reformation. However, the rough outline for the need of "josephine" marriage is known from tradition and is reflected in the Protoevangelium of James: that a temple virgin would have to be married off to a suitable man who would take care of her economic life in a patriarchic society without a carnal aspect normally associated with marriage. Since temple virgins were few, the scripture does not deal with regulating the aspects of such marriages.
8 [...] 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, [lest] 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.
There is no claim that the Protoevangelium is inspired scripture and the authorship is in doubt. It is, however, an early Christian document that reflects the culture of at the latest the 2c, and it describes the marriage of St. Joseph and the reasons for it.
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.