Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
The hypostatic union means the "joining" of the human and divine natures of Jesus. As "Mother of the Lord" she is "Mother of the Creator," by which we mean the one through whom the 2nd Person of the Trinity entered the world. This is her "office" --"service"-- to mankind.
Thank you. And my apologies again for any earlier offense. I'm working my way backwards through your posts now.
Not that there's anything wrong with being ignorant mind you. hahahaha (^g^) JH
Thank you for your thoughts.
I guess I just don't see anywhere that God gave His approval for what the Disciples did in the upper room. After all, God made Paul an Apostle so that means there would have been thirteen all together. That doesn't make sense to me, unless you want to say that there was one for each tribe of Israel plus one for the Gentiles, which makes thirteen. Actually, I guess that does make some sort of sense.
-ksen
Thank you for your directness. I will refer to Scripture as I respond, although I don't expect to refer to many different passages than those that are already "on the table" for our discussion.
I'm not sure, though, what your definition of "philosophy" is - you can tell me if you think its important. A valid issue, I believe, is the question - How are we to understand Scripture? As the Ethiopian says to Philip, how will I understand if no one teaches me? I don't believe that questions concerning the proper way to approach Scripture are questions of philosophy, even though they require us to draw on the gift of reason that God has given us. And while reason certainly cannot bring us to God, this does not mean that we can't distinguish between good and bad reasoning.
I'm sure you can understand why I say this.
I'll try. My understanding, based on the brief amount of personal information I've seen you post and the approach to questions of faith seen in your posts, is that you have had bad experiences in the past due to relying on the teachings of deceitful men. I have been burned as well, although I have no way of knowing if our situations are comparable. As Scripture teaches us, "test the spirits." There is nothing wrong with diligently testing the arguments of another against Scripture.
I can't believe that the very first "act" that they did was not in accordance with God's will. They didn't even wait for the sending of the Comforter. They went right ahead and filled the vacant office. There can be little doubt in my mind that they believed they were within their authority to do so.
Also, Jesus said to them "even as the Father has sent me, so do I send you." To me, even as means the same, not "similar to" or "kinda like." And He told them, "those whose sins you forgive they are forgiven, and those whose sins you retain they are retained. The Father sent Jesus with the authority to forgive sins and to call those whom He would call. Though I believe that even today it is Jesus that calls men to the sacred ministry, not bishops. I think Jesus "delegated" that authority to the apostles.
I think there was Old Testament symbolism in Jesus' use of twelve. But the number of bishops very quickly increased beyond 12 so I don't think there was any sort of imposition to only have a certain number.
John Paul II underlined that "the history of Christian piety teaches that MARY IS THE PATH THAT LEADS TO CHRIST, and that filial devotion to her does not at all diminish intimacy with Jesus, but rather, it increases it and leads it to very high levels of perfection." He concluded by asking all Christians "to make room (for Mary) in their daily lives, ACKNOWLEDGING HER PROVIDENTIAL ROLE IN THE PATH OF SALVATION" (Ibid.).
BigMack
1) Please explain the concept of the first-born, as it relates to ancient Jewish law and custom.
B'khorim or Firstborn refers to the bekhor of first born human males and animals. This recognition of first born was that God preserved his people from the tenth and last plague during the Exodus (that's what I call it, but he had another term which I cannot make out from my notes). To celebrate this deliverance, a fast is maintained by the first born by the firstborn, called ta'anit bekhorim.
The ritual Pidyon haBen (redemption of the first-born son) was intended for first born son to serve in a religious role such as Temple duties or priests. In the Exodus, the tribe of Levi was chosen for these duties (due to their refusing to participate in the honor to the Golden Calf) and , but the firstborn son retains this important status in Jewish communities today.
Pidyon haBen is performed on the 31th day following birth, it cannot be performed on Shabbat? because of the matter of money, with the transfer of usually 5 dollars (silver) to a Kohen, as the actual redemption must be from a Kohen. He said not all rabbis are are as such.
The child must be born via natural childbirth of an Israelite mother and father, must be male and parents cannot be from the tribe of Levi. There are some other requirements concerning the tribe of the mother and father as well, which I can post if anyone is interested, but angelo? may be a good resource for further information.
"2) Was it possible for an only child of a Jewish parents to be considered "first-born" in accordance with Mosaic law at the time?"
Yes and the same holds true now, although I was told that the Pidyon haBen was not and is not currently rigorously adhered to by Reform Jews and is typically performed by traditional and conservative Jewish communities. I was also told that the Pidyon haBen is not performed for the first son born, only the first born that IS a son and subject to the above. The prof I talked with said that he knows of several only children, males, that are called first born.
Reference I was given for the special status of first born sons was Shemot 13:2.
Again, my apoligies if I have mispelled anything or have some grammer wrong. I checked my nots again to make sure I had what he said down as accurately as possible.
Well, that's fair enough.
I think that the fact that they did not wait for the Comforter is another strike against Matthias being an Apostle. After all Christ said that the Spirit of Truth would guide them "into all truth" (Jn 16:13). I know that if the Holy Spirit is not present in what you are doing then whatever it is you are attempting is worthless and will come to nothing.
Also, Jesus said to them "even as the Father has sent me, so do I send you." To me, even as means the same, not "similar to" or "kinda like." And He told them, "those whose sins you forgive they are forgiven, and those whose sins you retain they are retained. The Father sent Jesus with the authority to forgive sins and to call those whom He would call. Though I believe that even today it is Jesus that calls men to the sacred ministry, not bishops. I think Jesus "delegated" that authority to the apostles.
God sent Jesus to reconcile the world to Himself. That is what we are sent to do. We have been given the ministry of reconciliation (II Cor 5:18-19). That is what the Apostles were sent to do and that is what we are sent to do, proclaim the gospel to every creature.
I think there was Old Testament symbolism in Jesus' use of twelve. But the number of bishops very quickly increased beyond 12 so I don't think there was any sort of imposition to only have a certain number.
Well, Jesus did tell the Disciples that they would sit on twelve thrones judging the tribes of Israel (Mt 19:28). So I think that twelve is an important number when it comes to the Apostles.
Do you think that bishops and Apostles are the same office? I know that in my tradition (yes Dave, I said tradition) which is Independent Baptist, Apostles and bishops are different. An Apostle was one of the original twelve and a bishop would be a modern day Pastor.
Again, thanks for your comments.
-ksen
Apologies again. Meant as a joke, and in the "street" sense of the word. Considering this is a religious discussion, I will try to be more careful about how I use the word "faith." Also, I’m going to diligently try to answer every question you’ve put to me, but if I miss one let me know.
You said you were going to get help from someone at your church on the subject of "firstborn" not the subject of "Mary Ever Virgin".
I’ve done some of my own research, and also put the question to my priest. Part of his answer to me via email reads as follows:
“The problem with Biblical interpretation is that we are limited by our humanity. We speak and think in human terms and our tendency is to attempt to portray the Divine in these terms. Don’t try to limit Jesus to a finite place and time. While it is true that He was born in a finite place and time, we must always think of Him in terms of His Infinity. "O only-begotten Son and Word of God who art immortal" as the Troparion of the Second Antiphon reminds us. It also reminds us "who for our salvation willed to be incarnate of the Holy Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary." It is not appropriate to merely speak about Jesus was born on such and such a date and Mary had kids after Him. The irony of the particular argument that you sent to me is that within the Tradition of our Church, it is believed that Joseph may have had children from a previous marriage (James, the brother of the Lord). Keeping that in mind, they still refer to Jesus as "firstborn." Why? Because He is the first in all things, the first in all creation, "the firstfruits of them that are asleep." (1 Cor. 15:20-23) If we can refer to Him as the "firstfruits of them that are asleep (i.e., dead), does that mean that He is the first person to have ever died? No. The first to rise from the dead? No (the son of the widow of Nain, Lazarus, etc.) We need to be very careful in adhering to a strict literal interpretation of isolated Biblical quotes. I have provided a link below which list "first-born" in the New Testament. If we were to take each of them literally, it would wreak havoc with our understanding of basic Christian doctrine.”
I know that this doesn’t address precisely the discussion we’re having, but I find it interesting. I want to explore this idea a little more, but I don’t want to get slammed for posting 3 pages again, so I’m going to do that in another post.
As an aside, what my priest included was a link to crosswalk.com’s online RSV bible study tool, listing each occurance of the word “first-born” in the NT. I mention this because I want to reinforce the idea that the Orthodox do turn first to Scripture to form their thinking. They just don’t stop there.
”It looks as though.”…. Now does that sound like a dogmatic statement of revealed truth?
No. And my apologies if I implied that it was. I realized that you were putting forth a theory. My intention was to point out that this interpretation is thus no more binding than an interpretation put forth by Orthodox tradition.
You didn’t say why Christ made a separate visit to see James though, why do you think he did?
I don’t know. Since I don’t know, I could form theories if I chose. My preference would be instead to turn to the Patristic teachings of the Church to see what others have thought first. There are different versions of “The Life of St. James” in the hagiographic tradition. You’ve roused my curiosity, so I may look in to it more.
The reason I take so long on a post
Take as long as you need. Any reference to the amount of time it took you to respond was meant as a joke. I was sincere when I thanked you for remembering our conversation from several weeks ago from another thread, and am still amazed that you went to the trouble to remember and respond. As I’ve said once already, for this reason I consider you a man (woman?) of honor.
Finally somebody that goe thru posts the way I do. I don't why but I always do it backwards.
The scripture isn't very clear on whether or not Joseph was a pothead either. More hoops.
I'm sorry you don't like hypothetical questions. I'll try to clarify what I meant. The one instance I can clearly recall involved how to understand Matthew 1:24-25.
I'm going to try to do this symbolically. This is how I think it went:
JH: If A is true then the text would read C.
WS: If B is true then the text would read C.
We agree on what C says, Matthew 1:24-25. You say A - "If they had a full and normal marriage, including sex" then C.
I say B - "If their marriage was uniquely special, and they didn't have sex" then C.
We're not disagreeing over what the verses say. We're disagreeing about what they mean. So I asked you - hypothetically - IF you thought B was true, what do you think C would say?
I was trying to get you to clarify why you thought my interpretation of the verses isn't reasonable. One way you could do that would be to give me a rephrasing of C that would fit better with B.
It looks like this was a poor way to approach our dialogue on my part, so I'll drop it.
I do think that this is consistent, though, with what I did in my response. You said, concerning Matthew 13 55-56, that "If this is not a clear referral to the whole family of Joseph and Mary I don’t know what could be."
I disagreed with you, and spelled out what I thought a "clear referral" would be. I was asking you to do the same with Matthew 1:24-25. As I've said, apparently asking poorly.
So I’m still undecided on you.
Fair enough. Its hard to form complete opinions of people on the Web. For all you know, I'm a pimply pierced 16 year old junkie who likes to fool around on FR. I'm not, though! :-)
It isn't necessary. Did I copy him on the "TO" line? Why don't you ask him? Are you afraid he knows where you live?
I was kidding! Why would I ask him when he reads the threads???
I'm only afraid of Havoc and possibly Iowegian and maybe you... and you live closest! :-)
JH: You are right, and I didn't take his word for it, I have proved it for myself, why would I build my eternal future on a book that another an told me was of God?
That was the first thing I had to prove to myself, that was the foundation of all my beliefs after Christ entered my life, him being the first.
I had a similar experience involving the Church. I withheld my commitment, my belief, my obedience, until it was proved to me by God that God indeed revealed Himself through Scripture and within the Church. It is because of this that I give weight to the teaching of the Church. My wife says that the first time she walked in to the Orthodox Church where we were baptized, "it felt like God breathed in her face." We love the Church because God is there, and if somehow it was proved to us that God ceased to be there we would leave.
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.