Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
For custodial purposes.
"As you well know, this was before the angel appeared to her. In fact, as I think about it, if she entered into a betrothal with the full intention of remaining a virgin, then she would have been guilty of the sin of fraud."
You assume a relationship geared towards procreation. Orthodox understanding is that Joseph was a widower of substantial age. The arrangement was for Mary's protection.
Consider this: Mary has just been told by God via Gabriel that she will bear a son. Her reaction is to point out that she has not known a man. Wouldn't it be more normal for her to just assume that this will happen in the usual way? If, after all, she is about to be married and have sexual intercourse as you say. Why does she question the Almighty about this if she has not vowed to keep her virginity?
What is the original question?
Luke 5: 33-35. We fast everyday of our lives.
Thanks. I think it's likely somewhere on this thread Purgatory was more clearly explained for you, so I'll decline here.
I would like to ask: Do you believe intecessory prayer is scriptural?
And also, concerning the Communion of Saints, do you believe the Saints in heaven are part of the Body of Christ?
thanks for your reply.
I was asking about your view of the Saints after they pass away. Are they asleep? Or..?
And also, Do you believe those in heaven are aware of us, our actions, repentance, etc? Do you believe those in heaven are like angels? Less than angels?
thanks..
The Theotokos is the exemplary Christian -- Christ is not a Christian, he is the Christ.
By taking the Theotokos and putting her into a special category where she was conceived differently from the rest of us, this makes her more than human, but less than God -- precisely what Protestants accuse those of us who revere her of doing.
If our baptism put us in a pre-fall state, then we would not get sick or die unless we sinned. Since infants who have been baptized but haven't yet sinned get sick and die, it is clear that baptism does not put us into a pre-fall state.
Excellent points about Mary and baptism. I'm relieved to see there are differences between the Orthodox and the Roman churches. I was beginning to think the distinctions had been erased.
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" - 1 Timothy 2:5
Why do you feel the need to pray to dead people?
Does this mean "no" to the question of intercessory prayer? Is this something that is not scriptural in Calvinists view?
Also, I'm not sure of your reply to whether the Saints in heaven are part of the Body of Christ?
This then should indicate my reply. Intecessory prayer, the Saints are alive in Jesus Christ.
To address your "need" question, I have to go back to the question of minimalism. I do a great many things I don't need to do; I don't factor need into the equation. It's not, for me, trying to figure out the minimum I need to do. T
I believe that prayer helps me and helps others. I'd go so far as to say I know that it does. I pray for you, and I'd be grateful for any prayers of yours for me.
Maybe you could see this last part as most definitely needed? :)
thanks very much for your reply.
How do you speak to them?
Do they speak back?
Do you know them?
Why would they (assuming that they could) pray for you?
Do they have divine and supernatural powers that allow them to hear your prayers and the prayers of others?
Why by-pass Jesus Christ who is the only mediator between God and man?
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Where does the Bible say Mary vowed to stay a virgin?
if she did that, she never would of planned to marry.
"That God's word damns your ceremonies it is evident; for the plain and straight commandment of God is, 'Not that thing which appears good in thy eyes shalt thou do to the Lord thy God, but what the Lord thy God has commanded thee; that do thou; add nothing to it; diminish nothing from it.' Now unless you are able to prove that God has commanded your ceremonies, this his former commandment will damn both you and them." -- John Knox (Knox, Works, 1:199. Cf. Calvin, The Necessity of Reforming the Church, in Tracts, 1:128-29.)
You are correct that the Scriptures were limited to those writings of Apostolic origin and that taught the Apostolic faith. Nothing written outside of the immedicate circle of the eyewitnesses became Scripture.
The recognition and preservation of what was and was not Scripture was the "work" of the Church as a whole. The declarations of any given council of bishops ratified, so to speak, the mystical understanding of the Church -- which is the Mystical Body of Christ. This is perhaps a difference between traditional Orthodox understanding and a slightly different emphasis on the role of formal Church structure held by Catholics. Both are positions Protestants would disagree with, but there is perhaps some difference.
Your analogy of the telephone is not a very exact one, in one sense (but then, neither was mine of the father to son transmission of a family story.)
What happened was more like this: The Apostles received the faith from Christ. No matter where they went throughout the known world, the faith they taught was the same. The key things were written down and compiled into what we now know as Scripture. These Scriptures were shared throughout the Christian world, and were recognized as Scripture by all, eventually. Their authority is paramount and is on a different level from all other parts of Tradition. Nothing can be taught that is not compatible with Scriptural teaching.
But many things were not written down, since the world could not contain the books. Faithful and clergy alike were taught these things throughout the Church as it grew and spread. The deposit of faith, which is Christ Himself, lived within the Church. As controversies arose, the tests to which doctrines were put were first and foremost the writings of the Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testament alike. Were this not so, the Fathers' writings wouldn't be leavened with the words of Scripture. The Church is the humble preserver of the Scriptures and the apostolic understanding of the words of Scripture, but no body of men, regardless of their titles, can place themselves above the Scriptures -- which are the verbal icon of Christ.
Another test was what was believed everywhere and by all, to borrow from the phrase of St. Vicent of Lerins.
This is the "consensus patrum." It was and is not one man on the end of a play telephone chain -- it was what was found to have been passed down throughout the Church. If the same belief had been passed down within the churches in Ephesus, Jerusalem, Rome, Alexandria, Carthage, and the farthest reaches of the Church, it was and is pretty safe to say that the only possible explanation for this is the explanation that the Church gives: that these beliefs are Apostolic in origin, and were thus passed down as a precious deposit.
Given the tendency of the Church in the early centuries to hash things out in great detail over seemingly minor issues, it should be notable that there is no record of internal debate or polemics about any of these things. When one branch of the "telephone chain" got something wrong, the other branches were usually right there to set them straight.
And more to the point, since Christ himself is, in a very real sense, Himself the deposit of the faith, and lives within the Church through his Holy Spirit, these beliefs and teachings are not so much things that are passed down as they are things that remain living within the Church.
For someone who does not live within the liturgical and ascetic life of the Orthodox Church, it is perhaps hard to understand how alive and present Holy Tradition (including the Scriptures themselves) is to us. It is not the province of musty manuscripts and stories told over the breaking of bread (although there have always been plenty of both of those!) It is primarily the province of the living experience of the Church at prayer and union with God.
The Orthodox tradition regarding the early life of Mary explains all of this. None of it is in the Bible explicitly, but it is compatible with the Biblical accounts.
Monkfan makes a valid point. If an angel appeared to a young woman planning to marry, and told her that she would conceive and bear a son, why would she assume that it meant "conceive -- this very instant?" It would have been most reasonable for her to assume that the angel meant that this would happen after she was married and began to "know" her husband.
The Biblican account is rather that she said "how can this thing be?" This makes sense if you understand that she had vowed to remain a virgin.
According to our tradition, she lived at a time when there was no "single option" for women. One married. Period.
Our tradition is that at that time, female who were pre- and post-childbearing capability lived in the temple complex, doing temple work -- cleaning, sewing, etc... She was dedicated to God and was brought to the temple at the age of 3 to begin this life of prayer and service to God.
When she, to put it delicately, was approaching the age when her presence would make the temple "unclean," she had to leave. A life of virginity was unknown at that time for women, and the only choice was to marry. Her family knew of her desire to remain a virgin, and the decision was made to betroth her to an elderly uncle who was a widower. She would be under his protection and be cared for by him, but would be able to continue to live as a virgin, dedicated to prayer.
After his death, she would be able to live as a widow, and eventually could return to the temple when she would no longer make the temple "unclean" -- much as the elderly Prophetess Anna lived in the temple as a widow, and as did other elderly widows of great piety.
It was at this point that the Archangel Gabriel appeared to her -- in light of this, it is understandable why she would ask "how can this thing be?" Had she been betrothed to a virile young thing with whom she planned to get active and have children, why would she have asked such a question?
I suppose this is why we differ so much on this. I do not think that the NT was written "independently" because God knew what concepts He wanted covered, and He knew how He wanted all of the books to work together. So it happened, I do not think it was luck. Therefore, when one book talks about all scripture, it makes perfect sense to me that it applies to other books that haven't even been written yet. God knew what would wind up as scripture because He caused the compilation, not men.
How do you know when the Spirit is leading you or you are leading yourself? When two Protestants disagree, which one is the Spirit leading, if either? This is akin to the Mormon saying that he recognizes the "Spirit" and his writings by the "burning in the bosom". What a bunch of hog-wash.
I don't know anything about burning bosoms :), but I know that the Spirit is leading me when I think or do something that matches what the scripture teaches. I do consider what others have said on a particular interpretation, but those opinions must be backed with other scripture. On occasion, I also find it helpful to consider common practices of the time.
God guides the Church to infallibly speak His Word. This does not interfere with man's free will, since a pope can still choose to sin. He is NOT free to teach falsely - and this is something totally different from the will to choose to reject God in one's life or not.
But I thought that at least one Pope was declared a heretic, presumably for teaching falsely.
Often times, generations were skipped. Next, we don't know HOW long Adam lived before his sin. Perhaps it was millions of years? Who can say.
The Bible can. Adam sinned sometime in the first 130 years of his life. :
Gen. 5:3-5 : 3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.
Seth had to come after the fall because only two were booted from the Garden. In addition, if you throw out these numbers, then how do you know which other numbers should be thrown out? That seems like a pretty large slippery slope. Of course, some numbers are meant to be taken as allegory, such as how many times to forgive someone. But I don't think there are many examples of this, and they seem fairly easy to spot.
Is this [my young earth view] from a scientific or theological viewpoint? Scientists have refuted young earth evidence over and over. Taking an allegorical view in such a case is more prudent. But really, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other -
I suppose both. Much of what is considered good science at the time has gone on to be proven wrong. But I think that "old earthers" have some legitimate outs. In Gen. 2, it appears to be wide open how much time elapsed between the formation of the earth and the appearance of man. In Gen. 1, it is framed as in a matter of days. But since the counting of days started before men, there is a case that they could be "God-days". Such are referenced elsewhere in the Bible, such as in Ps. 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8. But even those do not support an old earth, unless "a thousand" is meant as a an allegory, which could be. Overall, though, I think both sides have fair arguments.
Silverlings: Luke 5: 33-35. We fast everyday of our lives
Are you suggesting the Protestants fast every day? If this is true, that's news to me. Your discipline is awesome, but the best kept secret besides Saddam's WMDs.
He was declared a heretic because he allegedly embraced monothelism. Dissenting views argue that his error was that he didn't stop the heresy of Sergius, the Bishop of Constantinople, a monothelist, but gave in to Sergius' pleas to be silent on this issue.
The surviving copies of the letters (if they are true copies!) written by Pope Honorius I to Patriarch Sergius suggest Honorius I did not subscribe to monothelism, nor did he ever teach it "ex cathedra," officially.
Either way, Honorius I did not at any point during his papacy try to institute monothelism, even if he possibly did believe it. Thus, while he may have been a heretic, as Pope Alexander VI was definitely a fornicator, neither lead the Church astray.
Nonetheless the Ecumenical Council of Trullo (680 AD), which condemned him, 40 years post-mortem, called him a heretic, because of evidence available to the bishops. Unfortunately, the Council decided to destroy that evidence after the condemnation, thus leaving us only with the decision, to quote:
The two letters for which he was condemned were ordered burned after the Council. Pope Leo II confirmed the proclamations of the Council, following the Emperor's approval.
The issue which has not been resolved (yet) is (1) whether Honorus' letters constituted agreement with the monothelite heresy and (2) whether they were dogmatic (i.e. ex cathedra) or merely his religious opinions.
The copies or purported copies of his letter show that he did not embrace monothelism but decided to remain silent on its existence in Constantinople (whose Patriarch was also excommunicated by the same Council, along with others who embraced monothelism as a means of re-uniting monophysitism with Orthodoxy).
The decisions of the Ecumenical Councils are deemed infallible, and binding, thus technically speaking you are correct, although it is not all that black-and-white, because they fail to show that he lead the Church away from Orthodox Faith.
Yes, exactly. But it wasn't necessarily Paul's foreknowledge, it was God's. God ordained the books of the Bible ahead of time. That means one reference to "scripture" applies to all of scripture.
Further, you have not addressed the probability that "Do not go beyond what is written" is a colloquial aphorism. ... Please note that the words "to go" are not present in the original Greek.
I do not see enough evidence that it is a colloquial aphorism. I can appreciate that people interpret the Greek differently, but whoever put together the NIV, the version I use, apparently thought that it meant as it appears in the NIV. I can't throw it out because others disagree.
In addition, to interpret 1 Corinthians 4:6 as you do would contradict Paul himself! In 2 Thessalonians 2:15 he said "Stand fast and hold firm to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. Did Paul make a mistake?
No mistake. Certainly the teachings that later wound up in the Bible were correctly taught orally at the beginning. I presume Paul was referring to those oral teachings. I also presume that he did not mean any other oral teachings floating around that contradicted what he was then teaching. I do not take his statement to mean that anything oral is automatically correct.
If Holy Tradition had to be written down to be "valid," it is odd that John wrote in 3 John 13 "I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon when we can talk face to face."
It doesn't have to be written down to be valid, it has to be in agreement with scripture to be valid. I'm sure there must be some Tradition that is consistent with scripture. For example, Tradition says that you should confess your sins to a priest. By itself, I have no problem with that. The Bible says that we should confess our sins to God and to one another, not specifically to a priest. However, I do not think that your Tradition offends scripture at this stage.
Finally, the fact that you and I disagree about the meaning of this one passage in the Bible shows that the 16th century novelty of sola scriptura provides no real guidance.
How does that follow? Does everyone have to agree on a doctrine for it to be true? Wouldn't that invalidate all doctrine everywhere?
Further, I think it is odd that you attribute the compilation of the Bible to God. It seems as though you are saying that the Holy Spirit was with the universal Church through the 5th Century, when it finalized the Canon, and then departed.
I don't think the Spirit ever left the Church, and I don't think that the Spirit only leads Protestants. I think that men of both faiths leave God sometimes, when the Spirit guides them toward truth.
Did the Church fathers pick the books that went in the New Testament by luck? Or was God with them on the compilation of the Bible, but not when they made authoritative pronouncements about things like the sacrament of Confession, which was recognized hundreds of years before the canon was closed?
I don't think the Church Fathers picked the books. God did through them. And yes, I do think this was a special situation, and different from how the Spirit leads normally. I don't think that mistakes were possible in the creation and compilation of the Bible, but certainly men are capable of making mistakes in other spiritual matters.
What about written teachings that predate the closing of the canon, but are not in the New Testament? Like the writings of the ante- and post- Nicene fathers?
Without being directly familiar with those writings, the principle that I would lay out is fidelity to scripture, or at least not being in apparent or actual contradiction to it. For example, I do not have set in my mind any specific requirements for a "correct" worship service. I think people can worship "correctly" in many different ways, as long as scripture is not offended. So, whenever an Episcopalian Church preaches tolerance for the homosexual lifestyle, that offends scripture and is not a legitimate worship service.
Sorry, everything in the Bible that is written about Mary and Joseph points to the fact that they were a married couple in every sense of the word.
:-)
Everyone is free to believe what they want to believe about these things. Until a time-travel machine is invented, no-one is going to be able to prove any of it one way or another. That's the account that has been passed on throughout the Christian East, going back to times when the ancestors of most Christians of Western European stock were still worshiping Thor and Odin and Loki and what not...
As to what the "clear" account of the New Testament is, well, perhaps its clear to you. But to the Church that exists where most of the Bible was written, and where they have been reading that Greek New Testament in Greek without interruption since the time the books were first written in those lands, the account I gave you is the one that has been held from the earliest centuries. They don't see a contradiction, and neither do I.
But I'm not here to try to convince anyone about whether it's true or not, just to state what the Orthodox Church tradition is.
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.