Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
This was the starting point of my conversation with Kolokotronis, which I cannot find now and he forgot. My contention was that given the biblical account of assumption of Elijah we have to conclude that the communion of saints in heaven was forming even prior to the Holy Saturday.
Another indication of that is how Christ described righteous Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham. it is not clear from the scripture itself that Abraham is in Hades, and functionally he seems to be in heaven. The commentary to Luke 16:22 in Douay explains that Abraham's bosom is "the place of rest, where the souls of the saints resided, till Christ had opened heaven by his death".
Acts 8:29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest ?
8:31 And he said, How can I , except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
8:32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: 8:34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
You notice that it is the Spirit which sends Philip to the chariot, it is the Spirit which testifies of Christ, and it is the Spirit that picks Philip up and whisks him away. It is not "some man" as you would like us to believe. It is a man true, but it is a man filled with the Spirit.
"We" are bible believing Christians.
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
You are too used to longwinded dry theologians. The bible is pure theology from beginning to end.
Certainly not as much as "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" (Matt 12:48)
One shock that I had first reading theologians was that not all of them even believe in Christor God either. You can comment on the bible and on theology and not be a believer. What is theology? Essentially isn't it the spiritual relationship between God and man? Someone who is not led of the spirit will never reach the conclusion that the Spirit will lead to.
Aha. I was remembering hearing the same thing somewhere, and my guess was Fr. Pacwa of EWTN. However, I could not ascertain that yesterday. Do you have a source for this belief? See my 6678 and the antecedent discussion.
St. Philip is an apostle, certainly not "some man" and certainly he was filled with the Holy Spirit. This is why you need the apostolic Church to understand the scripture.
No, you need just the Spirit
Matthew 12:48 indicates Jesus had biological direct brothers? Please.
If a pharisee had happened along, and the eunuch inquired of him the meaning of the scripture, he would have gotten a very different answer, although this man would have claimed to be an authority. You have no way of knowing if what a man teaches is true, unless you yourself have no discernment.
that should be "some" discernment
Theology is a systematic study of God. The scripture itself is not pure theology as it does not proceed from definitions to conclusions and only indirectly defines fundamental theological concepts such as divinity of Christ or the Trinity. Much of the scripture is narrative or poetic, or corrects errors known to the recipient of the epistle but not to the casual reader. Even St. Paul's instructions what to do with his wardrobe are in the scripture, but, to pick the titular topic of this thread, the relationship between predestination and free will is not. One reads the scripture and from it forms theology, and different people form different theologies. St. John the Chrysostom did it, and St. Augustine, and St. tomas Aquinas, and St. Gregory Palamas, and those two fools, Luther and Calvin. I think you understand the distinction and try to confuse it for some silly rhetorical point.
Yes, I do, -- it is called apostolic authority. You don't recognize it, so you don't know who to listen to. Speak for yourself please.
They did not have the New Testament until at least 20 years later - and in bits and pieces. I doubt that every community had a copy of every letter we now call the "NT" until many years later. As you may know, churches were ALSO reading orthodox writings such as the First Letter of Clement to Rome within the Liturgy that WE LATER would not call Scripture. Many communities thought of this writing as Scripture and read it during Mass. Thus, they had Scriptures along with other writings (some Gnostic, others orthodox). There was no distinction or definition for many years.
This, BTW, is what you always tell me about Catholics Councils. They only get together to CONFIRM what the Church ALREADY knows. Given your definition, when the Church meant to discuss which scriptures were inspired, then they were only CONFRIMING what was ALREADY known. That's all FK and I are saying. Would you disagree?
Yes, the Church CONFIRMS that Scripture, knowing full well what orthodoxy is - within their teachings - and were able to identify Scripture and what was not Scripture. Thus, the Church did not form it (although you COULD say that, since the Apostles were part of the Church) but identify it they did. However, I must again say that "Scripture" was not so clear cut. Some communities disagreed on the "status" of a particular writing. Thus, not everyone thought that James or Revelation was Scripture, while some thought that Clement of Rome's letter to the Corinthians WAS. "Scripture" was much in flux for several hundred years.
Where FK and I disagree, however, is that a bishop would read a given writing and would recognize its orthodoxy based upon what they were taught. It wasn't the other way around. There was no "marking" on the scroll that identified something as Scripture! It was only declared Scripture when properly recognized. The Canon didn't form itself! The Apostolic Teaching came first to the Christians. When Paul commissioned Titus and Timothy, did he give them a bible or did he give them a body of teachings that Paul preached to them? This Body was the paradigm for the future successors, the Bishops, to use for determining what WAS Scripture. According to FK, this is not how the formation of the Bible came to be. Basically, the Church was sitting down passively as God pointed a magic finger to each scroll, and a bishop would then put it into the pile labeled "future Bible". The other pile would be labeled "leave out of the future Bible". Thus, the Church, to FK, had no role to play whatsoever, but merely passive.
This is against what the history tells us on how the Scriptures were canonized and how the Gospel was initially given to the Christians.
This earliest name for the new Bible, with all that it involves as to its relation to the old and briefer Bible, is traceable as far back as Ignatius (A.D. 115), who makes use of it repeatedly (e.g., "ad Philad." 5; ("ad Smyrn." 7). In one passage he gives us a hint of the controversies which the enlarged Bible of the Christians aroused among the Judaizers (" ad Philad." 6). "When I heard some saying," he writes, "'Unless I find it in the Old [Books] I will not believe the Gospel' on my saying,' It is written.' they answered, 'That is the question.' To me, however, Jesus Christ is the Old [Books]; his cross and death and resurrection and the faith which is by him, the undefiled Old [Books] - by which I wish, by your prayers, to be justified. The priests indeed are good, but the High Priest better," etc. Here Ignatius appeals to the "Gospel"
Mr. Warfield makes the common Protestant error of equating "Gospel" with the written Gospel of Matthew, Luke, John, and Mark. Thus, when he reads St. Ignatius saying "Gospel", Mr. Warfield thinks he has found proof of some written proto-Bible. This is based on faulty premises. The Scriptures themselves refer to the Gospel as the Good News, whether preached orally or written. The Gospel, then, is merely the Christian proclamation. St. Ignatius does not claim that the written words of the NT are indeed Scripture, although he does quote from them.
He quotes from Matthew and Luke - but only using euphemisms or "cliches", such as "The tree is known by its fruit", or Let him accept it who can" or "In all circumstances be 'wise as a serpent', and perpetually 'harmless as a dove" These are the only three times that St. Ignatius mentions the Gospel of Matthew in his writings. The above are not ringing endorsements for his consideration of the writing as Scripture!!! This is unlike the later writings of St. Ireneaus, who actually says "Scripture" and then quotes it, whether he is quoting OT, NT, or the Deuterocanonicals.
Certainly the whole Canon was not universally received by the churches till somewhat later. The Latin church of the second and third centuries did not quite know what to do with the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Syrian churches for some centuries may have lacked the lesser of the Catholic Epistles and Revelation. But from the time of Ireanaeus down, the church at large had the whole Canon as we now possess it.
That's incorrect. St. Ireneaus himself never mentions James, Hebrews, Philemon, 3 John, Jude, or 2 Peter. The Muratorian Canon, written about 200 AD, does NOT include some of these letters! TWO HUNDRED AD! AND, ADD 1 Peter to the list of "not Scripture"! The NT Deuterocanonicals were not universally accepted, much the same as the OT Deuterocanonicals. Thus, in both cases, the Church made a judgment to include them based on their content - even though some questioned their authorship. Also, note that many of the canons preceding the Councils of Carthage and Hippo included writings that were later NOT determined to be Scriptural, such as the Shepherd of Hermas or First Clement. The Scripture Canon was quite flexible the first several hundred years of Christianity.
I believe you and I, Harley, agree for the most part, on the formation of the Canon. It took years to formulate, and to agree upon completely. The Bible did not form itself. It was the Church, forced by opposing pressures of contraction and expansion (Marcion and the Gnostics) that made the Canon and set it. From now on, no one would come up with a "Gospel of Judas" and claim it was Scripture, OR get rid of parts of the Bible - such as "Wisdom", unless they acted outside of the Church.
Regards
Does not Mary obey the Will of God? I see Christ as including His mother in the above statement. He is transcending the Jewish concept of earthly family for the heavenly and spiritual brotherhood. But that is not to say that He does away with His mother. That would be a breaking of the Fourth Commandment.
Regards
I recall reading in Fr. John Romanides' "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology," that those who died prior to the Resurrection were in a state of partial bliss or partial damnation, just as we are after our death. They *additionally* were held captive by death and Hades prior to Christ's Resurrection.
In no way have I ever understood Orthodoxy to teach that the Righteous of the Old Testament were in a state of torment prior to Christ's Resurrection. Even though Christ's words were a parable, the story about Abraham should make that clear, since I have a hard time thinking that Christ would use that as a merely allegorical example that had no basis in reality.
There was a sudden and fundamental change in their state/plalce after Christ's descent into Hades to break the bonds of death.
They and all who have died since the Resurrection are now alike in an intermediate state of partial bliss or damnation (a state that the Church does not define or try to pry deeply into explaining beyond the limited revelation we have received) -- the fullness of our final state cannot be arrived at until after the general resurrection, when soul and body are reunited. We are not in our full state of humanity unless our soul and body are united.
The state of Elijah would be different from that of the souls in Hades, since he did not die, and did not undergo separation from the body. These things are Mysteries.
I would think that neither conceiving of Hades as a state of existence nor as a specific place is capable of fully encompassing the reality, just as with Paradise, and just as with the final heaven and hell.
Our Lord Jesus contrasted His "mother" and His "brothers" against those who do the will of the Father. If you take the first comparison, "Who is My mother...but those who do the will of My Father." than Christ is pointing out the importance of spiritual ties verses physical ties. Would you agree?
I do not recall where I encountered this information about co-habiting after a betrothal.
If I get time to poke about my library and find anything, I'll let you know.
People can form all the theologies they want to. Irregardless, God's revelation is only one theology, as there is only one God as contrasted to lots of men who would rather believe themselves rather than God.
Yes, I would agree that Christ stresses the importance of obeying the Gospel over the physical relationship, both in this verse, and in "Yea, rather blessed are those who have custody of the Word" (quote from memory). But neither passage is a putdown to Mary or James the Less, who were His true disciples as well as family members.
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.