Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
That's great. Can I use it?
HD, what Kolokotronis is telling you is anything but that. I am a little surprised that you would think that.
What Koloktoronis is telling you is that you can't learn English from a book. Rather, one has to learn the spoken language used by native-speakers. You can't learn the finesse, the "soul" of any language from a book.
There is something called "idiomatic expression," a sentence or a statement that says one thing but really means something else. To someone who is unfamiliar with the culture in which it is used, such an expression either makes no sense or leads to a wrong conclusion. "Being stoned" in the 1st century Middle East did not mean being "high" on some drug.
Nor does being "high" on some drug mean you are really "up" there! All these are "normal" idiomatic expresisons to English-speakers who do not for a moment confuse the actual words with the meaning.
In my six years spent in Japan, I discovered that most Japanese study English from kindergarten onward and never learn it because they interpret English within a Japanese mindset, grammar and linguistic framework.
One particular example stands in my mind, and it has to do with Lark cigarettes. They were advertised with a simple sentence "SPEAK Lark"
At first, this "language" known as "Japanglish" was startling, but then I realized that it was based on a very subtle misconception based on the way the Japanese language is trustucred (which is very, very different from English).
In Japanese, the word "say" or "tell" does not exist. The closest form to it is "speak." So, rather than market the product in the spirit of the English language as "Say 'Lark'" the Japanese simply translated clumsily from the book (after all speak and say are synonymous in a thesaurus, so they must be interchangeable, right?).
As far as the book is concerned, it is "correct," but to English speakers it is obviously flawed, because raw "book logic" is not the living language.
Hence, Koloktronis's message to you, and the Apostolic Church's point to the Protestants, that one cannot simply read the Book in any language and any culture and "know."
Here is another fine exmaple of what I mean by Japanglish. Enjoy. :)
In a mystical sense, she IS! We see Mary as a type of Church, and Mary is our spiritual Mother, just as the Church is our Mother (giving birth to us through baptism and nuturing us through the Word and Sacrament). BOTH bring Christ to us. Mary has been given to us by Christ - He gave her to the beloved disciple. We are ALL His beloved disciple. Who was He giving to us? Mary/Church. Christ established a community through which His graces flow. Even you must admit that the Church, the people of God, has given us the Scriptures and proper understanding of it. Thus, we see that through the Church/Mary, all graces flow. We see the Church/Mary as a virgin, undefiled and wholly committed to Christ. We see obedience and faith in Christ come from Church/Mary. In Scriptures, the Fathers point to various places and see BOTH Mary and the Church - Song of Songs, Genesis 3:15, Rev 12, Luke 1. Really, you probably could make a case that anything with Mary in it can point to the people of God - and vice versus.
With this rough analysis, perhaps you can understand why the Church declares that Mary was a perpetual virgin. It says something about the CHURCH, as well as Mary.
Regards
I already dealt with that above at posts #213 and #236 in this thread.
-A8
"That's great. Can I use it?":
Of course; The Church has for 1400 years or so. What the image shows is +Joseph's doubts about the virgin birth, questioning what he has gotten himself into and what's going to happen to them, all very human reactions, and prompted by the devil shown as an old man in the hair cloak.
You know, when you think about it, he had to be a great man of faith to endure and overcome the doubts and questions concerning the relationship. And if that wasn't enough, Mary's cousin was a part of the priestly class and he had a big mouth counter-culture hippie for a nephew. He could not hide anywhere but in his carpenter's shop.
The Tribulation period is called the "Time of Jacob's Trouble." The main focus of the Tribulation is NOT the church, but Israel. God is saving His remnant. Israel is the woman in Rev 12.
As a Catholic I do not decide what the scripture means. I ask my Church and the Chruch has the answer. To think that reading and understanding the Scripture is an exercise profitable to an individual outside of the environment of the Church is a uniquely Protestant conceit. We don't do that, as a rule.
"You know, when you think about it, he had to be a great man of faith to endure and overcome the doubts and questions concerning the relationship."
Indeed he was and rather underrated I'm afraid by many Christians. What a situation to face! Tradition (I know, I know!) tells us that he was chosen by the priests at the Temple for Mary and that he was quite old, about 70 and a widower (which has given rise to speculation that the "brothers" refered to were step brothers. She was an orphan by the time of her betrothal.
Its the humanity of +Joseph which so impresses me and which this Nativity icon which The Church has given us demonstrates so forcefully. Sometimes I think that Christians view the Church, through Western eyes, as something run by rigid rules uniformly and rigorously applied with no snesitive understanding of the human situation. This icon shows otherwise. The Church knows that we will have doubts, even the step father of The Lord had them and that's OK. That's why I said I'm not offended that Protestants don't accept our Marian dogmas. Orthodoxy reminds us that our doubts about The Faith are inevitable whether they are purely internal, born of our distorted state, or prompted by external influences like demons. The best any of us can do is pray "Lord I believe; help my unbelief."
*************
Wonderful and inspiring post. Thank you.
I don't know of any other woman but Mary who gave birth to Christ, and that is the woman Apocalypse 12 is talking about (see verses 5, 10). She is, of course, the embodiment and perfection of Israel, so your meaning is indeed typologically not incorrect. Another typology there is the Church of Christ.
The anger that marian devotions evoke in the enemies of the Church is evident on every thread like this one. Satan hates Mary because unlike Eve, she chose to do God's will.
The birth pangs described in Apoc. 12:2 are indeed a good reason not to subscribe tot he notion that the Virgin did not suffer the birth pains. Rome does not teach either way. However, note that the entire book of Apocalypse is highly metaphorical and so it is not illogical to see in verse 2 not a reference to physiological pain but rather to the pain of mankind groaning under sin and waiting for the Redeemer.
The Twelve stars are type of the tribes of Israel as well as the twelve apostles.
Keys open gates. The key in Matthew 16 is the key to salvation. Binding and loosing refers to legislation, given first Peter but then the apostles also, and no you were not told to bind and loose, unless you are a bishop and heir of the Apostles, who were given the authority directly.
We still teach that. So, where does the Church teach that sex is bad?
"The best any of us can do is pray "Lord I believe; help my unbelief."
That should be a required first line in any discussion concerning theological differences among christians.
When you think about it, when the synagogue rulers identified Jesus as the "son of the carpenter" and Jesus as a carpenter, it was a compliment to Joseph's workmenship and his tutoring of Jesus in the trade. Nazareth bring a good sized town at that time must have had many carpenters, but Joseph was known for his trade.
Apparently you are under the delusion that I never read this passage. You are mistaken.
You could be right.
Exactly. "And I will put enmity between you [Satan] and the woman" (Gen 3:15)
Satan hates Mary also because of envy. Mary is now the most exalted creature, a place Lucifer once had.
-A8
No I did not. We are indeed given the Holy Ghost at the sacrament of confirmation (chrysmation to the Orthodox).
I've already said what I think the keys to the Kingdom mean. They are the power to bind and loose
You think that, I know, but it is not what the scripture says.
Salvation is through God alone. It happens one way. Not through church membership. Not through baptism. Not through Eucharist. Not through church attendance or tithing. None of those things. Salvation is through Christ alone. Through faith alone. Exclusive of works - though it will show works as evidence that it has happened.
Salvation is from Christ alone, yes. The rest of what you said is not supported by the scripture, not taught by the Church and is a Protestant extrascriptural fantasy. For example, Eph 2:8 which you cite goes on to say that we should walk in good works prepared for us by God, and when it says that we are not saved of works, it qualified that these are works done for boast or reward. This is consistent throughout Pauline epistles: that work of obligation, or work done for reward, do not save, but that work of charity is necessary for salvation. After all, James 2:24 says it plainly: "Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?". If you twist that into some faith-alone knot, you are following traditions of Luther, and not the scripture.
Regarding security of salvation, you are reading into the scripture what is not in it. John 10 does speak of it. But it does not say that a sinner cannot cast himself out of the hand of God. Nor does it say that the Church may not determine what sin is. In other scripture we read that men do lose their faith and the Church does condemn them to hell (1 Tim 1:19-20, and again Mt 18:17)
Rome did not become supreme until centuries later
I gave you an example of Pope Clement, 2c. dealing authoritatively with the Corinthians. Yes, the power of the papacy grew gradually in response to the Church's need. Turn away form Protestant heresies, and that power will be relaxed.
Your church has lied to You
I can tell you who lied. Luther lied. He invented his stupid theology out of his masturbation habit. He proceeded to spit vomit against the Church of Christ. He mutilated the scripture to fit his error, desecrated churches and monasteries and started 30 thousand para-christian sects. Don't you dare tell me calumnies against my Church. You Protestant background denies you standing.
Caution: stay with the issues and do not make it personal.
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.