Posted on 11/24/2009 4:10:44 PM PST by NYer
Actually, Mark, Origen was the genius who developed much of the Orthodox doctrine, including Mariology. I believe he is the first to assert Mary's ever-virginity and call her Thetokos (Mother of God).
Orgien, his teachings teachings and his followers were condemned by the post-Nicene Church for a number of his teahcingson soterology, souls, Christology, resurrection, etc.
He died either in 253 or 254 AD, which – way before the Nicene Council (325 AD), so there was no "church doctrine" for him to accept or not to accept.
Origen's teaching of the pre-existence of the souls (which is believed by Gnostics, Jews and, privately, by an undetermined number of Protestants) was not condemned until the middle of the 6th century (553 AD — 400 years after his death!) at the Fifth Ecumenical Council.
One of best known pillars of the 4th century Church orthodoxy, and one of the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Gregory of Nyssa, was a follower of Origen. He preached Orgien's heretical belief of apokatastasis or the universal salvation/reocncilliation (at least for a while).
Despite his Gnostic and heterodox beliefs, Origen's inlfuence on Church orthodoxy (especially Eastern Church) remains undisputed. He is easily the most influential 3rd century theologian among Christain Apologetics for the Greek Church, pretty much what his senior, 2nd century Tertullian was for the Latin Church (although Tertullian never strayed in Gnosticism; he became a Montanist instead).
400 years after his death should be 300 years after his death, sorry.
That is the underlying assumption that generates this wordy stream of Protestant consciousness.
It is not an emblem. Christ never said "This is an emblem of my body". He said, "this is my body". When the Jews asked how can they eat His body, His reply was essentially, "your loss" -- "except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you" (Jn 6:54).
Now, once the underlying nonsense is rid of, the passage becomes clear without any arcane reasoning: His body, that redeemed our sin can also condemn of a sin, and the sin here is precisely the Protestant cornerstone error: "not discerning the body of the Lord" (1 Cor 11:29). So they "walked no more with him" (John 6:67)
That's a pretty good Alex, darn good.
“That’s a pretty good Alex, darn good.”
No, it is silly. It is taking literally something that obviously is not literal.
About John the Baptist, Jesus said, “He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light.”
So John the Baptist was a torch?
John 4: “Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
I live in a desert...so water that means I’ll never be thirsty again, and will also, as a bonus, give me eternal life? Sounds great - I’ll take a 12 pack. But that wasn’t what Jesus meant, was it?
“And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”
And you want me to believe he was saying, “This bread I hold in my hand is actually my flesh, that only looks and tastes like bread, but is really and truly my flesh, just as much as is the hand that holds it”?
Sorry, kosta50 & annalex. Believe as you wish, but that argument seems silly to me.
“And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, andbrought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the LORD. And he (David) said, Be it far from me, O LORD, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. . . “ (2 Samuel 23:16, 17)
Obviously either David or God turned the water from the well of Bethlehem into blood, and so David would not drink it.
I didn't say it converted me. I said this is what my research of the history resulted in. It should be clear I'm not interested in debating the subject historically. It's moot to my point which is there are other methods, one obvious one, of exploring the validity of Christ and Christianity.
How does one see "what he said is real?"
Like he said, follow his instructions.
You are referring to human eyes as human instrument!
Yes. Our senses, brain, nervous system... can be analogized to instruments - which we use to perceive and process reality. We can speak of them being defective, poorly calibrated, not well maintained, etc. It's an analogy.
Which reality? Yours, mine? Cosmic?
Again, I think it is safe to say suffering is part of the reality of being human. I feel certain it is part of your reality and mine.
No, I asked you for a reason.
Why? You already have your reason that you gave in your post.
Experimental psychology shows that...
You can do your own experiments, if you're open to the inquiry and wish to explore more than the view of experimental psychology on the issue.
Apparently some humans feel that if they just keep trying...
Have you stopped your search for truth and knowledge?
I think we are rapidly approaching the limit of our capacity
I believe that we hardy use what capacity we're given. Most folks can't even concentrate their attention as well as an average dog. We use a tiny portion of our capacity to simply observe.
We apaprently build our value system on those two opposite perceptions, repeating what feels pleasant, avoiding what feels noxious.
There's a third: ignore what is neither. But it's not a "perception" purely; it's a judgement following a perception - attached to it. And the judgements build on each other unconsciously even into quite illogical ends. This is our "normal" way of observing reality. And it can easily lead to distorted observation. It is within our capacity to develop the capability to observe without the judgement attached. This can result in a less biased and more accurate observation.
This is one example.
This is part of the reason why, for me, the historical approach proved of limited use. Also, it is only one category of information providing one category of knowledge. Maybe for a while the approach could be: "Don't look it up -- the truth is all around you."
Orgien, his teachings teachings and his followers were condemned by the post-Nicene Church for a number of his teahcingson soterology, souls, Christology, resurrection, etc.
He died either in 253 or 254 AD, which – way before the Nicene Council (325 AD), so there was no "church doctrine" for him to accept or not to accept.
True, true and sort of true. http://www.veritasvosliberat.com/uploads/heresy_in_origen_and_origenism.pdf says that:
The bishop of Alexandria, Bishop Demetrius, condemned Origen because of Origen’s supposed ordination to the priesthood. Origen was excommunicated from the Church of Alexandria by a synod called by Bishop Demetrius. At a second synod Origen was removed from his office of presbyter.13 The exact motives of Bishop Demetrius for doing this to Origen cannot be accurately determined. It seems very probable that one reason was jealousy because Origen was ordained a priest in Caesarea rather than in Alexandria, and Alexandria was his home diocese.
It is also speculated that Origen was censured because of the heterodox teachings in his writings.14 This, however, conflicts with other sources that claim that Origen’s teachings were only determined to be heterodox at a later date as Church teachings were defined more clearly. It could be that his ideas, while not heretical at the time, were far from the norm and therefore caused worry among theologians. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that Origen’s self-castration invalidated his reception of Holy Orders.
At any rate, Origen, while doing great works and developing doctrines that we hold to this day, was recognized as going outside of the 'norm' whatever that was at the time and into heterodoxy.
The subsequent councils merely confirmed what was being slowly recognized at the time.
Despite his Gnostic and heterodox beliefs, Origen's inlfuence on Church orthodoxy (especially Eastern Church) remains undisputed. He is easily the most influential 3rd century theologian among Christain Apologetics for the Greek Church, pretty much what his senior, 2nd century Tertullian was for the Latin Church (although Tertullian never strayed in Gnosticism; he became a Montanist instead).
Neither Tertullian nor Origen can be underpraised for their contributions to the Church - of the two, though, Tertullian appears to have come through less sullied.
I was referring to the way he explained Catholic/Orthodox belief, or point of view.
About John the Baptist, Jesus said, “He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light.” So John the Baptist was a torch?
And Jesus was the "son of man" (literary ben adam in Hebrew), or was he just joking? Or was a talking donkey just a symbolic donkey...or maybe just symbolically 'talking?' Or is God maybe just a Platonic ideal? I'm sure you believe that the HS descended like a dove, and a voice came from the heaven [sic] saying "This is my beloved Son..." or was it just a hallucination?
You know, I think there is nothing sillier than when two groups that believe all sorts of magical stuff begin to call each others' beliefs "silly."
The Bible is a goldmine for every possible belief, sect or cult to feel right at home, inlcuding vegetarians and even the devil! Even he quotes from scirptures, even he finds it profitable! It's a cherry-pickers drlight.
“And Jesus was the “son of man” (literary ben adam in Hebrew), or was he just joking? Or was a talking donkey just a symbolic donkey...or maybe just symbolically ‘talking?’”
Context, kosta50, just as how we read everything else. Jesus as ‘Son of Man’ has two plausible references - first, truly man, and second, Daniel’s Son of Man (Dan 7). If taken literally, then EVERY male is the ‘son of man’.
The context indicates a donkey actually talking, although I won’t object to someone who claims Balaam was listening to his donkey the way I listen to my mare, Mia.
John the Baptist as a torch is obviously a metaphor. Jesus as bread is obviously a metaphor.
I prefer to say utility of Christ and Christianity.
Like he said, follow his instructions
Which ones? And how are you to "see" they are real when the rewards are set at some future date?
Yes. Our senses, brain, nervous system... can be analogized to instruments...it's an analogy
It's like saying flies are "fine dining" on horse manure! No need for analogy. Besides, one of your analogies said that one could see two moons by not paying attention (?).
Again, I think it is safe to say suffering is part of the reality of being human. I feel certain it is part of your reality and mine
Like I said, it's not just human — animals suffer as well in this world which God loves so much.
You already have your reason that you gave in your post
I want to know your reasons.
Have you stopped your search for truth and knowledge?
Yes as far as I am concerned. If people didn't make ridiculous claims I would never make inquiries. But I do, because they don't reflect my reality.
You can do your own experiments, if you're open to the inquiry and wish to explore more than the view of experimental psychology on the issue.
Do you really think your dog is capable of realizing he lives on planet earth which is part of a solar system? What makes you think that man can grasp the Truth?
I believe that we hardy use what capacity we're given.
It's simple: too much to know, too little time, a then you get married. An average schmuck works since he is 16 until he is 65 or so, then retires and lives another 10 years and dies. In those 59 years he worked, worked, and then some, sometimes two jobs.
When he didn't work, he was with his family, fighting wards, painting the house, playing golf...not using his brain capacity very much. At the end of his days he knows next to nothing on a cosmic scale. he is just another leaf that fell off the tree.
There's a third: ignore what is neither. But it's not a "perception" purely; it's a judgement following a perception - attached to it.
That's bogus. If it doesn't feel good or bad then there is no "feeling" and no judgment/choice. You are not even aware of it, so how can your react to it?
It is within our capacity to develop the capability to observe without the judgment attached
Really? And your evidence for that is what?
What I did with 2 Samuel 23:16, 17 is just what is being done by some with Matthew 26:26.
Prior to Leo XIII’s Divinum Illud Munus, are you aware of any Father who called Panagia the “Spouse of the Holy Spirit”? I do know that +John of Damascus calls her the “spouse of the Father” and +Germanos of Constantinople (+733) called her “Theonymphos”, wedded to God while Blessed Augustine refers to her as “Spouse of God”, but these are virtually unique comments.
From what I can see, this “Spouse of the Holy Spirit” business has become very widespread among Roman Catholics over the past 100+ years and it seems to be nothing more than the same sort of religious “enthusiam” which has lead to the heretical “Co-Redemptrix” nonsense or seeing the Most Holy Theotokos in a damp stain on a bridge abutment.
I have to say, Alex, that this rationalizing of the Incarnation by a focus on legitimatizing it by a faux matrimony, is vaguely distasteful. Perhaps that’s why such a notion never gained any Patristic traction.
Jesus on Mt. Tabor is obviously a metaphor...water being turned into wine at Cana is obviously a metaphor...God looking for Adam in the Garden of Eden is "obviously" a metaphor...and when Gen 11:5 says that God came down to see [sic] the city being built...that was a metaphor too? And in Gen 18:20-21 God has to go down to Sodom and Gomorrah to 'see' so he may 'know'
He was just joking, right? He knew it all along...
And in Gen 22:12 God says to Abraham "Now I know [sic]..." but before that he was in doubt [biting his nails?]? or is that also a metaphor? or maybe the "young" God just didn't know and see everything...yet
In Genesis 32:27 God asks Jacob " "What is your name?" In Numbers 22:9 "God came to Balaam and asked, 'Who are these men with you?'", or Deu 8:2 "Remember how the LORD your God led you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and to test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands" or in Job 2:2 God asks Satan " "Where have you come from?" or this one – my favorite – "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." [Mat 24:36]
But since we "know" that God knows everything all these are just ametaphors...of course/s.
mental note: Never mind the claim that Genesis, Deuteronomy, etc. were all dictated to Moses by none other than God himself...so is it a metaphor that even God admits to not knowing and seeing everything?
For instance, Russian Church outside Russia was for hsitorical reasons of gratitude in communion only with the Serbian Orthodox Church in America. Women who used to be caught attended divine liturgy four weeks a month would be exocmmunicated for a time being because the priest knew one one of those wekeends the women was me struating and should have stayed outside.
Radical bishops of the types we encounter in the Catholic community in the US, would all be excommunicated by now. That would effectively mean ostracized by other bishops. You may call it "breaking diplomatic relations" with some bishops, isolating them, giving them time to reflect.
Excommunication takes place in Orthodox churches all the time with people who commit grave errors of judgment. They are denied communion as part of their penance. The Orthodox don't do 10 Hail Marys and Our Fathers and be done. They are denied communion as an opportunity to reflect on their grave sins until thye can repent. The length of excommunication period is determined by economy (oikonomia) as judged best for the helath of the individual's soul.
The fact that the Bishop of Alexandria denied Origen communion means he rubbed him wrong aboutt something. It could have been anything. It would have been hard to "throw the book" on Origen when the Church did not have an established and agreed-upon doctrine, canonized by concensus patrum.
What took place 300 years after Origens' death was a General Synod's trial and condemnation, followed by an anathema — literally declaring him a non-Christian, i.e. a heretic. This is a far cry from simple excommunication.
Anathema, just as excommunication, in the Latin west took on a distorted meaning, and became synonymous with damnation rather than condemnation. Catholic Bishops took it upon themselves to judge in place of God by sentencing someone to hell by excommunicating and anathematizing those who disagreed with them or the Church. (See the movie "Becket." There is even the excommunication cultist ritual of the Catholic Church on Youtube in connection with that film).
The Fifth Ecumenical Council that condemned Origen had legal doctirnal grounds to do so, since some of his teachings were contrary to the canonized Church doctrine. In his lifetime, no such canonical basis existed. It was a decision of a bishop and not the Church as a whole (consensus patrum).
Origen was never declared a non-Christian during his life time, nor did anyone in the Church have the authority to do so.
I understand. I wasn’t mockinhg you. Literaty transformations (water into wine at Cana, wate into blood, wine into blood, etc.) are all over the place in the Bible. Calling some “allegorical” or “metaphorical” is contrary to the factual presnetaion of these events in the Bible.
Validity has a utility and utility can be a form of validation. It's connected; I should be clear I'm not talking of historical validation in this discussion.
Which ones?
The basic ones, they're few and simple - simple and easy are two different things of course.
And how are you to "see" they are real when the rewards are set at some future date?
You limit the experiment to the present. Jesus is describing a way the universe is, the way we are, the way God is and how it all relates together - internally, with our fellows, with the cosmos. He claims this is true, our contrary views being non-true. He claims we can realize this truth, see this is the way it really is - now. That's a part we can test at least to some extent.
Like I said, it's not just human — animals suffer as well in this world
We can agree on this.
I want to know your reasons.
Why? What possible use can they be to you?
If people didn't make ridiculous claims I would never make inquiries. But I do, because they don't reflect my reality.
Why do you care about that?
Do you really think your dog is capable of realizing he lives on planet earth which is part of a solar system?
No, I don't, but I think man is. My dog, however, is a great teacher for me in other areas.
What makes you think that man can grasp the Truth?
I feel pretty confident man can grasp some truth at least, like that we live on planet earth… So it's a matter of degree. We're here for a short time, we tend to try to figure out why. "Fish gotta swim; bird gotta fly, man gotta sit and ask: why, why, why?"
At the end of his days he knows next to nothing on a cosmic scale. he is just another leaf that fell off the tree.
That's certainly one conclusion possible.
If it doesn't feel good or bad then there is no "feeling" and no judgment/choice.
Right, three possibilities: positive value, negative value, no value.
>>>It is within our capacity to develop the capability to observe without the judgment attached
Really? And your evidence for that is what?
What is your evidence against it?
Let me help you. Metaphor:
“1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.” Compare mixed metaphor, simile (def. 1).
2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.”
“Jesus on Mt. Tabor is obviously a metaphor” - NOT.
“and when Gen 11:5 says that God came down to see [sic] the city being built” - not a metaphor, but not an uncommon way of speaking, as when I say I discovered riding horses.
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.