- Nov 28, 2003
- 21,810
- 12,291
- 58
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Knowledge handed down through the Church.What is it based on?
Upvote
0
Knowledge handed down through the Church.What is it based on?
Based on what?Knowledge handed down through the Church.
The Holy Tradition as expressed in our feasts and hymns. You can keep asking "what is it based on," to which we will eventually answer the direct communion of the Trinity with Creation (which we call the Church.) And then you might ask, "how do you know?" to that, if you're into that sort of obsessive foundationalist interrogation. But in order to get there, you have to have shredded through the authority of the Scriptures first. We're Christians, not Cartesians.What is it based on?
Well so far I have only been given examples of barrenness according to the birth of Issac ond John the Baptist, to which there is no proof that it corresponds to Mary's birth but if it did there would be no indication of the conception from the HS (this we get from scripture) and the writings from the 3rd century that is being dismissed ... what are therefore the documentation that attests to this and which I have been accused of not making the effort to read?The Holy Tradition as expressed in our feasts and hymns. You can keep asking "what is it based on," to which we will eventually answer the direct communion of the Trinity with Creation (which we call the Church.) And then you might ask, "how do you know?" to that, if you're into that sort of obsessive foundationalist interrogation. But in order to get there, you have to have shredded through the authority of the Scriptures first. We're Christians, not Cartesians.
.....
(1) you refuse access to documents that may help. I believe it was that you don't agree the parents of the Virgin Mary were barren into old age, because you don't see it in Scripture? Now, that won't affect your belief in Christ, but MANY such "missing pieces" make your experience a less full one.
......
God says let us reason this out together but when there are no reasons given for beliefs then of course it doesn't suffice.For the faithful no reason is necessary but for the sceptical no reason will suffice.
James claims to have written it:Probably because they knew it wasn't written by James?
Okay, I see what went wrong here. Referring to John the Baptist and Isaac was not meant to be a proof, but rather an explanation. I wasn't trying to prove that Joachim and Anna conceived the Virgin Mary after barrenness by referring to John the Baptist and Isaac, but rather draw a parallel.Well so far I have only been given examples of barrenness according to the birth of Issac ond John the Baptist, to which there is no proof that it corresponds to Mary's birth
I don't know what you're getting at here.but if it did there would be no indication of the conception from the HS (this we get from scripture)
We aren't trying to sell you this idea; you approached us questioning it. We believe it because it's explicitly and implicitly contained in our feasts, hymns and patristic writings about the Virgin Mary. For us, our hymns, feasts and patristic writings have weight and value; we are, after all, in the Traditional Theology section, so this should not be surprising. If you don't find those things valuable and worthy of consideration when it comes to doctrinal authority, beliefs, teachings, etc., then I suppose you don't have any reason not to suspend judgment on the point.what are therefore the documentation that attests to this and which I have been accused of not making the effort to read?
That would be the documentation that I was asking about.....patristic writings about the Virgin Mary. .....
So you think that patristic writings are documentation, and you want citations to... what... empirically examine their veracity?That would be the documentation that I was asking about.
I'm trying to figger out if there is ECF documentation or not ... I'm assuming not or it would have been provided.... and because it hasn't been provided I can only assume you find it only in the feasts (?) and hymns, which is circular reasoning that leads nowhere.So you think that patristic writings are documentation, and you want citations to... what... empirically examine their veracity?
I'm not going to provide you with ECF documentation, but I can provide you with an ECF talking about Joachim and Anna's conception after barrenness. That may or may not be what you want:I'm assuming not or it would have been provided....
I can only assume you find it only in the feasts (?) and hymns, which is circular reasoning that leads nowhere...but to what do you look to verify that it was given to anyone
You're grown and you're gonna talk that way?It seems obvious that you have no answer as to the source so I withdraw the question.
I don't think that asking where God has said anything is a rebellious act. Far too often men use that as an excuse to do things evil. I'm not asking God to explain His commandments either, I'm asking for some sort of reason to believe He said that. At least scripture does avail us of that, whether interpretations differ or not the text is open to viewing. Any evidence of a textual tradition for teaching that goes back to the apostles also links to scripture in some way. At least that would seem to be the paper trail left .....Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it. (Isaiah 1:16-20 KJV)
God invites Israel to reason with him. He tells them that forgiveness is possible. I they obey he will bless them and if they do not he will catastrophe will befall them. None of this is God giving reasons to explain his commandments. Too often the doubting and rebellious ask for a reason to accept what God has said. It is a part of the unbelief that marred Israel's history. It is a blemish in the attitude f many today.
So you do subscribe to the sort of idea that I suggested in my post?I don't think that asking where God has said anything is a rebellious act. Far too often men use that as an excuse to do things evil. I'm not asking God to explain His commandments either, I'm asking for some sort of reason to believe He said that. At least scripture does avail us of that, whether interpretations differ or not the text is open to viewing. Any evidence of a textual tradition for teaching that goes back to the apostles also links to scripture in some way. At least that would seem to be the paper trail left .....
That question was answered in the post.So you do subscribe to the sort of idea that I suggested in my post?