Quick question - immaculate conception?

[MoreCoffee]

Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. (John 14:1-14 KJV)

When the voice of the Lord is insufficient to convince, and for some it is not enough, then the works that are done can be relied upon as witness to the words.

 

[Albion]

2 Thess 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

Scripture itself included instructions to hold Traditions

Name a few of them for us, please. That way, we'll be able to see that this really is divine guidance.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Name a few of them for us, please. That way, we'll be able to see that this really is divine guidance.

Forgive me, Albion. I am very busy these days, working out my own salvation.

I'm not interested in debate, if that's what you're getting at. Not to mention the fact that this part of the forum is explicitly not formed to debate against Tradition.

My point is simply that Scripture itself tells us that the Apostles delivered things to the Churches, which they expected the Church to keep.

And I think you would agree that the Apostles established those Churches in person (presumably with accompanying teaching) and that establishment of Churches is not the purpose of the epistles.

And if you're questioning whether the Apostles were divinely guided? Well, of course we don't teach that any person was infallible in himself, but we do understand that the Holy Spirit guided the Church.

Forgive me if I've misunderstood you, but what more is there to say?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

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:

http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com...oachim_and_St._Ann____St._John_Damascene.html

^^^^
This passage on Sts. Joachim and Ann is taken from a sermon by St. John Damascene, bishop (Oratio 6, in Nativitatem B. Mariae V., 2.4.5.6: PG 96:663. 667670 ) delivered ca. AD 740 and is used in the Roman Office readings for the Feast of St. Joachim and St. Ann on July 26. The parents of the Virgin Mary are known by the names of Joachim and Ann from a tradition dating back to the Second Century as noted in the document known as the Protoevangelion of St. James.

This is what I mean by circular reasoning.

Doesn't that imply that the Protoevangelium of James isn't the source of the belief? It just happens to be someone's attempt to put what was believed in writing?

From what source is the belief then? I do know that all forums are open to questions being asked since I'm not trying to impose other beliefs in doing so.

We don't base our belief concerning Joachim and Anna on the Protoevangelium. It is in our feasts and it is beautiful and good. This is not speculation for us.

You just said you did in the above link.

James claims to have written it:

"And I James that wrote this history in Jerusalem, a commotion having arisen when Herod died, withdrew myself to the wilderness until the commotion in Jerusalem ceased, glorifying the Lord God, who had given me the gift and the wisdom to write this history. And grace shall be with them that fear our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory to ages of ages. Amen."

Why wouldn't it have been?

It seems that if it had been written by James, to which prodromos says it wasn't, one would think it would have been canonized and not been obscure for hundreds of years.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Forgive me, Albion. I am very busy these days, working out my own salvation.

I'm not interested in debate, if that's what you're getting at. Not to mention the fact that this part of the forum is explicitly not formed to debate against Tradition.

My point is simply that Scripture itself tells us that the Apostles delivered things to the Churches, which they expected the Church to keep.

And I think you would agree that the Apostles established those Churches in person (presumably with accompanying teaching) and that establishment of Churches is not the purpose of the epistles.

And if you're questioning whether the Apostles were divinely guided? Well, of course we don't teach that any person was infallible in himself, but we do understand that the Holy Spirit guided the Church.

Forgive me if I've misunderstood you, but what more is there to say?

are you saying that the Protoevangelium was written by someone who wrote down oral teachings to preserve the teaching, not to correct it? Yet it claims itself to be written at the time of Herod's death?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Many Apostolic traditions are not written down yet.

 

[Albion]

Forgive me, Albion. I am very busy these days, working out my own salvation.

I'm not interested in debate, if that's what you're getting at.

I'm not. I knew that you couldn't answer the question, but I asked it in order to show you that the theory is mistaken.

If "traditions" don't translate into something specific, this can't be guidance. And it can't be an alternative to Scripture or a supplement to it.

Like everyone else who says "traditions" are the way to go (because they can locate the word in Scripture), you can't name a single tradition we are supposedly being told to follow or believe!

Not to worry...no one else can either, me included. So it's nothing personal and, no, it wasn't a call to debate because I know that there is nothing upon which to build a debate.

 

[Standing Up]

It seems that if it had been written by James, to which prodromos says it wasn't, one would think it would have been canonized and not been obscure for hundreds of years.

Well it can't have been canonized, given that it contradicts what was canonized. Believe it was Jerome who concurs with this.

I suppose most agree that it is pseudonymous.

 

[Cappadocious]

^^^^
This passage on Sts. Joachim and Ann is taken from a sermon by St. John Damascene, bishop (Oratio 6, in Nativitatem B. Mariae V., 2.4.5.6: PG 96:663. 667670 ) delivered ca. AD 740 and is used in the Roman Office readings for the Feast of St. Joachim and St. Ann on July 26. The parents of the Virgin Mary are known by the names of Joachim and Ann from a tradition dating back to the Second Century as noted in the document known as the Protoevangelion of St. James.

This is what I mean by circular reasoning.

I don't think you know what circular reasoning is, because there is no circular reasoning going on here.

Furthermore, the above link does not attribute St. John's statement to the Protoevangelium; rather, it notes the Protoevangelium as an early source corroborating it. In any case, I showed you that link for the St. John Damascene material, not the commentary.

We believe this teaching because it is beautiful and true as it was delivered to us in the hymns and feasts of our Church. That is not circular. Perhaps you are thinking of a different sort of reasoning you find objectionable.

It seems that if it had been written by James, to which prodromos says it wasn't, one would think it would have been canonized and not been obscure for hundreds of years.

The Protoevangelium was probably not written by James and is a bit odd. That said, the former would probably not have been an impediment to canonization. I don't like the Protoevangelium.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He reprove you and you be found a liar (Proverbs 30:5,6).

 

[Cappadocious]

Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He reprove you and you be found a liar (Proverbs 30:5,6).

We don't agree with the modern biblicist interpretation of this passage.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I find it intensely interesting how people only consider those things miracles that have a supernatural explanation, but do not consider that God can work miracles through natural means.

I believe Mary was impregnated by Pantera in order to fulfill God's promise of a Messiah, His son. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Iulius_Abdes_Pantera

I do not need to contort my mind into unnatural ways in order to believe that God could create a human who was His Begotten Son from humans He specially chose.

But it seems most do.

I like thinking of Jesus having a Roman soldier as his father, and his parents having a sacred and spiritual marriage unto God.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm not. I knew that you couldn't answer the question, but I asked it in order to show you that the theory is mistaken.

If "traditions" don't translate into something specific, this can't be guidance. And it can't be an alternative to Scripture or a supplement to it.

Like everyone else who says "traditions" are the way to go (because they can locate the word in Scripture), you can't name a single tradition we are supposedly being told to follow or believe!

Not to worry...no one else can either, me included. So it's nothing personal and, no, it wasn't a call to debate because I know that there is nothing upon which to build a debate.

Well, I appreciate that you were not trying to debate. But I think we are not on the same page.

I think the Apostles directed the Churches in how to prepare the Eucharist, how to carry out Baptisms, what was involved in ordination, some idea of the developing ecclesiastical structure, and so on. There are mentions of all of this in Scripture, of course, but it is not a specific instruction manual. However, I believe the Apostles DID give specific instructions to the Churches. They would be remiss not to do so.

And of course many other things. What began this topic was whether or not the Theotokos was born to aged and formerly barren parents. I can easily imagine that during the delivery of the entire Gospel story, that might have come up.

Those are the kinds of traditions I'm talking about. Exactly what Paul had in mind, I do not know, but I suspect there is some overlap, and he is probably talking about a great deal more.

So yes, I can name some. I just don't want to debate the particulars. And yes, I believe certain things having to do with the Liturgy surely developed and underwent some change over time - we know our present Liturgy was not written until later. But of course the early Church was based on Jewish forms - they already had a liturgical understanding, and they already prayed prayers of the hours, and such things. So while things changed somewhat over time, they still fall under the umbrella of "Tradition" I'm speaking of.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I find it intensely interesting how people only consider those things miracles that have a supernatural explanation, but do not consider that God can work miracles through natural means.

I believe Mary was impregnated by Pantera in order to fulfill God's promise of a Messiah, His son. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Iulius_Abdes_Pantera

I do not need to contort my mind into unnatural ways in order to believe that God could create a human who was His Begotten Son from humans He specially chose.

But it seems most do.

I like thinking of Jesus having a Roman soldier as his father, and his parents having a sacred and spiritual marriage unto God.

You may like this theory, but it is not supported by Scripture and does not find support in the Traditions of the Church.

God can of course work miracles through natural means, or through whatever means He chooses. I don't think anyone here denies that.

Suggesting that believing in Scripture and Tradition involves contorting one's mind into unnatural ways begins to go against the rules of the Traditional Theology forum. Indeed, the last time I checked, belief in Christ having a natural father would not be admissible in General Theology at all, as it violates the Nicene Creed. Such discussion may be carried out in the Controversial Theology area, however.

 

[~Anastasia~]

are you saying that the Protoevangelium was written by someone who wrote down oral teachings to preserve the teaching, not to correct it? Yet it claims itself to be written at the time of Herod's death?

No, I wasn't commenting on the PoJ at all. It's not something that has concerned me overmuch.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

@Kylissa One way to deflect truth is to pull rank. The pharisees did the same thing.

Selah

 

[~Anastasia~]

@Kylissa One way to deflect truth is to pull rank. The pharisees did the same thing.

Selah

Such charges are actually the reason I hesitated to post that. But the forums are set up as they are - and there are good reasons for that.

You are free to dialogue and ask respectful questions. But to suggest that those who believe in the virgin birth and adhere to the Nicene Creed are "contorting their minds in unnatural ways" is heading in the wrong direction and I hoped to prevent it going further. Also if your aim is to prove otherwise, this is not the place for that. Normally such would be sent to General Theology, but since you question the virgin birth, I believe it would be more properly placed in Controversial Theology.

 

[Cappadocious]

I believe that Shakespeare was a sock. Don't pull rank on me, it's Pharisaical.

 

[Albion]

Well, I appreciate that you were not trying to debate. But I think we are not on the same page.

I think the Apostles directed the Churches in how to prepare the Eucharist, how to carry out Baptisms, what was involved in ordination, some idea of the developing ecclesiastical structure, and so on. There are mentions of all of this in Scripture, of course, but it is not a specific instruction manual. However, I believe the Apostles DID give specific instructions to the Churches. They would be remiss not to do so.

OK, and thanks.

Pretending that we know what the Apostles taught -- in the absence of any evidence -- is, of course, one option. My comment, however, was made in response to what you had said in that previous post.

There you attempted to find in Scripture a justification for making these assumptions. That there is none, other than the appearance of the word "traditions," I illustrated by asking you to name even one such "tradition."

It is not possible to show that Scripture approves of the use of "Holy Tradition." The terms aren't even the same, nor are the definitions. In short, stipulating what the Apostles might have taught is, indeed, the only way to justify this alternative to the Bible.

 

[prodromos]

Name a few of them for us, please. That way, we'll be able to see that this really is divine guidance.

The liturgy.