Quick question - immaculate conception?

[prodromos]

What is it based on?

Knowledge handed down through the Church.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Knowledge handed down through the Church.

Based on what?

 

[Cappadocious]

What is it based on?

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.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

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.

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?

.....

(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.

......

 

[MoreCoffee]

For the faithful no reason is necessary but for the sceptical no reason will suffice.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

For the faithful no reason is necessary but for the sceptical no reason will suffice.

God says let us reason this out together but when there are no reasons given for beliefs then of course it doesn't suffice.

 

[Standing Up]

Probably because they knew it wasn't written by James?

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?

 

[~Anastasia~]

.

 

[Cappadocious]

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

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.

but if it did there would be no indication of the conception from the HS (this we get from scripture)

I don't know what you're getting at here.

what are therefore the documentation that attests to this and which I have been accused of not making the effort to read?

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.

Of course, I think that if you turn that sort of recalcitrant attitude on the Scriptures, they don't fare so well, either; hence it's not an attitude I think is a good one.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

....patristic writings about the Virgin Mary. .....

That would be the documentation that I was asking about.

 

[Cappadocious]

That would be the documentation that I was asking about.

So you think that patristic writings are documentation, and you want citations to... what... empirically examine their veracity?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

So you think that patristic writings are documentation, and you want citations to... what... empirically examine their veracity?

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.
To which you will probably say it was HS given to the church, but to what do you look to verify that it was given to anyone, there must be councils to which we could look? If not then it seems only right not to accuse Protestants of not looking into those things that are nonexistant.
It seems obvious that you have no answer as to the source so I withdraw the question.

 

[Cappadocious]

I'm assuming not or it would have been provided....

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

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

Cassia, do you subscribe to the following idea: A teaching is only worthy of Christian faith if we have documented evidence of a textual tradition for that teaching going back to the apostles?

 

[Cappadocious]

It seems obvious that you have no answer as to the source so I withdraw the question.

You're grown and you're gonna talk that way?

 

[MoreCoffee]

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. If they obey he will bless them and if they do not 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 of many today.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

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.

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 .....

 

[Cappadocious]

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 .....

So you do subscribe to the sort of idea that I suggested in my post?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

So you do subscribe to the sort of idea that I suggested in my post?

That question was answered in the post.

 

[Cappadocious]

You weren't quoting me, so I had to make sure.

Well, here's my reply, taking yours into account:

We don't subscribe to the condition that a teaching is only worthy of Christian faith if we have documented evidence of a textual tradition for that teaching going back to explicit mention in the Scriptures.

 

[~Anastasia~]

1Cor 11:2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

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 - which were delivered in person - as well as those that came by letter (the epistles, which became Scripture). New Churches were not established by sending a book, writings, or a stack of letters. They were established by the Apostles going out, preaching, having people convert, being baptized, being taught by the Apostles for a long enough period of time to establish them, and laying hands on those to remain and assure that the Church continued as it had been started. Scripture (the epistles) are the letters the Apostles sent to the Churches to correct errors and make comments on what happened after that.

We don't throw out all the rest and expect corrective letters to do the whole job. The Apostles didn't do it that way. Neither do we.