Who really cares what the ECF's had to say?

[beamishboy]

Dear Beamishboy,

You write:

Who, exactly, does this 'we' consist of?

As Secundulus shows, it does not include the founders of the reform movement; neither does it include your own Church, since many of its clergy also venerate St. Mary.

So, the Orthodox Church; the Catholic Church; parts of the Anglican Church (including your archbishop), Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, all these are wrong and do not follow the infallible word ... of whom? Beamishboy or God, and do you know the difference?

The "we" consists of Christians who read the Bible without a preconceived set of practice/doctrines. It consists of people who will not subvert the meaning of the Bible to suit practices that are hazily described as a part of "tradition".

Your claim that your faction of one Church is the only one following the Infallible word of God, and that the rest of us are wrong is founded upon exactly what? Nothing but your own reading of the Scriptures.

I have asked before, and shall again: for us, Holy Tradition provides a balance against the natural errors of our sinful nature, and an assurance that we are not simply reading from Scripture what we wish; what assurance can you offer that your reading is not just that of your own sinful nature?

Let me explain to you a little about what "Tradition" actually is. Let's examine it more closely. Whenever someone says that the Canon of the Bible comes from Tradition, we have to ask "what tradition?" and "whose tradition?"

You can't just say Tradition gave us the canon. What does tradition actually say and who gave the Tradition? Is the person suggesting that Tradition actually gave a list of the 27 books? That cannot be because we know that there were other canons before that were different. Does Tradition give the criteria for the choosing of the Canon and if so, what are these criteria. I believe the Canon is rightly chosen because of a set of correct criteria but these criteria are not a part of "tradition" and I'll explain why. The earlier canons were not so accurate and it can't be that Tradition became clearer as time goes by. That is too ridiculous a suggestion to make.

Basically the criteria for choosing the Canon were correct, as I have said. These came about over the years because there were more books which might have entered the canon if the criteria weren't tightened.

These criteria did not come from the Apostles. I don't think anyone is silly enough to suggest that St Paul or St John whispered to someone else giving him a secret list of 27 books for the NT and that got passed on. Neither is it plausible to say that the criteria for selection into the canon came from the apostles because we know they tightened the criteria which excluded Shepherd of Hermas (criterion of antiquity and proximity to an apostle).

So whenever someone says the reason for something is Tradition, you must ask what tradition it is and who gave it.

The fact is Tradition does not originate from the apostles. It could not have. There is no evidence for this at all. Tradition keeps changing. Which is why churches that believe in tradition get it all different. Orthodox Tradition of using Icons is different from RC Tradition of using statues. Tradition is post-apostolic.

It is always good to force anyone who seeks recourse to this hazy notion of Tradition to spell out what the Tradition actually says and from whom it originates. If they say the veneration of Mary comes from Tradition, simply ask them what Tradition says such veneration actually involve and who gave the Tradition and next, was there any increment to the Tradition from other sources along the way through the centuries. You'll find that the Tradition differs widely between RCs and Orthodox and different branches of the Orthodox faith.

The truth is Tradition rose in post-apostolic times. As the years roll, there is an increment in the Tradition. New things added, some aspects of the old were changed slightly. That explains the differences in Tradition.

One trick is to avoid the use of umbrella words. RCs and Orthodox will say but the veneration of Mary comes from Tradition, never mind the details. But the details are important because, really, what constitutes veneration of Mary? Who originated it? These are questions that believers in Tradition will find hard to answer. This is because "Tradition" is meant to be a catch-word for anything that is not in the Bible but that are practised by that group. When you analyse it properly, it fails completely.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The "we" consists of Christians who read the Bible without a preconceived set of practice/doctrines. It consists of people who will not subvert the meaning of the Bible to suit practices that are hazily described as a part of "tradition".

May I frame this and put it on my wall?

LLOJ says: I remain Solo Scriptura to the End!

Matt 10:22 And ye shall be being hated by all thru the Name of Me. The one yet enduring into a-finish/teloV <5056>, this one shall be being saved

Romans 10:13 For all who ever should be calling upon the Name of Lord, shall be being saved.

Reve 15:1 And I perceived another sign in the heaven, great and marvelous. Messengers, seven, having stripes/blows, seven, the last, that in them is finished/etelesqh <5055> (5681) the fury of the GOD

 

[katherine2001]

The same reason why RCs and Orthodox don't eat the vine, the gate, etc just because Jesus says "I am the vine," and "I am the gate".

No, we don't follow traditions whether of Zwingli or anybody else.

Show us in the Scriptures where many of Jesus's followers left when He said "I am the vine," and "I am the gate" as they did when He said that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. In John 6, it says that many of His disciples left that day and followed Him no more. Not only that, Jesus didn't chase after them when they left to tell them that they'd totally misunderstood Him (He had no need to, they'd understood Him perfectly and He let them make their choice).

Zwingli denied real presence in the Eucharist, and it sure seems that you do follow his tradition in this matter, even though it didn't come about until the Reformation. The apostles believed in the real presence in the Eucharist. The very idea that it is only a memorial and is symbolic is totally "a tradition of man".

 

[Montalban]

The same reason why RCs and Orthodox don't eat the vine, the gate, etc just because Jesus says "I am the vine," and "I am the gate".

No, we don't follow traditions whether of Zwingli or anybody else.

Firstly Jesus doesn't say "Eat the gate".

Secondly, Jesus himself is asked "Do you really mean this?" and he confirms he does. He confirms in John that he is not speaking figuratively.

Only you have the arrogance to deny Jesus' words because you believe your own popish infalibility regarding scripture. You've already shown your novel opinion on Mary being blessed. But again you simply add error to errror

Jesus says that His Body and Blood are really food and drink…

John 6:35 Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

41 At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." 42 They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?"

43 "Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

He confirms it's real. You deny this with a spurrious analogy to where he talks figuratively, as if because he talks figuratively some times one can only assume he does to here. You deny Christ's own words!

There is no denial that 'the Last Supper' was held at Passover. Passover was a commeration of the actual sacrifice of the lambs so that the spirit of the Lord passed-over the Jews in Egypt.

However it is not a mere commerative meal that Jesus and the Aposltes take part in; note the absence of anyone else but Jesus and the 12. Jesus says at the beginning of the new covenant. And like the Jews practiced of the Passover 'covenant' it is to be repeated.

Mat 26:27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Mark 14:24 "This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them
Luke 22:20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

As the first Passover was a real sacrifice of the lamb, and as Jesus is the Lamb of God, this first convenant is to be a real sacrifice. However it is not a one-off event to be later commerated by simple meal gatherings.

It could be a 'metaphorical' expression, in this instance too, excepting in In John 6: 50ff He insists the actual literalness of it.

John 6:55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
He states this immediately after the Jews call His words into question; they are asking Him for clarification. (John 6:52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can
this man give us his flesh to eat?")

He is differentiating it from that stated here...
Acts 2
42 They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
43 Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles.
44 All the believers were together and had everything in common.
45 Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.
46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,
47 praising God and enjoying the favour of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.



St. Paul says that the Eucharist is NOT such a meal.

1 Cor 11:20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don't you have homes to eat and drink in?



He is saying that when the believers come together normally to eat together it is NOT the same as the Lord's Supper. The Lord's Supper is different.

1 Cor11:26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

He is saying that partaking of this bread and cup in sin is to sin against the flesh and blood of the Lord BECAUSE it is the flesh and blood of the Lord as proclaimed by Jesus (John 6:55)

St. Ignatius of Antioch(1/2) repeats this, and it is continually repeated by the Church Fathers; St. Justin Martyr (3), Tertullian(4) and so on; all BEFORE the Bible was compiled.

(1) St. Ignatius Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 6:2)
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-lightfoot.html
(2) St. Ignatius Epistle to the Ephesians 20:2
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-ephesians-lightfoot.html
(3) Justin Martyr, First Apology "CHAPTER LXVI -- OF THE EUCHARIST"
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

(4) Tertullian "On the Resurrection of the Flesh" CHAP. VIII
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian16.html

Summary:
Jesus is explicit that it is His body and blood we need to consume. He repeats this at the instigation of the 'new Covenenant'. It is re-stressed by St. Paul who emphasises the ceremony is not just a communal meal. It is re-stated by the Early Church such as St. Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Terullian who all wrote before the Bible was compiled.

 

[Montalban]

It amazes me that you guys find it so hard to accept that we don't follow men at all. Luther was wrong in bits, right in bits, like all men. We just follow the infallible Word of God. Is that so hard?

As determined by you.

I note you completely ignored my post where I showed your error over the interpretation of Blessed. The fact that a half dozen respectable English translations don't use 'happy' seems to have hurt your case - hence you don't deal with it.

 

[Montalban]

BUMP

If you keep calling me this I will report you. You have no right taking liberties with my name.

So the word means to be considered blessed. Great.

As far as I can find makariso is a boy's name. It appears in Luke, but not where you wish it
&#956;&#945;&#954;&#8049;&#961;&#953;&#959;&#962; is the word you're after, but according to my concordance it is the similar word &#956;&#945;&#954;&#945;&#961;&#8055;&#950;&#969; (transliterated as makariz&#333

For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold , from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed 3106 .
Which in the "outline of Biblical use" gives the meaning as to pronounce blessed

Given the context of the Angel calling her &#949;&#8016;&#955;&#959;&#947;&#8051;&#969; and Elizabeth calling her &#949;&#8016;&#955;&#959;&#947;&#8051;&#969; your change of emphasis to 'happy' is a novel thing, based as it is on you basing it on you.

And then, I have also noted that if it means 'happy' then your refutation where you cite Jesus' words later in Luke don't account for it. For he's not saying Don't call Mary "HAPPY". So you can't even support your own argument there, on top of the fact you invent him rebuking her, when he's talking to other people. You simply pile error onto error. And that's with you having him rebuke her for some thing that still remains only in your fantasy world.


Based on you believing it so.

The only time "Count me happy" comes up is in Jam 5:11

Luke 1:48
for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed
New International Version
King James Version
New King James Version
21st Century King James Version
New Century Version
Wycliffe New Testament
Today's New International Version
etc.

NOT HAPPY!

You talking about yourself like this in no way adds to the debate. It only adds to your aura of arrogance given the mulitude of versions that don't have your 'happy' interpretation. The fact you reject your own chuch is amazing - especially when you invent 'pro-Roman' reasons.

All you continue to do is offer your own opinion

 

[Montalban]

Show us in the Scriptures where many of Jesus's followers left when He said "I am the vine," and "I am the gate" as they did when He said that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. In John 6, it says that many of His disciples left that day and followed Him no more. Not only that, Jesus didn't chase after them when they left to tell them that they'd totally misunderstood Him (He had no need to, they'd understood Him perfectly and He let them make their choice).

Zwingli denied real presence in the Eucharist, and it sure seems that you do follow his tradition in this matter, even though it didn't come about until the Reformation. The apostles believed in the real presence in the Eucharist. The very idea that it is only a memorial and is symbolic is totally "a tradition of man".

The sin of Adam was the arrogance to assume to know God through one's own intellectual abilitites. This sin is magnified in the arrogance of Beamishboy who seeks to ignore that which he happens not to like. When Jesus confirms to the crowds that he's not talking figuratively - that's how important it is - Beamishboy has to ignore it.

His arrogance is near unlimited - claiming to be 13 but knowing that his own church is in error over bits he disagrees with.

With LLOJ and Rick Otto offering comic relief as side-kicks to a 13 year old.

 

[Montalban]

The best case of the Protestants here is to act selectively with posts. To straw-man, or to enter with flippant comments backslapping each other for what they consider witty one-liners.

I hope that they stop and think about whether this truly then is a Christian way of discussion.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

BUMP
Based on you believing it so.
The only time "Count me happy" comes up is in Jam 5:11
Luke 1:48
for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed

You are correct Montalban on that word in Luke 1:48

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Luke 1:48 That He looks upon the lowliness of the bond-slavess of Him. For behold! from the now shall be counting-happy/happyizing/makariousin <3106> (5692) me all the generations

James 5:11 Behold! we are counting-happy/happyizing/makarizomen <3106> (5719) the ones enduring.......

3106. makarizo mak-ar-id'-zo from 3107; to beatify, i.e. pronounce (or esteem) fortunate:--call blessed, count happy.
3108. makarismos mak-ar-is-mos' from 3106; beatification, i.e. attribution of good fortune:--blessedness.
3375. men mane a stronger form of 3303; a particle of affirmation (only with 2229); assuredly:--+ surely

 

[Thekla]

The "we" consists of Christians who read the Bible without a preconceived set of practice/doctrines. It consists of people who will not subvert the meaning of the Bible to suit practices that are hazily described as a part of "tradition".
[/color][/size][/font]

all Christians read the Bible through the lens of some 'tradition'

Let me explain to you a little about what "Tradition" actually is. Let's examine it more closely. Whenever someone says that the Canon of the Bible comes from Tradition, we have to ask "what tradition?" and "whose tradition?"

You can't just say Tradition gave us the canon. What does tradition actually say and who gave the Tradition? Is the person suggesting that Tradition actually gave a list of the 27 books? That cannot be because we know that there were other canons before that were different. Does Tradition give the criteria for the choosing of the Canon and if so, what are these criteria. I believe the Canon is rightly chosen because of a set of correct criteria but these criteria are not a part of "tradition" and I'll explain why. The earlier canons were not so accurate and it can't be that Tradition became clearer as time goes by. That is too ridiculous a suggestion to make.

Basically the criteria for choosing the Canon were correct, as I have said. These came about over the years because there were more books which might have entered the canon if the criteria weren't tightened.

These criteria did not come from the Apostles. I don't think anyone is silly enough to suggest that St Paul or St John whispered to someone else giving him a secret list of 27 books for the NT and that got passed on. Neither is it plausible to say that the criteria for selection into the canon came from the apostles because we know they tightened the criteria which excluded Shepherd of Hermas (criterion of antiquity and proximity to an apostle).

So whenever someone says the reason for something is Tradition, you must ask what tradition it is and who gave it.

The fact is Tradition does not originate from the apostles. It could not have. There is no evidence for this at all. Tradition keeps changing. Which is why churches that believe in tradition get it all different. Orthodox Tradition of using Icons is different from RC Tradition of using statues. Tradition is post-apostolic.

It is always good to force anyone who seeks recourse to this hazy notion of Tradition to spell out what the Tradition actually says and from whom it originates. If they say the veneration of Mary comes from Tradition, simply ask them what Tradition says such veneration actually involve and who gave the Tradition and next, was there any increment to the Tradition from other sources along the way through the centuries. You'll find that the Tradition differs widely between RCs and Orthodox and different branches of the Orthodox faith.

The truth is Tradition rose in post-apostolic times. As the years roll, there is an increment in the Tradition. New things added, some aspects of the old were changed slightly. That explains the differences in Tradition.

One trick is to avoid the use of umbrella words. RCs and Orthodox will say but the veneration of Mary comes from Tradition, never mind the details. But the details are important because, really, what constitutes veneration of Mary? Who originated it? These are questions that believers in Tradition will find hard to answer. This is because "Tradition" is meant to be a catch-word for anything that is not in the Bible but that are practised by that group. When you analyse it properly, it fails completely.

this is fine on the face of it, but you have failed to:

1. provide a definition of "Tradition" that more than tangentially coincides with "Tradition" as understood by EO/OO/RC

2. the description of the assembling of the canon lacks a great deal of pertinent detail and citation - it is grossly generalized and exhibits a failure to consider and/or relate the actual history of the matter; the Shepherd of Hermas cannot stand alone as an example without considering particular regional and historical phenomena that actually reflect the point you wish to make

3. provide comparative time lines for various practices said to arise from "Tradition" within the three aforementioned Churches (and the practices need to be understood through the various cultural lenses appropriate to the cultures before actual comparison can be made)

4. you will also need to distinguish between dogma and doctrine (the 'visible expression' of dogma, including the written) and understand the theological basis of each.

5. understand the formation of canon in both the Jewish and Christian communities, and understand the place of and attitude toward "second canon".

 

[beamishboy]

As determined by you.

I note you completely ignored my post where I showed your error over the interpretation of Blessed. The fact that a half dozen respectable English translations don't use 'happy' seems to have hurt your case - hence you don't deal with it.

Hi (the beamishboy avoids using the affectionate form of your name since you seem disturbed by it),

I am perfectly happy if you use "blessed" for all the translations. But what does blessed mean? Lots of people are blessed. Those who do the beatitudes are blessed also. Those who follow God's commandments (even though they are sinners) are blessed. So what? I don't get your point.

Hence, we sort of know what blessed means. Now we also know what blessed is not. Or at least from Scriptures. Blessed is not the condition that allows people to venerate you, make icons/statues of you, parade you, bow, kneel or pray to said icons/statues. Blessed is not sinlessness. Blessed does not mean shrines and altars will be made for the blessed person. In case you are offended, the "you" in this paragraph does not mean you as in you. It means anyone. The beamishboy knows the sensitivity of adults and will strive not to offend.

So my point, is so what? Leave the "blessed" as blessed. Just don't throw in the other "appurtenances" of blessedness that cropped up in post-apostolic times and that can be any time after the apostles to more than a thousand years after.

 

[Thekla]

Hi (the beamishboy avoids using the affectionate form of your name since you seem disturbed by it),

I am perfectly happy if you use "blessed" for all the translations. But what does blessed mean? Lots of people are blessed. Those who do the beatitudes are blessed also. Those who follow God's commandments (even though they are sinners) are blessed. So what? I don't get your point.

Hence, we sort of know what blessed means. Now we also know what blessed is not. Or at least from Scriptures. Blessed is not the condition that allows people to venerate you, make icons/statues of you, parade you, bow, kneel or pray to said icons/statues. Blessed is not sinlessness. Blessed does not mean shrines and altars will be made for the blessed person. In case you are offended, the "you" in this paragraph does not mean you as in you. It means anyone. The beamishboy knows the sensitivity of adults and will strive not to offend.

So my point, is so what? Leave the "blessed" as blessed. Just don't throw in the other "appurtenances" of blessedness that cropped up in post-apostolic times and that can be any time after the apostles to more than a thousand years after.

which blessed do you mean ?

which culture do you mean ?

 

[beamishboy]

The best case of the Protestants here is to act selectively with posts. To straw-man, or to enter with flippant comments backslapping each other for what they consider witty one-liners.

I hope that they stop and think about whether this truly then is a Christian way of discussion.

Look at all my other posts. They are more well-argued than yours. Plus, when they are placed next to yours, yours seem more like the one-liners you seem to condemn.

 

[beamishboy]

all Christians read the Bible through the lens of some 'tradition'


this is fine on the face of it, but you have failed to:

1. provide a definition of "Tradition" that more than tangentially coincides with "Tradition" as understood by EO/OO/RC

There you go again. Asking me to give a definition to something I reject and which you believe in. The fact that most of us cannot really put a finger to what Tradition actually is (and I say neither can Orthodox and RCs) is because that's basically what Tradition is - hazy and ambiguous. You give me a comprehensive definition of tradition. I can do so too. Here is my definition (it comes from my heart and since you asked me to give it, I'll do so but if it sounds offensive I beg your forgiveness but I can't reword it because this is honestly what I believe it is): Tradition is a subterfuge used by people who want to circumvent the need to follow the clear dictates of the Word of God. It gives a semblance of authority and it smacks of something emanating from the Apostles when it clearly does not. Each tradition arises at various times on a long timescale of Christendom and each such tradition gets honed, adapted, changed, metamorphised as the years roll by. In the end, nobody who claims Tradition to any one dogma is able to specify in detail what Tradition ORIGINALLY says of this dogma and from whom that particular Tradition-inspired dogma originally came.

2. the description of the assembling of the canon lacks a great deal of pertinent detail and citation - it is grossly generalized and exhibits a failure to consider and/or relate the actual history of the matter; the Shepherd of Hermas cannot stand alone as an example without considering particular regional and historical phenomena that actually reflect the point you wish to make

Since YOU claim the canon is a part of Tradition, I have questions for you:

1. Who ORIGINALLY did that Tradition come from?

2. What was the Tradition that "specifies" the canon? What does that Tradition say?

3. Did Tradition specify all 27 books of the New Testament (and this Oral Tradition got passed down so that at any one point, people were fully aware of what the 27 books were)? If not, what were the contents of that Tradition then?

3. provide comparative time lines for various practices said to arise from "Tradition" within the three aforementioned Churches (and the practices need to be understood through the various cultural lenses appropriate to the cultures before actual comparison can be made)

There you go again. I have already said that Tradition is one mess of hazy ambiguous subterfuge and you ask me to give a timeline. You are the one who should do that. I reject it all, don't you see? You show me the timeline of this Tradition YOU believe in and when each item of this Tradition come from and what each item of this Tradition is. You claim to rely on Tradition. The onus then is on you to show it. If you don't show it, then let's conclude that it's one big mess of hazy nothing and let's reject it all together, shall we?

4. you will also need to distinguish between dogma and doctrine (the 'visible expression' of dogma, including the written) and understand the theological basis of each.

This is the same as the foregoing. I don't show anything about Tradition because I think it's all false. If you think it's true, you show it. Or else, chuck it out as false and a mere confusion of what the Word of God teaches.

5. understand the formation of canon in both the Jewish and Christian communities, and understand the place of and attitude toward "second canon".

My idea of canon is entirely different from yours. Since you say Canon came from Tradition, you show it. Actual source of the Tradition and what the Traditions says. Protestants generally do not accept a "second canon".

 

[beamishboy]

which blessed do you mean ?

which culture do you mean ?

And which do YOU mean? Which culture? You see, the beamishboy was not born yesterday. I'm aware that some adults try to ask unnecessary questions to stump a younger person. Teachers do that all the time when they are cornered and realise they are wrong but are too embarrassed to admit it in class. I'm not saying you are doing the same thing but I learn a lot from school and I'm sorry I tend to employ it in real life too.

You delineate the exact context of the word "blessed", its full implication and cast it please in the proper cultural/linguistic context. You have to do it because you are trying to use the word "blessed" to justify the veneration of Mary. Don't forget how all this began. I said that Mary veneration was not supported by Scriptures. So if you think the word blessed is such a wonderful support for veneration, then you have to show it and my job will be to show you why you are wrong, ie I will rebut what you say.

Frequently, the onus of proof gets confusingly tossed about and it's important we set it right from the beginning.

 

[Thekla]

There you go again. Asking me to give a definition to something I reject and which you believe in. The fact that most of us cannot really put a finger to what Tradition actually is (and I say neither can Orthodox and RCs) is because that's basically what Tradition is - hazy and ambiguous. You give me a comprehensive definition of tradition. I can do so too. Here is my definition (it comes from my heart and since you asked me to give it, I'll do so but if it sounds offensive I beg your forgiveness but I can't reword it because this is honestly what I believe it is): Tradition is a subterfuge used by people who want to circumvent the need to follow the clear dictates of the Word of God. It gives a semblance of authority and it smacks of something emanating from the Apostles when it clearly does not. Each tradition arises at various times on a long timescale of Christendom and each such tradition gets honed, adapted, changed, metamorphised as the years roll by. In the end, nobody who claims Tradition to any one dogma is able to specify in detail what Tradition ORIGINALLY says of this dogma and from whom that particular Tradition-inspired dogma originally came.

over the course of months you have made your definition of Tradition quite clear

have you actually studied "Tradition" as defined by the EO, for example ? What texts did you use ?

Since YOU claim the canon is a part of Tradition, I have questions for you:

1. Who ORIGINALLY did that Tradition come from?

the revelation of God

2. What was the Tradition that "specifies" the canon? What does that Tradition say?

Tradition is not "bits", so I'm not sure what you mean

3. Did Tradition specify all 27 books of the New Testament (and this Oral Tradition got passed down so that at any one point, people were fully aware of what the 27 books were)? If not, what were the contents of that Tradition then?

not every Church had every book ... and some had more than presently appear in the NT

The content of Tradition is the revelation to the Church and is retained as dogma and iterated as practice/writing

There you go again. I have already said that Tradition is one mess of hazy ambiguous subterfuge and you ask me to give a timeline. You are the one who should do that.

if your assertion is correct, it should be more than assumed and then applied

I reject it all, don't you see? You show me the timeline of this Tradition YOU believe in and when each item of this Tradition come from and what each item of this Tradition is.

I have no problem with it -- yet you have made serious charges based on apparently paltry research; this indicates at least a bias, and a failure to honestly consider the depth of that which you seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to.

If you're not even going to take your own theory seriously enough to back it, what is the point of going on about it ?

You claim to rely on Tradition. The onus then is on you to show it. If you don't show it, then let's conclude that it's one big mess of hazy nothing and let's reject it all together, shall we?

Your false challenge is at best condescending, you're mature enough to read fairly and honestly to research and support your theory.

The Orthodox Church, by Timothy Ware and Church history by Jaroslav Pelikan (I can find the title if you are interested) are good for a start.

This is the same as the foregoing. I don't show anything about Tradition because I think it's all false. If you think it's true, you show it. Or else, chuck it out as false and a mere confusion of what the Word of God teaches.

You have brought the charge; in the US it is your responsibility to bring reasonable evidence in order for the charge to be considered valid enough to investigate. "I don't like it" is not sufficient evidence for action.

My idea of canon is entirely different from yours. Since you say Canon came from Tradition, you show it. Actual source of the Tradition and what the Traditions says. Protestants generally do not accept a "second canon".

All you have to do is look at the history of the Ecumenical Councils.

 

[Montalban]

Look at all my other posts. They are more well-argued than yours. Plus, when they are placed next to yours, yours seem more like the one-liners you seem to condemn.

You've already advertised you arrogance. You don't need to do so again.

 

[Montalban]

You are correct Montalban on that word in Luke 1:48

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Luke 1:48 That He looks upon the lowliness of the bond-slavess of Him. For behold! from the now shall be counting-happy/happyizing/makariousin <3106> (5692) me all the generations

James 5:11 Behold! we are counting-happy/happyizing/makarizomen <3106> (5719) the ones enduring.......

3106. makarizo mak-ar-id'-zo from 3107; to beatify, i.e. pronounce (or esteem) fortunate:--call blessed, count happy.
3108. makarismos mak-ar-is-mos' from 3106; beatification, i.e. attribution of good fortune:--blessedness.
3375. men mane a stronger form of 3303; a particle of affirmation (only with 2229); assuredly:--+ surely

I don't understand why you encouarge Beamishboy's arrogance

 

[Montalban]

Hi (the beamishboy avoids using the affectionate form of your name since you seem disturbed by it),

It took long enough to sink in

I am perfectly happy if you use "blessed" for all the translations. But what does blessed mean? Lots of people are blessed.

Do you accept that she says she'll be considered blessed throughout the ages?

Those who do the beatitudes are blessed also. Those who follow God's commandments (even though they are sinners) are blessed. So what? I don't get your point.

My point is your re-working of this to mean happy is wrong.

Hence, we sort of know what blessed means. Now we also know what blessed is not. Or at least from Scriptures. Blessed is not the condition that allows people to venerate you, make icons/statues of you, parade you, bow, kneel or pray to said icons/statues.

What statues are you talking about?

Why are we not allowed to venerate people who are special. This is another of the points I've raised which you've not commented on. I put in an example of you and rock/sports personalities and their posters.

Blessed is not sinlessness. Blessed does not mean shrines and altars will be made for the blessed person. In case you are offended, the "you" in this paragraph does not mean you as in you. It means anyone. The beamishboy knows the sensitivity of adults and will strive not to offend.

You based this pontification upon what?

So my point, is so what? Leave the "blessed" as blessed. Just don't throw in the other "appurtenances" of blessedness that cropped up in post-apostolic times and that can be any time after the apostles to more than a thousand years after.
[/SIZE]

Well for a while you argued that it meant 'happy'.

You again continue your less than honest posting. You argued this for some time, now it seems you've dropped it as you now accept she was blessed. This also flies in the face of your laughable invention when you said Jesus had admonished her.

At best your arguments boil down to your opinion &#8211;v- someone else's opinion. You do nothing to show you opinion is more correct. The changing of voice to the third person might have been your way of wishing to sound more pompous and therefore more authoritative but it still is your best argument; your opinion.

You've also ignored my rebuttal of you over the Body of Christ.

I await your next cherry-picked response with some eagerness.

 

[beamishboy]

Firstly Jesus doesn't say "Eat the gate".

Secondly, Jesus himself is asked "Do you really mean this?" and he confirms he does. He confirms in John that he is not speaking figuratively.

Only you have the arrogance to deny Jesus' words because you believe your own popish infalibility regarding scripture. You've already shown your novel opinion on Mary being blessed. But again you simply add error to errror

Jesus says that His Body and Blood are really food and drink…

John 6:35 Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

41 At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." 42 They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?"

43 "Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

He confirms it's real. You deny this with a spurrious analogy to where he talks figuratively, as if because he talks figuratively some times one can only assume he does to here. You deny Christ's own words!

There is no denial that 'the Last Supper' was held at Passover. Passover was a commeration of the actual sacrifice of the lambs so that the spirit of the Lord passed-over the Jews in Egypt.

However it is not a mere commerative meal that Jesus and the Aposltes take part in; note the absence of anyone else but Jesus and the 12. Jesus says at the beginning of the new covenant. And like the Jews practiced of the Passover 'covenant' it is to be repeated.

Mat 26:27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Mark 14:24 "This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them
Luke 22:20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

As the first Passover was a real sacrifice of the lamb, and as Jesus is the Lamb of God, this first convenant is to be a real sacrifice. However it is not a one-off event to be later commerated by simple meal gatherings.

It could be a 'metaphorical' expression, in this instance too, excepting in In John 6: 50ff He insists the actual literalness of it.

John 6:55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
He states this immediately after the Jews call His words into question; they are asking Him for clarification. (John 6:52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can
this man give us his flesh to eat?")

He is differentiating it from that stated here...
Acts 2
42 They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
43 Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles.
44 All the believers were together and had everything in common.
45 Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.
46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,
47 praising God and enjoying the favour of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.



St. Paul says that the Eucharist is NOT such a meal.

1 Cor 11:20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don't you have homes to eat and drink in?



He is saying that when the believers come together normally to eat together it is NOT the same as the Lord's Supper. The Lord's Supper is different.

1 Cor11:26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

He is saying that partaking of this bread and cup in sin is to sin against the flesh and blood of the Lord BECAUSE it is the flesh and blood of the Lord as proclaimed by Jesus (John 6:55)

St. Ignatius of Antioch(1/2) repeats this, and it is continually repeated by the Church Fathers; St. Justin Martyr (3), Tertullian(4) and so on; all BEFORE the Bible was compiled.

(1) St. Ignatius Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 6:2)
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-lightfoot.html
(2) St. Ignatius Epistle to the Ephesians 20:2
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-ephesians-lightfoot.html
(3) Justin Martyr, First Apology "CHAPTER LXVI -- OF THE EUCHARIST"
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

(4) Tertullian "On the Resurrection of the Flesh" CHAP. VIII
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian16.html

Summary:
Jesus is explicit that it is His body and blood we need to consume. He repeats this at the instigation of the 'new Covenenant'. It is re-stressed by St. Paul who emphasises the ceremony is not just a communal meal. It is re-stated by the Early Church such as St. Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Terullian who all wrote before the Bible was compiled.

Hi,

I just notice the above post and I am of the view that a comprehensive reply from me is required. Here it is:

It is striking that John uses a different word. He says “flesh”. The use of “flesh” is not found in any of the narratives of the institution of communion in the gospels, nor is it found in 1 Cor 10 nor 1 Cor 11. Nor is it common in the Fathers to use the word “flesh” in this sacramental sense. The correct word in sacramental usage is “body”. Irenaeus consistently uses “body” in relation to the sacrament and never “flesh” and the same with ancient liturgies like those of Hippolytus, Serapion, St James, etc. All I’m saying is the use of “flesh” cannot point to the sacrament.

In case I’m accused of plagiarism, my preceding paragraph is almost entirely (with some paraphrasing by the beamishboy) from Leon Morris’s Commentary on John (pages 374 onwards). Leon Morris happens to be a priest in the CoE. Hehe.

He then quotes Ryle that to interpose a bodily act between the soul of men and salvation has no precedent in Scripture. And he continues that it seems more consistent with the rest of Scripture and especially viewing that the word is “flesh” instead of “body”, the proper meaning is the appropriation of Christ. Do we appropriate Christ for ourselves? Isn’t that consistent with opening our heart to Christ when he knocks that he may come in?

As a personal aside, I always find it very flimsy when people depend on only one small part of the Bible to found major doctrines and they continue to adhere to the doctrines even though the words used in that small part of the Bible is suspect. Correct doctrines are not established this way.