• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Paul Yohannan

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2016
3,886
1,587
45
Old Route 66
✟34,744.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
So what year was all doctrine set in stone as contained by the early church?

That depends on the defintion of the words "doctrine," "set", "in stone," and "contained."

You're approaching this question from the wrong angle. The correct approach would be to start by studying the idea of apophatic theology (St. Dionysius the Aeropagite) and then work back from that into the heresiologists (Sts. Irenaeus, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria and John of Damascus) and the ecumenical councils.
 
Upvote 0

Paul Yohannan

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2016
3,886
1,587
45
Old Route 66
✟34,744.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
As far as "we are obliged to follow its precedent", that use of we does not include those that follow Sola Scriptura. We are obliged to follow scripture, even when it disagrees with the RCC or even Martin Luther. Get that?

Sola Scriptura itself is not scriptural.
 
Upvote 0

AnticipateHisComing

Newbie
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2013
2,787
574
✟148,332.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Indeed so, because there is a very substantial body of Scriptural and Patriatic evidence to suggest the devil can read our thoughts, and indeed actively inserts himself into our internal mental processes.

So yes, Lord have Mercy. Kyrie Eleison.

I am entirely certain the devil has not only the abilkty to read our thoughts, but also to insert ideas directly into our minds. Read/write access.

The disciplines of Orthodox monasticism are largely focused on training to shut the devil out, to deny him this ability, but I myself am a weak layman living in the world and of the world, so all I do is pray for divine mercy.
More assertion of what scripture says with not a single reference.
 
Upvote 0

AnticipateHisComing

Newbie
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2013
2,787
574
✟148,332.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sola Scriptura itself is not scriptural.
There is no other source of incontrovertible truth as my thread on it argued. Lacking another source of incontrovertible truth, it remains SOLELY. Therefore Sola Scriptura.

I thought you said this thread was not about Protestants vs Catholics/Traditionalists.
 
Upvote 0

com7fy8

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2013
14,814
6,677
Massachusetts
✟659,898.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Jesus is our Prototype >
"For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified." (in 1 Corinthians 2:2)

"My little children, for whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you," (Galatians 4:19)

So, God's attention is to forming His own Son in each child of God, as our new inner Person.

This is true, and insofar as that happened first and foremost with St. Mary, she also becomes a prototype.
But our Apostle Peter says,

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

To me, this means God wants every church leader to be a prototype . . . of how we all can become in His love.

And our Apostle Paul gives standards and description of how a man needs to become, in order to lead by example > 1 Timothy 3:1-10.

But Mary is not emphasized in the writings of these Apostles, as being needed to serve as our first prototype after Jesus. Paul and Peter don't even mention her.

Jesus Himself appeared to His Apostles, including to Paul. This, I personally understand, exposed them to Himself so they could then be changed to be like Him. This is part of what I understand is involved in having the apostolic gift > one is exposed to Jesus Himself, so the person can be standardized to how the real Jesus is, and minister this to all of us :)

Paul makes no mention of Mary appearing to him, or him needing her in order to be standardized to how Jesus is.
 
Upvote 0

Paul Yohannan

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2016
3,886
1,587
45
Old Route 66
✟34,744.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
There is no other source of incontrovertible truth as my thread on it argued. Lacking another source of incontrovertible truth, it remains SOLELY. Therefore Sola Scriptura.

I thought you said this thread was not about Protestants vs Catholics/Traditionalists.

It's not, and we are drifting off topic, however I would pbserve wryly that your basis for believing in sola scriptura is not a scriptural passage but an argument from reason.

I don't want to argue about St. Mary on sola scriptura terms, because I don't believe in sola scriptura (in part, because, paradoxically, it is an extra-scriptural doctrine; the difference being that the early church venerated St. Mary but did not believe in sola scriptura).
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,909
3,645
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟399,065.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
No Bible text claims that
Actually, there is. Revelation 12:1 describes a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of 12 stars. Later on, the woman gives birth to a male child, which is universally known to be Jesus. If the woman gives birth to Jesus, that's Mary, and she's in heaven.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Paul Yohannan
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,909
3,645
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟399,065.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Well - it is a bit late to claim the inquisition did not happen. Even the current Pope had the honesty to apologies to the Waldensians.
Well, you went the wrong direction. I wonder if you can tell me what doctrines Mary believed in, from Scripture.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Paul Yohannan
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,909
3,645
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟399,065.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Indeed ...

No text says she was the "instructor of God, mother of God, wiser than God, protector of God".

I prefer the actual Bible.

Incarnation - not "procreation" -- there is a big --- big --- difference.
And yet, as mother, Mary instructed Jesus, who is God. As a baby, Jesus was God, and Mary would have been wiser than him, and would have been His protector.
Luke 11 comes to mind.

In fact there is one event where someone shouts out to Christ "BLESSED is the woman who nursed you" specifically pointing to her biological role-- and how "instructive" that Jesus' response begins with "ON the CONTRARY.."
Luke 11:27-28


I am wondering how often Orthodox responses to "Blessed is Christ's Mother..." begin with "on the contrary..."

More than this - I am wondering if in response the person merely quoted Luke 11:27-28,...in the orthodox church. Would they be immediately condemned??
There you go repeating yourself again. I'd like to see in the original manuscript, that it says "On the Contrary" in red letters...I doubt that it says that, very seriously, and therefore, you're going beyond what's in Scripture.
He did not speak that to Mary - he speaks it to an unnamed woman who decides to praise Mary - as blessed for being the person that gave birth to Jesus and nursed him. To THAT - Jesus said "ON THE CONTRARY..."
I didn't say he spoke to Mary, but to the point he was making, that faith is more important than blood lineage.
And that point - we agree.
Then what's all this bovine excrement you're saying that Jesus didn't respect his mother?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Paul Yohannan
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,909
3,645
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟399,065.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I guess you think everyone in heaven have the same abilities as God because they are both in heaven. That is about as much as I can follow you.
Well, there you go, again, trying to say you understand what people think, yet they made no such indication!
As posted in the first argument on this chain, scripture teaches that only God is all knowing, even to our thoughts. God help us if Satan, the angel fallen from heaven can read our thoughts. No scripture says Mary is the greatest in heaven, has a physical body there or can hear millions of simultaneous prayers, aloud or silent.
Revelation shows us that Mary is in heaven, and those in heaven hear our prayers and present them to God. By the way, angels are messengers, and Satan was one. Not a mind-reader.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Paul Yohannan
Upvote 0

AnticipateHisComing

Newbie
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2013
2,787
574
✟148,332.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
#thingsjesusdidntsay
Funny coming from churches that hold so many traditions, things Jesus did not say.

"On the contrary" is not an accurate translation of "menoun" (Μενοῦν) , which is moreaccurately rendered "truly indeed." The NKJV, which is a very high quality translation, based on very high quality manuscrip scholarship reflecting the best possible balance of textual criticism and liturgical tradition,
Don't we ignore the Mormon Bible for their interjection of their traditions into it?

and which is used for the NT portion of the Orthodox Study Bible, renders this passage as

"But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

This is, clearly, in context, the right reading.

Only a tiny minority of Bible translations, excluding the KJV, the NIV, the ASB, the NASB, and others, render that passage as "on the contrary,"

Luke 11:28 needs the context of the previous verse and the backdrop of Jesus casting out a demon and being a great prophet that he should be so revered that even his mother should get "credit" for Jesus' existence. Sounds like this thread. As you point out, this is inline with the praise Mary received in Luke 1 from an angel.

27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!”
28
But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

BUT,
In verse 28 Jesus responds to the concept of praising Mary, his mother. He does not reinforce or assert this practice. It appears more as a rebuke than encouraging the behavior.

This is indicated by the words that introduce a contrast. Every translation conveys this contrast, whether by using: but he said, on the contrary or rather. Most translations include "but he said", even the NJKV.

Everyone should question when "but" follows praise, because it is used so often in life and we all know how it is used. As in:

I think your words are full of inspiration, but I think you need to fully research scripture to get the full meaning.

"But" introduces something in opposition, not something in support of the earlier statement. It doesn't necessarily negate the first statement, but it does introduce a statement that is not aligned with the first. It introduces an alternative idea.

This alternative idea is that even though Mary was blessed for a physical act, we are even more blessed for a spiritual act, to hear Jesus' words and follow them. And, this is completely in line with the many times Jesus rebuked the Jews for thinking they were blessed because of their heritage as opposed to their spiritual position.

and indeed, such a reading makes no sense at all, because it would directly contradict Luke 1.

St. Luke would not write, in chapter 1, the Theotokos praising God that "all generations will call me blessed," and then ten chapters later, have God basically say, "Nope, she was wrong, she is not blessed."

Indeed, there is no criticism of St. Mary anywhere in the Gospel of Luke, or indeed anywhere else in the Gospels.
As Matthew 11:11 asserts, any measure in this physical world of worldly acts and position is of lesser importance than even the least heavenly/spiritual act. It is not a contradiction to say Mary is blessed above all women for bearing Jesus, for that is an earthly/physical act and spiritual acts are so more important as Jesus says in Luke 11.
 
Upvote 0

Paul Yohannan

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2016
3,886
1,587
45
Old Route 66
✟34,744.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Funny coming from churches that hold so many traditions, things Jesus did not say.

Actually our central doctrines, the Eucharist, Baptism, and indeed the idea of the infallibility and unity of the Church are all based on dominical statements.

Matthew 28:19, 1 Corinthians 11, Matthew 18:16 and John 31:6 are at the heart of everything we do.

The reality is that our Lord did not say "On the contrary," he said, "Menoun." Which really means something like "truly indeed."
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Philip_B
Upvote 0

Paul Yohannan

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2016
3,886
1,587
45
Old Route 66
✟34,744.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Don't we ignore the Mormon Bible for their interjection of their traditions into it?

The Mormons usually use the KJV. We do ignore the Book of Mormon, which is weitten in a faux-Jacobean style that is anachronistic and has the effect of basically disproving Mormon claims as to its authenticity.

The JWs do have their own translation, which really blatantly tampers with doctrine.

And just as the New World translation dishonestly renders John 1:1 as "the Word was like God" (as opposed to the correct "the Word was God," the NWT renders the "Yea, rather" of the KJV, Douay Rheims and other traditiona Bibles as "no, rather":

"Now as he was saying these things, a woman from the crowd called out to him: “Happy is the womb that carried you and the breasts that nursed you!”But he said: “No, rather, happy are those hearing the word of God and keeping it!”

- Source: the New World Translation, published by the J/Ws

Compare with Luke 11:27-28 from the KJV, the ASB, the DRB, the NIV or the NKJV


The dishonesty of the NWT, and the depths to which they will descend in an attempt to modify sacred scripture to promote their doctrine, is staggering. Theu actually translated Luke 11:27-28 to mean the opposite of the most widely accepted literal translation "Yea, rather," in an effort to provide further backing for their absolute rejection of the veneration of St. Mary.

The NKJV is a very high quality translation, lacking the liberal doctrinal bias of the NIC, and at the same time incorporating solid manuscript evidence. I prefer the KJV and the Douay Rheims due to their stately Jacobean English, but alas, the ability of people to understand certain archaic forms used within it is receding (Shakespearean English is acfually usually a bit more modern than the English of the KJV and of traditional liturgical texts).
 
Upvote 0

Paul Yohannan

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2016
3,886
1,587
45
Old Route 66
✟34,744.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
It appears more as a rebuke than encouraging the behavior.

On the contrary, it explains the reason why we bless St. Mary is because of her obedience to the Word. Giving birth to God and risking death for adultery under the Jewish law is the ultimate act of obedience.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Philip_B
Upvote 0

Paul Yohannan

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2016
3,886
1,587
45
Old Route 66
✟34,744.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
As Matthew 11:11 asserts, any measure in this physical world of worldly acts and position is of lesser importance than even the least heavenly/spiritual act. It is not a contradiction to say Mary is blessed above all women for bearing Jesus, for that is an earthly/physical act and spiritual acts are so more important as Jesus says in Luke 11.

Giving birth to Jesus is a spiritual act, because Jesus was conceived miraculously by the Holy Spirit, and was perfectly man and perfectly God simultaneously. It is written in sacred Scripture that God is a Spirit.

Thus, giving birth to God is spiritual as well as physical. God, in His Incarnation, united the Spiritual with the Physical; he took our material flesh onto Himself and Glorified it. God became man so that man could become God.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Philip_B
Upvote 0

AnticipateHisComing

Newbie
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2013
2,787
574
✟148,332.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Actually, there is. Revelation 12:1 describes a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of 12 stars. Later on, the woman gives birth to a male child, which is universally known to be Jesus. If the woman gives birth to Jesus, that's Mary, and she's in heaven.
So did Mary descend from heaven to have her child or did she have him in heaven? You think verse 1 proves Mary the saint is in heaven, but she did not have Jesus in heaven as follows in verse 2.

Further, in Revelation 12:6 did Mary only live for 1260 days after Jesus' birth? Did a dragon with 7 heads come and attack Mary? Did Mary grow 2 wings as Revelation 6:14 says and take her to the wilderness? Understand that there is symbolism here. As Mary did not literally grow wings, the women is not literally the women Mary. This text symbolizes the New Testament Church. As symbol, there is reference to Mary who was the mother of Jesus which brought the NT age.

In conclusion, Revelation 12:16 clears up the symbolism by stating that the dragon made war with the offspring of the women. Now if the verse ends by defining the offspring of the women as those that "keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" it should be obvious that the "women with child" was not Mary as according to the Catholics, she had no other children. The offspring are all the members of the elect. The "Mother" of the elect is the Holy Spirit, for it is through the Holy Spirit that Jesus was conceived and it is through the Holy Spirit that creates children of God/ offspring.
 
Upvote 0

AnticipateHisComing

Newbie
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2013
2,787
574
✟148,332.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Giving birth to Jesus is a spiritual act, because Jesus was conceived miraculously by the Holy Spirit, and was perfectly man and perfectly God simultaneously. It is written in sacred Scripture that God is a Spirit.

Thus, giving birth to God is spiritual as well as physical. God, in His Incarnation, united the Spiritual with the Physical; he took our material flesh onto Himself and Glorified it. God became man so that man could become God.
If you can recognize as the creed states, conception is a different act than the birth, than you can't dictate that two different acts are equal or both spiritual. Therefore the statement that the birth was a spiritual act is an unsupported proclamation.
 
Upvote 0

AnticipateHisComing

Newbie
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2013
2,787
574
✟148,332.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
On the contrary, it explains the reason why we bless St. Mary is because of her obedience to the Word. Giving birth to God and risking death for adultery under the Jewish law is the ultimate act of obedience.
Funny you use "On the contrary" when discussing Luke 11:28. Are you introducing a different thought than I first stated, just like "but" does. Or, are you agreeing with my first statement and adding to it?

Your choice of words only refute your very statement.
 
Upvote 0

AnticipateHisComing

Newbie
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2013
2,787
574
✟148,332.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Mormons usually use the KJV. We do ignore the Book of Mormon, which is weitten in a faux-Jacobean style that is anachronistic and has the effect of basically disproving Mormon claims as to its authenticity.

The JWs do have their own translation, which really blatantly tampers with doctrine.

And just as the New World translation dishonestly renders John 1:1 as "the Word was like God" (as opposed to the correct "the Word was God," the NWT renders the "Yea, rather" of the KJV, Douay Rheims and other traditiona Bibles as "no, rather":

"Now as he was saying these things, a woman from the crowd called out to him: “Happy is the womb that carried you and the breasts that nursed you!”But he said: “No, rather, happy are those hearing the word of God and keeping it!”

- Source: the New World Translation, published by the J/Ws

Compare with Luke 11:27-28 from the KJV, the ASB, the DRB, the NIV or the NKJV


The dishonesty of the NWT, and the depths to which they will descend in an attempt to modify sacred scripture to promote their doctrine, is staggering. Theu actually translated Luke 11:27-28 to mean the opposite of the most widely accepted literal translation "Yea, rather," in an effort to provide further backing for their absolute rejection of the veneration of St. Mary.

The NKJV is a very high quality translation, lacking the liberal doctrinal bias of the NIC, and at the same time incorporating solid manuscript evidence. I prefer the KJV and the Douay Rheims due to their stately Jacobean English, but alas, the ability of people to understand certain archaic forms used within it is receding (Shakespearean English is acfually usually a bit more modern than the English of the KJV and of traditional liturgical texts).
I agree.

I just couldn't help making a comment about translations using traditions. The thing I wish to note is that just as translations can fall susceptible to doctrinal beliefs of the translators, so can interpretations be susceptible to the beliefs of the interpreter.
 
Upvote 0