Standing Up
On and on
It probably would have been easier and more agreeable had they stuck to scripture terminology. Mother of my Lord (Lk 1:43).
Upvote
0
A question for protestants
- Thread starter Wryetui
- Start date
Standing Up
On and on
Interesting. Most EO argue for the brother explanation from the Protoevangelium of James (brothers from Joseph/ previous wife), rather than for Jerome's cousin theory.
There are three James in scripture. One is James son of Zebedee, known in tradition as James the "greater". James son of Alphaeus, known in tradition as James the "less". And James the Lord's brother, known in tradition as James the "just". So, Paul visited James the just, who was an apostle and first bishop of Jerusalem and brother of our Lord (after the flesh).
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,298
- 10,590
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
It is true that among the other things not in the Bible - "Theotokos" is also not in the Bible.
So this becomes yet another instance where the "Sola Scriptura" model of testing all doctrine would come in.
in Christ,
Bob
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,298
- 10,590
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Because... Bible details matter.
Wryetui also gave his input on this point as quoted in the post above, and since he is the author of the OP his POV cannot be dismisses as having no connection with his own OP.
i think the insight that Leo Trese gives in the quoted post above - is rather compelling - and makes the OP all the more challenging.
Leo Trese -
(from "The Faith Explained" page 243 .))
" we know that in the O.T it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day - which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week.
The reason for changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...
nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday. .that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church"
That was the place to add...
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,298
- 10,590
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Well ... nobody said that sticking with "scripture" would always be popular.
in Christ,
Bob
Upvote
0
You might want to think carefully about this one. Today there’s lots of criticism of “liberals” who want to qualify the statement that Jesus is God. The majority thought exactly the same of Nestorius. In refusing to say that Mary was the mother of God, Nestorius seemed to them to be suggesting that there was some distinction between God and Jesus.
I find it ironic that many of the people who are most insistent that we must say Jesus is God are most likely to be unsympathetic with saying that Mary is the mother of God.
Personally, I would prefer to say that Jesus is the incarnation of God, because to me “Jesus” refers specifically to the human existence of Christ. But it’s precisely this kind of distinction that got Nestorius in trouble.
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,298
- 10,590
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Some very compelling points in that post
That is the way many of us view the writers of the NT text - "the Church from the beginning".
You realize that an extra-Biblical title like "Most Holy Theotokos" is pretty much rejected by "Sola Scriptura testing" Protestants - right?
However it would be nice to know - what part of the post above - that Mary would object to or find insulting? As Jesus' mother she certainly is due christian respect.
I am not convinced that Mary had other children primarily because Christ could not have said to John "behold thy Mother" if in fact Mary had other sons who were taking on that responsibility at Christ's death. (But that is just me - when I get to heaven Mary may have to correct me on that detail - but I doubt that she is "insulted" either way)
How about John 14
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 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, Show us the Father?
10 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.
This is not a case of Protestants denying the deity of Christ - rather it is a case that extra-Biblical statements like "smarter than God" ... "Stronger than God" ... "Educator of God"... "Wiser than God" ... "Corrector of God"... "Protector of God" and any and EVERY other title that can be given to a parent regarding their child -- merely serves to abuse and confuse the point -- hence there is not one text in the Bible that uses any of that title/terminology - just as for "mother of God".
The saints had no halos... and God is honored by obedience "To obey is better than to sacrifice" - as Saul was told.
Ex 20
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
It would be impossible to make the accusation stick - that Calvin did not believe in the incarnation -- I am Arminian not Calvinist but even I would know not to accuse Calvin of denying the incarnation of Christ.
in Christ,
Bob
Upvote
0
- Dec 15, 2014
- 1,320
- 255
- 26
- Country
- Romania
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
The issue with respect to the 2nd commandment is what does the word translated "graven images" mean? If it simply means carved images, then the images in the temple would be in violation of this Commandment. Our best guide, however, to what Hebrew words mean, is what they meant to Hebrews—and when the Hebrews translated the Bible into Greek, they translated this word simply as "eidoloi", i.e. "idols." Furthermore the Hebrew word pesel is never used in reference to any of the images in the temple. So clearly the reference here is to pagan images rather than images in general.
Let's look at the Scriptural passage in question more closely:
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image (i.e. idol), or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor shalt thou serve (worship) them..." (Exodus 20:4-5a).
Now, if we take this as a reference to images of any kind, then clearly the cherubim in the Temple violate this command. If we limit this as applying only to idols, no contradiction exists. Furthermore, if this applies to all images—then even the picture on a driver's license violates it, and is an idol. So either every Protestant with a driver's license is an idolater, or Icons are not idols.
Leaving aside, for the moment, the meaning of "graven images" lets simply look at what this text actually says about them. You shall not make x, you shall not bow to x, you shall not worship x. If x = image, then the Temple itself violates this Commandment. If x = idol and not all images, then this verse contradicts neither the Icons in the Temple, nor Orthodox Icons.
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,298
- 10,590
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
The distinction is that God the Father was never a baby, never a human -- and neither was God the Son until the incarnation. God the Son does not start off "with a mother" -- He has no mother, no beginning.. no end.
Catholicism loves to use "procreation terms" when speaking of the "incarnation" as if "Mother of God even applies" -- it only applies in procreation terms - not incarnation terms. The Gospel is about the INCARNATION of God the Son as a human baby - it is NOT about the PROCREATION of God the Son -- at all!!
They inadvertently make the argument that Mary is a god giving birth to God in their procreation language.
So no, we do not say "Mary stronger than God" we do not say "Mary - instructor of God" and also we do not say "Mary Mother of God" NOR DOES THE Bible say it-- because all of that is limiting the scope to procreation and denying the incarnation in the terms used even if not in the intent of the one using them.
in Christ,
Bob
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,298
- 10,590
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Ex 20
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
IF they "bow down" to those images.. if they "Serve them" .. then you are right they would be in violation of Ex 20.
They never do that in the Temple.
in Christ,
Bob
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
IF they "bow down" to those images.. if they "Serve them" .. then you are right they would be in violation of Ex 20.
They never do that in the Temple.
in Christ,
Bob
Upvote
0
- Dec 15, 2014
- 1,320
- 255
- 26
- Country
- Romania
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
Orthodox Christians do not worship Icons in the sense that the word "worship" is commonly used in modern English. In older translations (and in some more recent translations in which the translators insist on using this word in its original sense), one finds the word "worship" used to translate the Greek word proskyneo (literally, "to bow"). Nevertheless, one must understand that the older use of "worship" in English was much broader than it is generally used today, and was often used to refer simply to the act of honoring, venerating, or reverencing. For example, in the old book of common prayer, one of the wedding vows was "with my body I thee worship," but this was never intended to imply that the bride would worship her husband in the sense in which "worship" is commonly used now.
Orthodox Christians do venerate Icons, which is to say, we pay respect to them because they are holy objects, and because we reverence what the Icons depict. We do not worship Icons any more than Americans worship the American flag. Saluting the flag is not exactly the same type of veneration as we pay to Icons, but it is indeed a type of veneration. And just as we do not venerate wood and paint, but rather the persons depicted in the Icon, patriotic Americans do not venerate cloth and dye, but rather the country which the flag represents.
This was the reasoning of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, which decreed in its Oros the following:
"Since this is the case, following the royal path and the teaching divinely inspired by our holy Fathers and the Tradition of the catholic Church—for we know that it is inspired by the Holy Spirit who lives in it—we decide in all correctness and after a thorough examination that, just as the holy and vivifying Cross, similarly the holy and precious Icons painted with colors, made with little stones or with any other matter serving this purpose (epitedeios), should be placed in the holy churches of God, on vases and sacred vestments, on walls and boards, in houses and on roads, whether these are Icons of our Lord God and Savior, Jesus Christ, or of our spotless Sovereign Lady, the holy Mother of God, or of the holy angels and of holy and venerable men. For each time that we see their representation in an image, each time, while gazing upon them, we are made to remember the prototypes, we grow to love them more, and we are more induced to worship them by kissing them and by witnessing our veneration (proskenesin), not the true adoration (latreian) which, according to our faith, is proper only to the one divine nature, but in the same way as we venerate the image of the precious and vivifying cross, the holy Gospel and other sacred objects which we honor with incense and candles according to the pious custom of our forefathers. For the honor rendered to the image goes to its prototype, and the person who venerates an Icon venerates the person represented in it. Indeed, such is the teaching of our holy Fathers and the Tradition of the holy catholic Church which propagated the Gospel from one end of the earth to the other."
The Jews understand the difference between veneration and worship (adoration). A pious Jew kisess the Mezuza on his door post, he kisses his prayer shawl before putting it on, he kisses the tefillin, before he binds them to his forehead, and arm. He kisses the Torah before he reads it in the Synagogue. No doubt, Christ did likewise, when reading the Scriptures in the Synagogue.
The Early Christians also understood this distinction as well. In the Martyrdom of Polycarp (who was St. John the Apostle's disciple, and whose Martyrdom was recorded by the faithful of his Church, who were eyewitnesses of all that it recounts), we are told of how some sought to have the Roman magistrate keep the Christians from retrieving the body of the Holy Martyr
"'lest,' so it was said, 'they should abandon the crucified one and begin to worship this man'—this being done at the instigation and urgent entreaty of the Jews, who also watched when we were about to take it from the fire, not knowing that it will be impossible for us either to forsake at any time the Christ who suffered for the salvation of the whole world of those that are saved—suffered though faultless for sinners—nor to worship any other. For Him, being the Son of God, we adore, but the martyrs as disciples and imitators of the Lord we cherish as they deserve for their matchless affection towards their own King and Teacher.... The centurion therefore, seeing the opposition raised on the part of the Jews, set him in the midst and burnt him after their custom. And so we afterwards took up his bones which are more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold, and laid them in a suitable place; where the Lord will permit us to gather ourselves together, as we are able, in gladness and joy, and to celebrate the birth-day [i.e. the anniversary] of his martyrdom for the commemoration of those that have already fought in the contest, and for the training and preparation of those that shall do so hereafter" (The Martyrdom of Polycarp 17:2-3; 18:1-3).
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,298
- 10,590
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
So there is the "Sola Scriptura" claim for that POV - it is not quoting a church council - but rather claiming that the Bible itself states somewhere that the NT church called week-day-1 "The Lord's Day" and states that the NT text says somewhere that weekly worship services would from the time of the cross onward be held on week-day-1 and not on the Sabbath.
I see that you are not quoting any church council as the "proof" or basis for that claim. So then that is a "sola scriptura" doctrinal position claiming that it stands or falls based on what the text of scripture says on the point.
Not at all disappointed -- I am hoping you will hold that thought -- when the time comes to show that scripture does in fact say that -- because not only did you not quote any church councils to make the two salient points of your post - you also did not quote any of the Bible.
yes -- "sola scriptura" --
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,298
- 10,590
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Ex 20
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
IF they "bow down" to those images.. if they "Serve them" .. then you are right they would be in violation of Ex 20.
They never do that in the Temple.
Fine - so they do not bow down to them...nor serve them?
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
IF they "bow down" to those images.. if they "Serve them" .. then you are right they would be in violation of Ex 20.
They never do that in the Temple.
Fine - so they do not bow down to them...nor serve them?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,298
- 10,590
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
That's your claim, not mine, even though you've tried repeatedly to attribute it to me.
What took you so long to notice that?
hmmm maybe I missed something in that post ... will check ..
In this post.. 6 minutes ago #193
I see "Albion said" a number of times with a link that right to your own post.
Is one of them in error??
I think the first one in that list where you claim that your position is sola-scriptura is here
Yesterday at 2:25 PM #121
(I keep saying that your claim is that your two salient points come from sola-scriptura source - and not church tradition)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,298
- 10,590
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Specifically - what is it that I alleged that it does not say - since I am quoting posts -- not rephrasing/summarizing/restating them?
I keep saying that is what you claim to be doing.
As I stated in my previous post - if you will point something out that is attributed to you that is not linked to you or that is not your meaning - please point it out. So far I see the claim but nothing identified as the problem.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,298
- 10,590
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Hindus that I work with say they are not praying to paint and wood - but to the deity being represented by it.
The Ex 20 text says "do not bow down to" them "nor serve them".
A great many people are serving the United States in some way but not bowing down to the flag -- nor praying to the United States.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jan 31, 2006
- 44,346
- 14,507
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Yes that's true. The definition of the council was really not from scripture at all and as was mentioned earlier in the thread the only correct defination from scripture would refer to Mary mother of Jesus, excluding Him as Christ, the Risen Lord.
Matthew 12:46-50
Jesus’ Mother and Brothers
46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
