Many different Anabaptist sects under one heading

[ZiSunka]

Which group would be more reliable? Of course there are things to take into account such as did their lives bear spiritual fruit. This is were I see the benefit of the early writers.

Not every early writer is necessarily an expert at the subject they are writing about, either. Several were heavily influenced by the Greek pagan culture of their time or by the teachings of Socrates, several were influenced by the middle eastern culture that included goddess worship, which is where some of the special veneration of Mary comes from, specifically the title Queen of Heaven, which was the title of a goddess who went by names such as Ashtoreth, Estarte and Eises. When using the early writers, one must take into consideration where they are coming from, since they were as influenced by their culture as we are by ours.

Sometimes people get the idea that the early writers were "pure," that is, having the best motives and not influenced by their culture or the desire to spread the religion, but they were as eager to count converts, gain power and assimilate into the culture as writers and preachers are today. I look at the early writers as the Rick Warrens and John MacArthurs of their day. Their writings make for interesting commentary, but should be taken with a grain of salt, just as you would if you were reading Andrew Murray.

 

[Danfrey]

I think I am ready to give them more than a grain of salt. You speak as if you are familiar with the writings of the early church, can you support the idea that the veneration of Mary came from them. Understand that when I speak of the early church I am speaking of the preconstantine church with much focus on the first two centuries. Once you get into the third and fourth centuries things started drifting rapidly.

I don't take anybody lightly who died for their faith.

 

[ZiSunka]

I don't take anybody lightly who died for their faith.

People die for the wrong things all the time. I don't put any stock in the idea that something must be the truth if people are willing to die for it. The 9-11 attackers thought they were dying for the truth.

 

[vespasia]

Have to agree with the discourse that things began to get seriously schwed in the C4th with the fall of the Roman Empire.
A whole society collapsed and took its good points along with its terrible.

Walkinhisfootsteps do you have any referances back to orgional source material that can be studied to see how you arrived at your conclusion that Mary is linked with pagan goddess rather than a woman who became associated with through ecclectic idealogy of more modern times?

 

[ZiSunka]

Walkinhisfootsteps do you have any referances back to orgional source material that can be studied to see how you arrived at your conclusion that Mary is linked with pagan goddess rather than a woman who became associated with through ecclectic idealogy of more modern times?

I didn't say mary was linked with pagan goddesses, I said that some early writers were influenced by pagan beliefs, including the belief in a goddess called Queen of Heaven who went by many names. Some of those early writers who recommended the special veneration of Mary may have been influenced by those beliefs.

than a woman who became associated with through ecclectic idealogy of more modern times

I have no idea what you are saying here. Can you rephrase it?

 

[ZiSunka]

I think I am ready to give them more than a grain of salt. You speak as if you are familiar with the writings of the early church, can you support the idea that the veneration of Mary came from them. Understand that when I speak of the early church I am speaking of the preconstantine church with much focus on the first two centuries. Once you get into the third and fourth centuries things started drifting rapidly.

I don't take anybody lightly who died for their faith.

Iraenus, Hippolytus and Gregory the Wonderworker, all second or third century writers, recommended that Mary be given special honors as "the Mother of God." Hippolytus originated the term "Mother of God" and said that to deny Mary this title is to deny the diety of Christ (217 AD). By the end of the second century, Mary was already being called the Queen of Heaven by Irenaeus (189 AD).

Justin Martyr said that Mary is the second Eve, just as Jesus is the second Adam, that Mary shares in the glory of Christ through her obedience. He said that disobedience came into the world through the virgin Eve, and the virgin Mary brought righteousness into the world through her perfect obedience. He wrote that in 155 AD.

The writings of the early church show that devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God developed at the same time as and along with the orthodox understanding of Jesus as the God-Man. By the beginning of the 4th century, when the tenants of orthodox Christianity were being worked out by the councils, there was no discussion that Mary might not be especially venerated, it was already part and parcel of the teachings of the early writers. By the beginning of the 4 century, "the fathers" had determined that anyone who refused to call Mary by the title was condemned.

Tatian the Syrian said that any Christian who refused to venerate Mary for the work of salvation she accomplished in the birth and raising of Jesus Christ could in no way consider himself to be a member of the body of Christ, the church. He coined the phrase "ark of the new covenant" to refer to Mary in 189 AD.

The Protoevangelium, a book of doctrine concerning Mary and the birth of Christ, which we call the Gospel of James, was used as a reference by the early writers and was well-established by Origen's time in 248 AD. In it, it is the origin of the "eternal purity" of Mary, stating that she was a virgin throughout her life. We now think of this book as heretical, but Origen accepted it as a valid writing of the church.

"By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain." Peter of Alexandria, 295 AD, explaining how Mary could be born sinless and live her whole life sinless. He also refers to Mary as "ever virgin" and says that this concept had been established by the earliest fathers of the church. Hippolytus refers to her as "ever-spotless" in 217 AD.

Good enough, or should I keep going?

 

[Danfrey]

Iraenus, Hippolytus and Gregory the Wonderworker, all second or third century writers, recommended that Mary be given special honors as "the Mother of God." Hippolytus originated the term "Mother of God" and said that to deny Mary this title is to deny the diety of Christ (217 AD). By the end of the second century, Mary was already being called the Queen of Heaven by Irenaeus (189 AD).

Justin Martyr said that Mary is the second Eve, just as Jesus is the second Adam, that Mary shares in the glory of Christ through her obedience. He said that disobedience came into the world through the virgin Eve, and the virgin Mary brought righteousness into the world through her perfect obedience. He wrote that in 155 AD.

The writings of the early church show that devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God developed at the same time as and along with the orthodox understanding of Jesus as the God-Man. By the beginning of the 4th century, when the tenants of orthodox Christianity were being worked out by the councils, there was no discussion that Mary might not be especially venerated, it was already part and parcel of the teachings of the early writers. By the beginning of the 4 century, "the fathers" had determined that anyone who refused to call Mary by the title was condemned.

Tatian the Syrian said that any Christian who refused to venerate Mary for the work of salvation she accomplished in the birth and raising of Jesus Christ could in no way consider himself to be a member of the body of Christ, the church. He coined the phrase "ark of the new covenant" to refer to Mary in 189 AD.

The Protoevangelium, a book of doctrine concerning Mary and the birth of Christ, which we call the Gospel of James, was used as a reference by the early writers and was well-established by Origen's time in 248 AD. In it, it is the origin of the "eternal purity" of Mary, stating that she was a virgin throughout her life. We now think of this book as heretical, but Origen accepted it as a valid writing of the church.

"By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain." Peter of Alexandria, 295 AD, explaining how Mary could be born sinless and live her whole life sinless. He also refers to Mary as "ever virgin" and says that this concept had been established by the earliest fathers of the church. Hippolytus refers to her as "ever-spotless" in 217 AD.

Good enough, or should I keep going?

Walkin,

Please support your statements with references to the original works. I have the 10 volume set and would like to look up the information and read it myself. I am not willing to comment on these claims without references to the primary sources.

 

[ZiSunka]

Walkin,

Please support your statements with references to the original works. I have the 10 volume set and would like to look up the information and read it myself. I am not willing to comment on these claims without references to the primary sources.

Ten volume set of what? Whose writings?

I can't reference your set unless you tell me what set it is.

 

[Danfrey]

The writings we are speaking of are contained in a ten volume set known as the Ante-Nicene Fathers. I assumed you were speaking of this set when you spoke of the writings of Justin Martyr and Ireaneus. They are also available at ccel.org. All you have to do is reference the title and chapter of the given work.

 

[ZiSunka]

The writings we are speaking of are contained in a ten volume set known as the Ante-Nicene Fathers. I assumed you were speaking of this set when you spoke of the writings of Justin Martyr and Ireaneus. They are also available at ccel.org. All you have to do is reference the title and chapter of the given work.

I don't have that set or any set. I have individual books and a computer program. It doesn't have titles for chapters.

 

[Danfrey]

I don't have that set or any set. I have individual books and a computer program. It doesn't have titles for chapters.

Are the individual books and computer program you have the writings from the original authors (translated of course) or are they writings about what the original authors wrote? Just give the name of work if you are unable to give a chapter. For example...

Clement of Alexandria - The Stromata

As long as the quote is close, I should be able to find it by searching the ccel.org

Like the Bible, it is easy for these writings to be taken out of context. Therefore it is good to reference them and get the whole picture of what they are saying.

Remember also, what I said about multiple authors. As these were only men, the value of their work comes when viewed together with other writers of the time. We are not looking for new doctrines here, only looking to see how the scriptures affected the lives of early Christians.

David Bercot often states that it is easy to sum up what the early church believed on a subject by gathering all that the New Testament has to say about the subject and take it very simply and literally.

Let me give an example of the value. There is a Christian myth about what the "eye of the needle" is. If you look at the early works, there is no reference to the eye of the needle being a small gate, passage way or any other creative things that pastors have come up with to minimize the teaching, yet many Christians will argue that the myth is fact.

 

[DanJudge]

Brothers/Sisters, I am sending 3 pages, which is One chapter of that "little book" of Revelation chapter 10.
There is alot of Prophecy in this chapter.
It address chapter 10, 11, 12, and 13, and more.
Please Print, Read, and Study.

Page 1 ---
BEHOLD LORD HERE ARE TWO SWORDS
To the chief musician; do not destroy; of David; a golden psalm.

1 Is it true that you speak in righteousness, O brood of rulers, or that you judge the children of men uprightly?
2 Certainly you work out in your hearts iniquitous acts to be performed in the earth and measure out the violence that your hands are to commit.
3 The wicked become alienated from truth when they leave the womb; the speakers of falsehood begin to err as soon as they have left the womb.
4 They have poison of the type of the poison of a serpent; they are like a deaf adder that has stopped up its own ears
5 That will not listen to the voice of charmers, of the wisest snake-handlers.
6 O God, break their teeth in their mouth! Break out the fangs of the young lions, O LORD!
7 Let them evaporate as water does while moving along; as they are directing their projectiles let them be as already cut off.
8 Let them become like a stream evaporating as it goes along; like the stillbirth of a woman let them not see the sun.
9 Before your thorns can even understand it, O thornbushes, whether young or old He shall cause a whirlwind to remove them all.
10 The righteous shall rejoice when he sees the vengeance; he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked —
11 So that men shall say, "There certainly is a reward for the righteous! There certainly is a God who judges in the earth!" — Psalm 58

Whoever has ears, let him hear the voice of one who cries in the wilderness, and of One who has no place to lay down His head — "Every valley will be filled in, and every mountain and hill brought low; and what is warped will be straightened, and the uneven roads made smooth; and all flesh will see the salvation of God" (Luke 3:5-6) — for the sections of the Scripture that speak openly of revolution parallel and illuminate each other; and so the time of patience of James 5:7-12 during which the worst offense will be the swearing of any oath to avoid the swearing of an oath of allegiance to a new ruler is that of the Millennium to follow the fall of Babylon and the raising of the holy martyrs from the dead (that is those "shot," literally "killed by a flattening thump," of Revelation 20:4 during the course of the great world rising to come, and they shall be truly blessed, as in 14:13), that being the period to immediately precede the war of Gog and Magog, "the coming of the Lord" (James 5:8) and the descent of the new Jerusalem; and therefore James 5:1-6 in truth prophesies the fall of Babylon and applies the condemnation of the great city to the wealthy of the whole world in the same way in which we find the vision of the fall of Rome within Revelation 17:1-19:10 universalized and applied to the whole of the beast in 19:11-21 of the parallel unit 19:11-22:9, where the sword proceeding forth from the mouth of Christ in the Heavens symbolizes that same command of war that He gave to His saints in 18:6-7 to be responded to by the formation of His army, as in Psalm 110:3, "For Your people will offer themselves willingly on the day Your army is to form," and where the beast is clearly distinct from "the kings of the earth" and so represents the elitist elements of all the societies of these last days. Ancient Rome, the same as ancient Babylon, though occupied was never destroyed by a hostile army; but Babylon as used in Revelation
is a name of mystery, "Mystery, Babylon the Great" (17:5) and represents the wealthy of all lands (and see 12:9 and 13:7); and those are the children of the evil one to be uprooted from the field of the world by the messengers of the Son of Man, as in Matthew 13:41. These are human messengers and not angels (the Greek word in question can bear either meaning), though, because they cannot uproot the wicked in the initial stages without uprooting the righteous as well, a difficulty that would not exist for angels.

The Roman Empire was divided in two in 330 A.D. by the decree of Constantine the Great (the numerical equivalent of whose name written in Hebrew characters being 666) in fulfillment of Daniel 2:41, "the kingdom shall be divided," and the appearance of the distinct Western "Catholic" and Eastern "Orthodox" churches, the two horns like a lamb, though not the body, of the second beast of Revelation 13:11-18 (the mark in the right hand being the palm of Palm Sunday and that in the forehead the ashes of Ash Wednesday of the Catholic ritual) which is the composite false prophet — and surely we have heard it speak with the voice of the dragon and the hiss of the ancient serpent from time immemorial — also has its ultimate origin in this event. (The much later elitist-dominated Protestant bodies are, of course, subsumed within the Western unit; but these are all one in the last analysis, anyway. "I’m sorry, we’re not set up for that." "But for me, Father, what is your message for me?" "But for me, Reverend, what is your message for me?" "I’m sorry, we’re not set up for that. You’ll have to excuse me now." And he is to be excused to a fire whose fuel is kings and priests and all who were mighty and spent their days in comfort and honor and never knew hunger.) And so we find two years of blessing and hope specifically referred to in prophecy and both of them now centuries past. The first came 1290 years after the period of the Roman siege of Jerusalem --- end of page - 1

 

[ZiSunka]

Are the individual books and computer program you have the writings from the original authors (translated of course) or are they writings about what the original authors wrote? Just give the name of work if you are unable to give a chapter. For example...

Clement of Alexandria - The Stromata

As long as the quote is close, I should be able to find it by searching the ccel.org

Like the Bible, it is easy for these writings to be taken out of context. Therefore it is good to reference them and get the whole picture of what they are saying.

Remember also, what I said about multiple authors. As these were only men, the value of their work comes when viewed together with other writers of the time. We are not looking for new doctrines here, only looking to see how the scriptures affected the lives of early Christians.

David Bercot often states that it is easy to sum up what the early church believed on a subject by gathering all that the New Testament has to say about the subject and take it very simply and literally.

Let me give an example of the value. There is a Christian myth about what the "eye of the needle" is. If you look at the early works, there is no reference to the eye of the needle being a small gate, passage way or any other creative things that pastors have come up with to minimize the teaching, yet many Christians will argue that the myth is fact.

The program has the entire writings and I am NOT taking them out of context.

It took me over an hour to find all those quotes about Mary, I don't feel like doing it all over again right now.

I already know about the eye of the needle not being a gate. That myth was created in the 1970s when tourism in Israel was on the rise. It can be traced back the the particular tour guide who invented the story when he was talking to a particularly rich presbyterian tour group. The found the phrase offensive and asked him what the eye of the needle really meant and he made up the story, but after that, every rich presby church asked for this tour guide by name. It was a marketing ploy, that's all and it somehow got spread around until so many churches take it as the truth.

I don't particularly enjoy being preached to as if I were a little child opening the Bible for the first time, Dan. If you want to cling to the early writers as having inerrant knowledge, go for it. I offered you quotes from their writings that say otherwise and instead of looking them up, you make it seem like I've done something wrong.

Believe whatever pleases you about the inerrancy of the early writers.

 

[Danfrey]

First, I have never claimed that the early writers were inerrant.

Second, when making claims as to what someone wrote, it is not unreasonable to expect references to the primary source. I am saying that I want to be able to read them in context before commenting on the statements you made.

As far as preaching at you like you are a child, this is not my intent. If I came across that way I appoligize.

 

[ZiSunka]

First, I have never claimed that the early writers were inerrant.

Second, when making claims as to what someone wrote, it is not unreasonable to expect references to the primary source. I am saying that I want to be able to read them in context before commenting on the statements you made.

As far as preaching at you like you are a child, this is not my intent. If I came across that way I appoligize.

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have posted before I ate my dinner.

It's going to take me a couple of days to reconstruct everything I posted with references to their original placement in the ancient writings. It's going to be one heck of a long post, if I have to post everything before and everything after those quotes, and I wonder if even that will satisfactory to you, since I believe you are so entrenched in your love of the early writers that you will still claim the quotes don't mean what they say.

I have a lot to do this weekend, but hopefully, I'll find time to make a satisfactory attempt at satisfying your demand.

You could just look them up yourself, you know, instead of placing the burden of your education on someone else.

 

[ZiSunka]

This should make it a lot easier for you Dan:

http://www.earlychurchfathers.org/

This site can be searched by theme (such as Mary), and then it gives links to read the associated passages in context with reference numbers.

It should take you no time at all to be completely educated on the subject of Mary according to the early church writers.

 

[Danfrey]

This should make it a lot easier for you Dan:

http://www.earlychurchfathers.org/

This site can be searched by theme (such as Mary), and then it gives links to read the associated passages in context with reference numbers.

It should take you no time at all to be completely educated on the subject of Mary according to the early church writers.

It will take time to address these writers, so I will post serveral short posts over the next few days.

First of all, I would like to point out that the site you referenced has an agenda. It is a Catholic site intended to prove catholic doctrines. This is a dangerous starting point. The writings of these authors are available from an unbiased site that digitized the ten volumes of the Ante-Nicene Fathers published in 1885 and edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson.

Now, for the first writer. It is claimed that Ireaneas wrote that Mary participates in our salvation because she is the mother of God. Please read the following link to ccel.org. This is the reference given in regards to this claim. You will find that what Ireaneas is arguing is that Christ actually came in the flesh. He was discrediting the view that Jesus did not get his flesh from Mary. The writing has nothing to do with venerating Mary.
http://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xxiii.html

As far as the term Theokotos, please reference wikipedia to see that the first documented use of this term wasn't until the third century. The author to use it at that time was Origen, who is known to wonder into a sidebar of personal opinion at times in his writings. Thus, the importance of having multiple authors agree on a subject which I stated earlier. Origins works have to be approached cautiously. We can still learn much from him, but he didn't write intending them to become doctrine.

 

[ZiSunka]

Hmm...someone has an agenda all right.

It's going to be difficult to discuss this if you are going to simply put your opinion onto what the early writers wrote. As you said, you must refer to several sources, so consulting more than one commentary on the early writers would be in order. You say Irenaeus wasn't talking about honoring Mary, but other commentators with a lot more education and credentials than you say it does, and not just the catholic sites. If you can find five commentaries on Irenaeus's writings that say he was not refering to giving Mary special honors, then post them here and we can discuss their merits. I'm afriad just posting your say-so isn't good enough for a serious discussion.

Unless you just want to post your opinions, in which case, I'll just post mine, too.

 

[JimfromOhio]

I have been an Anabaptist for 20+ years and I am also into Reformed Theology. So, what do you call this? Grace Brethren Church is pretty much into Reformed Theology even though they don't acknowledge it or anything like that.

 

[ZiSunka]

As far as the term Theokotos, please reference wikipedia to see that the first documented use of this term wasn't until the third century.

The wickipedia is wrong. But since just about anyone can edit entries there, it's bound to be of questionable authority.

The writings of Hyppolytus were the first to contain the word Theokotos (Discourse on the End of the World, 217 AD)

But I'm not going to continue to debate you. You have your mind made up and nothing I do or say is going to change that. You have fallen victim to the idea that the old ways are better ways, even though the Bible warns against such attitudes.