Not all the Church Fathers said Mary was sinless

[Standing Up]

The only way He COULD have is to have done so in His Divine Nature, and this He did not do, because that would have wrongly led His human nature from obedience to self-direction... The OBEDIENCE of Christ to His Father in Heaven is an essential feature of discipleship IN Christ, where we are, as Paul writes, to OBEY those appointed over us, for they must give account for our souls, that they do so joyfully... Heb 13:17

The point you are missing is that the Melchidesek Priesthood is ONLY entered at the behest of God Himself, God consecrates - Paul again: "Whom Christ has justified, these also He glorifies." That final Glorification by God is the mark of Sainthood, where the shadow of Peter heals the sick, and his napkin as well, where people appear and disappear, [ Acts 8:39 ] utterly directed in their whole being by God alone, and not by their selves at all... It is the last stage of discipleship in the Body of Christ...



This is where you err, because the Baptism of John, being done by the hands of a man, cannot confer an eternal priesthood... Even the Baptism of Christ only enters one INTO the Body of Christ - AFTER that, comes the discipling that confers more than this...



I have, and you still seem to miss, because no beginning and no ending are ONLY God's to give, and not man's, in the form of Baptism... Human hands that Baptize can only enter a person into Christ, they cannot confer the Priesthood of Melchisedek...

Arsenios

Not sure what you're arguing for or against. You translated it, but don't seem to agree with yourself.

BYZ – Heb. 5:5-6
ουτως και ο χριστος ουχ εαυτον εδοξασεν
So also the Christ not Himself did glorify

γενηθηναι αρχιερεα
to have been birthed High Priest

 

[Arsenios]

Not sure what you're arguing for or against. You translated it, but don't seem to agree with yourself.

BYZ – Heb. 5:5-6
ουτως και ο χριστος ουχ εαυτον εδοξασεν
So also the Christ not Himself did glorify

γενηθηναι αρχιερεα
to have been birthed High Priest

Sorry I have been unclear - Happens more and more frequently as time departs...

You see, you keep saying that John baptizing Christ in the Jordan was Christ's Ordination into the Priesthood of Melchidesek, and I keep saying it was not, because human hands cannot enter a person into the Priesthood of Melchidesek, and John's hands are human...

More clear yet, or am I still a mudball?

Arsenios

 

[Standing Up]

Sorry I have been unclear - Happens more and more frequently as time departs...

You see, you keep saying that John baptizing Christ in the Jordan was Christ's Ordination into the Priesthood of Melchidesek, and I keep saying it was not, because human hands cannot enter a person into the Priesthood of Melchidesek, and John's hands are human...

More clear yet, or am I still a mudball?

Arsenios

So, when you translated this:

BYZ – Heb. 5:5-6
ουτως και ο χριστος ουχ εαυτον εδοξασεν
So also the Christ not Himself did glorify

γενηθηναι αρχιερεα
to have been birthed High Priest

you're thinking this refers to Christ pre incarnation?

I've looked at about 14 translations and they are all akin to this:

YLT: so also the Christ did not glorify himself to become chief priest, but He who spake unto him: 'My Son thou art, I to-day have begotten thee;'

which of course refers to His temporal life.

So I suppose it is clear enough what you believe, I just don't see anyone agreeing with your interpretation.

 

[Arsenios]

So, when you translated this:

BYZ – Heb. 5:5-6
ουτως και ο χριστος ουχ εαυτον εδοξασεν
So also the Christ not Himself did glorify

γενηθηναι αρχιερεα
to have been birthed High Priest

you're thinking this refers to Christ pre incarnation?

I've looked at about 14 translations and they are all akin to this:

YLT: so also the Christ did not glorify himself to become chief priest, but He who spake unto him: 'My Son thou art, I to-day have begotten thee;'

Well, there are a lot of possibilities going on in that sentence, but the key, I should think, is the passive voice of the infinitive verb "to have been birthed"... The immediate practical effect of this construction is that we ourselves, who in Christ are become [eg have been made into] a "Royal Priesthood", IF we desire to follow Christ, SHOULD NOT glorify ourselves, yes? Because WE did NOT make ourselves Priests, but God did and does, and all that we have or might have is GIVEN to us BY God...

And likewise the incarnate Christ in human flesh - He did NOT make himself Glorified, but His Father in Heaven did so - He is NOT the Author of His Own Prieshood... Even though, in His Divinity, He DID DO so... Because He is One God with the Father and the Holy Spirit...

The translation I provided conflicts with the YLT but is utterly literal...
γενηθηναι is an aorist passive infinitive...
It literally cannot say: "...to become..." as the YLT has it, but "to have been initiated", which means "to have been birthed: or "to have been made" or "to have been originated"... Where all these mean the same thing...

So that my wooden translation is NOT theologically driven, as is the YLT, but is gramatically imposed by the Biblical text...

So when God said: "Today have I BEGOTTEN Thee..." He is referring to the entry of Christ into the Priesthood of Melchidesek in the Incarnation in that BEGETTING BY God the Father... God did the Ordination of the Incarnate Christ into THAT Priesthood, and the sentence above in wooden translation confirms that Christ did NOT Glorify Himself because God had done so... Christ Himself only did OBEDIENCE to the Father - And of course to His Mother...

And this even though He easily COULD have not thought it robbery to make Himself equal to God the Father, yet He emptied Himself of all such notions, and took on the form of a Servant, and we are to follow Him as we receive the Gifts of Grace, and not glorify ourselves, IF we will follow Him, Who is meek, and lowly of heart, and who regards the LOWNESS of His Handmaiden, the Blessed Theotokos, and gives to Her a Son who exists before all time...

So I suppose it is clear enough what you believe,
I just don't see anyone agreeing with your interpretation.

I hope I have managed to show the literal Greek, though I fear that as usual, I have been about as clear as a mud-ball hurled onto dark-wet stucco... That grammatical construction should clearly enough rule out Self-Ordination, and as well demonstrate the ethical principle of NOT glorifying one's self when one is so ordained directly by God...

Arsenios

 

[Standing Up]

Well, there are a lot of possibilities going on in that sentence, but the key, I should think, is the passive voice of the infinitive verb "to have been birthed"... The immediate practical effect of this construction is that we ourselves, who in Christ are become [eg have been made into] a "Royal Priesthood", IF we desire to follow Christ, SHOULD NOT glorify ourselves, yes? Because WE did NOT make ourselves Priests, but God did and does, and all that we have or might have is GIVEN to us BY God...

And likewise the incarnate Christ in human flesh - He did NOT make himself Glorified, but His Father in Heaven did so - He is NOT the Author of His Own Prieshood... Even though, in His Divinity, He DID DO so... Because He is One God with the Father and the Holy Spirit...

The translation I provided conflicts with the YLT but is utterly literal...
γενηθηναι is an aorist passive infinitive...
It literally cannot say: "...to become..." as the YLT has it, but "to have been initiated", which means "to have been birthed: or "to have been made" or "to have been originated"... Where all these mean the same thing...

So that my wooden translation is NOT theologically driven, as is the YLT, but is gramatically imposed by the Biblical text...

So when God said: "Today have I BEGOTTEN Thee..." He is referring to the entry of Christ into the Priesthood of Melchidesek in the Incarnation in that BEGETTING BY God the Father... God did the Ordination of the Incarnate Christ into THAT Priesthood, and the sentence above in wooden translation confirms that Christ did NOT Glorify Himself because God had done so... Christ Himself only did OBEDIENCE to the Father - And of course to His Mother...

And this even though He easily COULD have not thought it robbery to make Himself equal to God the Father, yet He emptied Himself of all such notions, and took on the form of a Servant, and we are to follow Him as we receive the Gifts of Grace, and not glorify ourselves, IF we will follow Him, Who is meek, and lowly of heart, and who regards the LOWNESS of His Handmaiden, the Blessed Theotokos, and gives to Her a Son who exists before all time...



I hope I have managed to show the literal Greek, though I fear that as usual, I have been about as clear as a mud-ball hurled onto dark-wet stucco... That grammatical construction should clearly enough rule out Self-Ordination, and as well demonstrate the ethical principle of NOT glorifying one's self when one is so ordained directly by God...

Arsenios

Oddly I think we are agreeing, except it appears you cannot agree.

Christ did not glorify Himself, but to fulfill righteousness submitted to John's baptism. Today is what it says. There was no "self-ordination". It was passive.

Anyway, can't see any way further.

 

[Arsenios]

Oddly I think we are agreeing, except it appears you cannot agree.

Christ did not glorify Himself, but to fulfill righteousness submitted to John's baptism. Today is what it says. There was no "self-ordination". It was passive.

Anyway, can't see any way further.

Cool - We may be agreeing in spite of myself!

So you agree that the Baptism of Christ by John did NOT ordain Him into the Priesthood of Melchisedek?

And...

That Christ and the entirety of the Melchisedek priesthood is ordained by God alone?

Arsenios

 

[Standing Up]

Cool - We may be agreeing in spite of myself!

So you agree that the Baptism of Christ by John did NOT ordain Him into the Priesthood of Melchisedek?

And...

That Christ and the entirety of the Melchisedek priesthood is ordained by God alone?

Arsenios

Naw, too outrageous. I'm letting it go ...

 

[Arsenios]

Naw, too outrageous. I'm letting it go ...

K.

A.

 

[patricius79]

Soon will come the Great Lenten Fast...
The first week, Clean Week - Monday through Friday...
Two small meals - Vegan...
The first after Vespers Tuesday...
The second, after Vespers Thursday...
Strict fasting the rest of the time...
Water and maybe a little fruit juice...

Then vegan two a day meals until the end...
The fasting schedule of the Great Church...
Christian Holy Tradition for two thousand years...
Then Holy Week, and greater fasting...
And more Divine Services throughout...
And all the time questing for God...
Some labor or podvig embraced...
Some holy purposing afoot...

I always almost resent the 10 days of no fasting following Great Lent and Pascha...
Rich foods seem too much...
And much food is too much...
And for many, this is the time of great spiritual collapse...
As the gains of the Fast are squandered...
Much like conversation after Holy Communion...
And we so quickly revert to our secular hearts...

May your labors be fruitfull!

Arsenios

May all our hearts draw closer to the Crucified Savior through His Most Blessed and Immaculate Mother.

 

[PanDeVida]

The testimony of tradition (Some quotes came from this link)

While none of the preceding verses definitively prove that Mary has ever sinned, several are suggestive that she had and two of them elevate the importance of discipleship above simply being Christ’s mother. Not surprisingly, the ancient church did not take a definitive stand on the issue because the Scriptural evidence did not demand it. However, quite a few Church Fathers appear to credit Mary with wrongdoing or insufficient faith:

Examples of insufficient faith:

He was justly indignant, that persons so very near to Him stood without, while strangers were within hanging on His words, especially as they wanted to call Him away from the solemn work He had in hand. He did not so much deny as disavow them. And therefore, when to the previous question, Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? He added the answer None but they who hear my words and do them, He transferred the names of blood-relationship to others, whom He judged to be more closely related to Him by reason of their faith (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 4, Ch. 19).

For, doubtless, some such train of thought as this passed through her mind: ‘I conceived Him That is mocked upon the Cross. He said, indeed, that He was the true Son of Almighty God, but it may be that He was deceived; He may have erred when He said: I am the Life. How did His crucifixion come to pass?and how was He entangled in the snares of His murderers? How was it that He did not prevail over the conspiracy of His persecutors against Him? And why does He not come down from the Cross, though He bade Lazarus return to life, and struck all Judaea with amazement by His miracles?” The woman, as is likely, not exactly understanding the mystery, wandered astray into some such train of thought(Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, Book 12).

Wrongdoing:

And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere, Who is My mother, and who are My brethren? Matthew 12:48, because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him…And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, Woman, what have I to do with you?instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much more for the salvation of hersoul, and for the doing good to the many, for which He took upon Him the flesh (John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 21).

They have no wine. For she desired both to do them a favor, and through her Son to render herself more conspicuous; perhaps too she had some humanfeelings, like His brethren, when they said, Show yourself to the world John 17:4, desiring to gain credit from His miracles. Therefore He answered somewhat vehemently” (John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 21).

…St Hilary in his Annotations on the 20th verse of the cxixth [119th] Psalm, “My soul breaketh for the longing that it hath unto thy judgments,” applies it unto the future judgment and among other observations has this passage, “Seeing we must render an account for every idle word do we desire the day of judgment in which that unwearied fire is to be passed through in which those grievous punishments are to be undergone for the expiating of a soul from sin [1 Cor 3:12], a sword shall pass through the soul of the blessed Virgin Mary that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed [Luke 2:35]. If that Virgin who bore God is to come into the severity of the judgment will any one dare desire to be judged by God?” (Excerpt of Hilary of Poitiers Homily on Psalm 119).

Although they [Christ’s family] had like the rest power to come in, yet they abstain from all approach to Him, “for he came unto his own, and his own received him not” (Hilary of Poitiers commenting of Matt 12:50).

Links to Church Father quotes are here.

AND NOW THEY STAND CORRECTED. AMEN AMEN