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.
and you earlier provided the answer:Didn't the early RCC strive to keep the Bible from the common laity people? And why issue this decree if the Bible can be freely read by all Christians?
2 Peter 3:16 As also/and in all the letters, speaking in them about these-things; in which are difficult to understand any which the un-learned and un-steadfast are wresting/twisting as also the rest of Writings, toward the own of them destruction/apwleian <684>. [# 684 used reve 17:8, 11]
Greetings. I probably view that passage and Revelation differently than RCs, Orthodox and most Protestants.and you earlier provided the answer:
Greetings. If the early Christians didn't have the full Canon until the 4th century, HOW then could they interpret/harmonize the Olivet Discourse and Revelation and Paul's epistles.Dear LLOJ,
Do feel free to expand on that. We care what the ECFs wrote, but we also care about what you write.
peace,
Anglian
Which is all that has ever been said to you by me. This is why I fear for your Roman fever.
History shows that some people in some Churches fear this; it also shows that other people in some of the same Churches don't agree. History does not record that those who fear this has happened are more correct than those who claim it has not.
History also shows, in the form of the Orthodox practice, so commended by Rowan Williams, that it is perfectly possible to call St. Mary 'blessed' without there being any such problems.
There is a difference between disagreeing and suggesting people persist in error, and using words such as 'grovelling' in connection with the mother of Our Lord; as I suspect you know. If you are denying you ever use heightened language to annoy Catholics, I accept that.
Since you have admitted that it is biblical to venerate (call blessed) St, Mary, I am unable to make sense of this.
What I suggested was that if, as seemed to be the case, none of the Protestants here would even admit it was biblical to call St. Mary 'blessed' it would appear they persisted in their own error. Now you have admitted that it is biblical to venerate St. Mary, you suggest to me that there is some hope.
Peace,
Anglian
The word trinity is not in scripture but we see Father Son and Holy Spirit..We can see in scripture that there is the Godhead.right next to the passage that uses the term "Trinity"
Christ did not "become God after He was born", Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit ...
She says she'll be counted blessed throughout the ages. Not just then.
Where in the Bible does it say "Stop right there?" in fact, as just noted, it's open-ended
It's offensive when you pontificate about dogma without the slightest intent on answering questions put to you that you must find too difficult. You'd rather just repeat your statements over and over again.
(when he was dying) Whom else did Jesus trust specifically to the care of one of his disciples?
First, you accused the Archbishop of venerating Mary. Next, you say I think it's all right to venerate Mary!!!
For the Orthodox to call her 'blessed' is to venerate her.It is all right to say Mary was blessed to bear Jesus. The Bible tells us so. We say that when we recite the Magnificat which comes directly from Luke.
And in Scripture we are told 'The Word became flesh', that is that God became Incarnate, therefore God was born in this manner.The word trinity is not in scripture but we see Father Son and Holy Spirit..We can see in scripture that there is the Godhead.What we don't see in scripture is Mary being called Holy Theotokos.. What you are not understanding is that Christ was in the God head before He became man. He is the word made flesh.. Has always been and always will be. Mary was not His mother until He became flesh..
O Most Holy and Blessed Anglian, I venerate thee.
O Most Holy and Blessed BeamishBoy, I venerate thee.
O Most Holy and Blessed Empereror Constantine, I venerate thee.
O Most Holy and Blessed Little Lamb of Jesus, I venerate thee.
O Most Holy and Blessed MamaZ, I venerate thee.
O Most Holy and Blessed Montalban, I venerate thee.
O Most Holy and Blessed Rick Otto, I venerate thee.
O Most Holy and Blessed Secundulus, I venerate thee.
O Most Holy and Blessed Thekla, I venerate thee.
O Most Holy and Blessed WarriorAngel, I venerate thee.
O Most Holy and Blessed ________________ (for each and every person who hears the word of God and observes it (Luke 11:28)), I venerate thee.
From the divine liturgy of BBBBBBB, in the seventh tone.
As I stated before, Christ says "yes and/further" -- He amplifies and turns to the spiritual what the woman says. And you are narrowing Mary just as the woman did, to whom Christ responded. You seem to be regarding Mary as merely 'womb and paps'.
Is this to say that flesh cannot be blessed by God ? No, indeed; the healings should be enough to allay that notion. And Christ took on flesh, and sanctified it toward the resurrection of all and the promise of a "new earth" at the end of time.
Can we say that Mary is happy/makarios because her body is to bear the Christ ? Certainly. But to leave it at that is to ignore that she is blessed/makarios 'spiritually', in the sense that the word is used throughout the NT and as recorded by Luke in the Beatitudes. Compare Mary's statements as an anticipation of the Beatitudes -- which blessing is not stated or implied as applied to Mary ? In her statements alone we find poor in spirit (lowly), she anticipates the promise to Abraham (hunger), she witnesses the crucifixion (weeps), she is 'cast out and hated' through her identification with her Son, both as a perceived adulterer and as witness of the crucifixion. What parent cannot respond to this - how many parents must add the knowledge that their crucified Son is God and could call myriad of angels to intervene but does not. Compare to the Matthew version as well - which step on the "ladder of the Beatitudes" does she not climb ? She brought to the world He who fills all things.
Is she righteous in God's eyes? Although we are not explicitly told, does not Moses pray to God that, "an angel is not enough, You/God accompany us on the flight from Egypt. And God does. Mary, like Moses, asks Christ to "change His plans", and His first miracle is performed before His time. It is not descent from Abraham, but the faith of Abraham that is pleasing to God. Does not Mary exhibit this faith ? Elizabeth says, "And happy is she who believed, for there shall be a fulfillment of these things ...". Is this fulfillment not for Mary ? No, for she states "my soul doth magnify the Lord and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior. Her body is blessed, but as Christ points out, in hearing and keeping the word of God she is moreso blessed. Are we not taught by Paul to esteem (synonymous in English with venerate) those who walk in the Lord ? Does Paul not teach the righteousness of Abraham ? Does Christ not call the bosom of Abraham a resting place of comfort ? Do we account Abraham, who was given the promise because of his faith/righteousness greater than Mary who received and bore the promise knowingly through faith ?
What you call an "ikon of Mary" is called in the EO an ikon of the Incarnation. It is an ikon of the fulfillment of the promise, and this promise to each of us - Christ with us, Christ within us. We are given this possibility by God, and to hear and obey God and bear fruit. But only one in all eternity received the fulfillment by bearing the Fruit, the Christ. EO theology is known as "Incarnational" - man may be described using body soul and spirit, but he is one thing - these are aspects but not all of him. Mary as the complete person received Christ in a manner that is not repeatable.
I do not know its parallel, but we describe fulfillment by God in the person (the whole, not the aspects) theosis. Mary is one of many for whom the promise of theosis is fulfilled - and we honor all who were granted this fulfillment.
So, are the early Lukan passages just a family moment ? Yes, for the family of Christ, and offered freely to the entire family of man - if they will have it. And does Christ consider His mother a "womb and paps" only ? No, but regards her faith, her hearing and keeping. Is she a vessel ? Not just, but an agreement freely given to God's wondrous plan for all.
Probably LLOJ tee hee but we still love ya..Greetings. I probably view that passage and Revelation differently than RCs, Orthodox and most Protestants.
Matthew 21:43 Therefore I am saying to ye, that shall be being taken-away from Ye the Kingdom of the God, and it shall be being given to a Nation doing the fruits of it.
Reve 12:8 and not He is strong, neither Place found of Them still in the Heaven.
Dear Montalban,
I hope you will be able to get some answers, but once we get to the difference between 'blessed' and 'blessed-ed', it would be brave to hope for much.
We have established that at least one person here will call the Virgin Saint 'blessed', and they have not established that any single ECF wrote anything that would suggest we are wrong to call her 'blessed'.
The eisegesis that stems from using part of Holy Tradition and applying one's own meanings to it provides, if any were needed, evidence of why the book received by the Church is best read within the rest of the Tradition. The ECFs, writing at a time when they were helping us recognise what was, and was not, Scripture, venerated the Blessed Theotokos; the Liturgy of the Church does the same. We follow the word of Scripture within the Tradition of which it is a vital part. Those who choose to do otherwise have their own tradition; it is only when they claim there is no biblical warrant for calling her 'blessed' that we have to point out, in all charity, that it is in the Bible. If they then choose to explain away the plain meaning of the Holy Scriptures, they offer nothing in support of such views - hence my reference to their views as eisegesis.
Peace,
Anglian
A mere expression of happiness. All generations will say I'm happy. To this day we agree she was happy and blessed to bear Jesus.
Probably LLOJ tee hee but we still love ya..
The fullness of the Godhead was not born in this manner.. Only the word was making Mary the Mother of the word that became flesh. Now we do not reconginze Christ this way any longer. In fact we are to not recognize any man according to the flesh.And in Scripture we are told 'The Word became flesh', that is that God became Incarnate, therefore God was born in this manner.
The Church (including the one Beamishboy is part of) accepts this title as pronounced at Ephesus in AD 431. If you know better, so be it.
Peace,
Anglian
Paul tells us to be esteeming the other above ourselves
Wow LLOJ you get yourself into some battles tee hee... Praying for you brother..It is tough defending my bro Paul to the heathen non-Christians.
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7259733
Originally Posted by vajradharano, i don't think that Christianity is based on Christ. i think, and can provide a thorough, though long and technical, explanation about how Christianity is based on Paul.
Originally Posted by shinbitsPaul preached Christ, right? Thank you.
Response LLOJ: Of course he did. But you do realize the Muslims view him as a "deceiver/false apostle", though Paul himself warned of them.
The Muslims even quote the NT book of Revelation to show it is referring to him. Heck, I could view Muhammad as a false Apostle.
2 Corinthians 11:13 For the such false Apostles, workers fraudulent, being transfigured into apostles of Christ.
Revelation 2:2 I have seen the works of thee, and the labour of thee, and the endurance of thee, and that not thou are able to bear evils, and thou test/try the ones saying themselves Apostles are and not they are, and thou found them falsifiers,
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?