Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children
LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 12/4/2006 | John-Henry Westen

Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

By John-Henry Westen

NEW YORK, December 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A review of New Line Cinema's The Nativity story by Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger of the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the United States, points out that the film, which opened December 1, misinterprets scripture from a Catholic perspective.

While Fr. Geiger admits that he found the film is "in general, to be a pious and reverential presentation of the Christmas mystery." He adds however, that "not only does the movie get the Virgin Birth wrong, it thoroughly Protestantizes its portrayal of Our Lady."

In Isaiah 7:14 the Bible predicts the coming of the Messiah saying: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." Fr. Geiger, in an video blog post, explains that the Catholic Church has taught for over 2000 years that the referenced Scripture showed that Mary would not only conceive the child miraculously, but would give birth to the child miraculously - keeping her physical virginity intact during the birth.

The film, he suggests, in portraying a natural, painful birth of Christ, thus denies the truth of the virginal and miraculous birth of Christ, which, he notes, the Fathers of the Church compared to light passing through glass without breaking it. Fr. Geiger quoted the fourth century St. Augustine on the matter saying. "That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother."

Fr. Geiger contrasts The Nativity Story with The Passion of the Christ, noting that with the latter, Catholics and Protestants could agree to support it. He suggests, however, that the latter is "a virtual coup against Catholic Mariology".

The characterization of Mary further debases her as Fr. Geiger relates in his review. "Mary in The Nativity lacks depth and stature, and becomes the subject of a treatment on teenage psychology."

Beyond the non-miraculous birth, the biggest let-down for Catholics comes from Director Catherine Hardwicke's own words. Hardwicke explains her rationale in an interview: "We wanted her [Mary] to feel accessible to a young teenager, so she wouldn't seem so far away from their life that it had no meaning for them. I wanted them to see Mary as a girl, as a teenager at first, not perfectly pious from the very first moment. So you see Mary going through stuff with her parents where they say, 'You're going to marry this guy, and these are the rules you have to follow.' Her father is telling her that she's not to have sex with Joseph for a year-and Joseph is standing right there."

Comments Fr. Geiger, "it is rather disconcerting to see Our Blessed Mother portrayed with 'attitude;' asserting herself in a rather anachronistic rebellion against an arranged marriage, choosing her words carefully with her parents, and posing meaningful silences toward those who do not understand her."

Fr. Geiger adds that the film also contains "an overly graphic scene of St. Elizabeth giving birth," which is "just not suitable, in my opinion, for young children to view."

Despite its flaws Fr. Geiger, after viewing the film, also has some good things to say about it. "Today, one must commend any sincere attempt to put Christ back into Christmas, and this film is certainly one of them," he says. "The Nativity Story in no way compares to the masterpiece which is The Passion of the Christ, but it is at least sincere, untainted by cynicism, and a worthy effort by Hollywood to end the prejudice against Christianity in the public square."

And, in addition to a good portrait of St. Joseph, the film offers "at least one cinematic and spiritual triumph" in portraying the Visitation of Mary to St. Elizabeth. "Although the Magnificat is relegated to a kind of epilogue at the movie's end, the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth is otherwise faithful to the scriptures and quite poignant. In a separate scene, the two women experience the concurrent movement of their children in utero and share deeply in each other's joy. I can't think of another piece of celluloid that illustrates the dignity of the unborn child better than this."

See Fr. Geiger's full review here:
http://airmaria.com/


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; catholics; christmas; mary; movie; nativity; nativitystory; thenativitystory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 7,151-7,2007,201-7,2507,251-7,300 ... 16,251-16,256 next last
Comment #7,201 Removed by Moderator

To: Kolokotronis; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; .30Carbine; Quix
[ It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. ]

It would be absurd FOR US TO JUDAIZE... but NOT for the first christians.. Read Galatians.. even after many years it was not absurd..

Even now many christians don't follow the concepts of what is specified in the New Testament so well.. And thats with all mannar of seminaries to decrypt(or spin) both convenants..

The Talmud would confuse a mastermind..

The Apostles (except for Paul) were mostly UNeducated teenagers.. I laugh at people of our age totally ignorant of the conditions of New testament bible times.. Yet judge those folks by standards like they went to High School in the United States and went to Sunday school..

Most of the Apostles were clueless about most of Jesus' metaphors(parables).. In my experience MOST pastors are just as clueless.. Example: the parable of the talents.. is not about talent.. And the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is not a real tree but a metaphor.. As was the Snake and the Tree of Life..

7,202 posted on 01/21/2007 7:41:23 PM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7199 | View Replies]

To: Quix; All; .30Carbine; Alamo-Girl; DarthVader; FormerLib; Buggman; hosepipe
Trying again . . . this time with feeling . . .

a one and a two

errrr would you believe with html for tables?

Associate Co-worker Friend Aunt Cousin Step-Mom Mother
OF OF OF OF OF OF OF
Joe Schmo Joe Schmo Joe Schmo Joe Schmo Joe Schmo Joe Schmo Joe Schmo
Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler
Shrillery Shrillery Shrillery Shrillery Shrillery Shrillery Shrillery
Abe Lincoln Abe Lincoln Abe Lincoln Abe Lincoln Abe Lincoln Abe Lincoln Abe Lincoln
Jeff Dahlmer Jeff Dahlmer Jeff Dahlmer Jeff Dahlmer Jeff Dahlmer Jeff Dahlmer Jeff Dahlmer
P Bush P Bush P Bush P Bush P Bush P Bush P Bush
Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus
McChurian McChurian McChurian McChurian McChurian McChurian McChurian
GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD

What feelings, associations, implications, pictures, ideas, attitudes are triggered in each case?

7,203 posted on 01/21/2007 8:06:32 PM PST by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7201 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Thank you so very much for your encouragements!
7,204 posted on 01/21/2007 8:41:18 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7194 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
I laugh at people of our age totally ignorant of the conditions of New testament bible times.. Yet judge those folks by standards like they went to High School in the United States and went to Sunday school..

LOLOL! Sad, but true. Thank you for your insights!

7,205 posted on 01/21/2007 8:51:21 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7202 | View Replies]

To: Quix
A very interesting chart there, Quix! Thank you!
7,206 posted on 01/21/2007 8:53:12 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7203 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; annalex; Kolokotronis; Agrarian; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; .30Carbine; Quix
Before I begin, let's make sure that we're defining our positions accurately.

I merely stated (#6845), regarding why the Eastern Orthodox Church uses the Septuagint: "If it's good enough for the Apostles, it's good enough for the Apostolic Church"

That defined the issue. I stand by my statement.

The New Testament quotes from the Septuagint in 93% (other sources claim 95%) of the time. I would say that defines my answer, and corroborates my emphatic statement that what was good enough for the Apostles is good enough for the Apostolic Church.

Of all the instances where Old Testament quotes in the New Testament favor the Hebrew version is exactly six!.

The impressive comparison of NT agreement with the Septuagint when it comes to OT quotes, and an equally impressive departure from it based on the Hebrew text (used by the Jews and the Protestants) should make every Protestant wonder if they are reading what the Apostles wanted us to read.

The source you site indicates the following Apostolic NT authors' OT quotes agreeing with LXX, according to books, expressed as percentage:

Matthew 83.3
Mark 88.9
Luke 92.3
John 92.9
Acts 100
Romans 94.3
1 Cor 88.2
2 Cor 100
Galatians 100
Ephesians 100
1 Timothy 100
2 Timothy 100
Hebrews 97.3
James 100
1 Peter 91.7
2 Peter 100
Total 93.0

I would call that A+/A in most cases.

By comaprison, the Hebrew rendition of the OT agrees significantly less with the Apostolic inspired choice of LXX:

Matthew 70.4
Mark 85.2
Luke 80.1
John 71.4
Acts 75.0
Romans 58.2
1 Cor 70.6
2 Cor 80.0
Galatians 60.0
Ephesians 100
1 Timothy 100
2 Timothy 0
Hebrews 54.1
James 75.0
1 Peter 41.7
2 Peter 100
Total 68.3

I would call that pretty poor, C/C+ on average, and a clear F in some cases!

Surprisingly, the author does not list Isa 9:6 as significant differences between LXX/MT.

In the KJV version: v.6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

(This you shall find in the Alexandrian version of the LXX as well, which in this instance agrees with the Hebrew version).

But the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus versions have this:

v.6 For a Child is born to us, and a Son is given to us, whose government is upon His shoulder; and His name is called The Messenger of Great Counsel; for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to Him

Quite different in tense (underlined), message and content (bolded).

likeswise, v.8 in KJV says "The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel."

In the older versions of the LXX it says "The Lord has sent death upon Jacob, and it has come upon Israel."

The choice of words is amazing! Now, how did these discrepancies 'sneak' in if not by (1) copying errors, (2) different sources, (3) translational errors, (4) missing accents, (5) deliberate alteration of what the scribe believed should be... etc?

Of course the errors of one side will be multiplied by other sources using the same or similar language (i.e. DSS and MT), so the 'corroboration' of the DSS with the Hebrew text, since DSS are also in Hebrew, is not surprising, but rather expected.

Thus, the uncertainty. The only thing we can be certain of, when reading the Scriptures, is that we are not certain if we are reading the the correct version (whichever that may be).

As for the agreement between the LXX/Greek and MT/Hebrew, here is a chart (using your own source from #7180)

The Apostles, in their wisdom, based on their choice to overwhelmingly use LXX, are clearly telling us that the Truth, as was known to them, is contained in the LXX to a much greater extent than the MT. (Somebody please tell this to Luther!)

But, as far as the Apostolic Church is concerned, the message is loud and clear: the Apostles wanted the world to know what LXX says when it comes to those passages of the Old Testament the Lord and they deemed appropriate for Christian mindset. In 93-95% of the cases.

7,207 posted on 01/21/2007 9:10:45 PM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7180 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

Interesting. Thanks.


7,208 posted on 01/21/2007 9:37:20 PM PST by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7207 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; annalex; kosta50; Agrarian; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; .30Carbine; P-Marlowe; Quix
Let's assume that what you say is correct. What changed by the late 1st century . . . ?

70 AD. After their failed rebellion against Rome, the Jews of the Empire were, shall we say, persona non grata, and under heavy persecution. Things only got worse by the time of the Bar Kochba revolt in 135 AD. The Gentile Christians were under enough persecution for refusing to burn incense to idols of Caesar; while they were willing to suffer persecution for the Jewish Messiah, they were not willing to do so for the Jews who had rejected them. Since the Romans identified Jews not by genealogy but by the Sabbath, the Feastdays, etc., the Christians had every reason to read Sha'ul as saying that such things were now not only not required for salvation, but outright verboten.

But while the ECF whose writings have been preserved for us were anti-Torah, we have evidence in their writings that a Torah-observant yet Messiah-believing Jewish remnant still remained, from the perplexed tolerance of Justin Martyr in the second century to the anti-Semitic screed of John Crysostom in the fourth. Indeed, the mere fact that so many of the Fathers found it necessary to write missives condemning keeping the Torah as "Judaizing" tells us that it was a persistent phenomenon through the ante-Nicean church. In the end, it was state-sanctioned persecution, not reasoning from the Scriptures, which drove the Nazarines--the original Messianic Jews--underground and out of the history books.

7,209 posted on 01/21/2007 9:42:07 PM PST by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7199 | View Replies]

To: Buggman

Great analysis as usual. Thanks.


7,210 posted on 01/21/2007 9:48:20 PM PST by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7209 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; Buggman; annalex; Agrarian; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; .30Carbine; Quix
"It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize." [+Ignatius]

Isn't it rather strange that in mere 70 years after Christ, the Christians (see Didache) were establishing a new religion from what was taught and practised as enlighted Judaism, beginning with Christ himself?

Did Lord Jesus Christ ever say He intended to create a new religion? I think the idea that Christianity is not Judaism comes not from Christ but from +Paul.

7,211 posted on 01/21/2007 9:53:00 PM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7199 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe; Alamo-Girl
She was quoteing [sic] another poster that posted to her..DYSLEXIC?.. (you)...

She was? The words How would we know light if we had never seen darkness? Good if we had never seen evil? Sickness v. health, courage v. fear, right v. wrong – and so on were not in quotes. I am not sure what your problem is.

7,212 posted on 01/21/2007 10:24:07 PM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7173 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; Cvengr; wmfights; Kolokotronis; annalex
I don't know of any Protestants who would assert that Christians do not sin

No, you asserted that those who deliberately live in sin are not Christians.

Which goes back to my question: what makes them sin, their own choice, or God? If it's their choice, HD, they they deliberately, knowingly and willingly commit sin every day, every hour...constantly, repetitively over and over again.

I would call constant sinning the same as "living in sin" without trying to split hairs. The only question is if the Protestants who you say sin do so by their own will or by God's.

If it's by their own will, then they deliberately live in sin. The only other alternative is God and that seems not a very good alternative in this case.

7,213 posted on 01/21/2007 10:34:13 PM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7190 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
I stand by my statement.

And I stand by mine: If the Apostles were, however occasionally, finding it necessary to correct the LXX, it meant that they were checking it against the Hebrew texts available to them, which may or may not have been Masoretic. And if they were double-checking the LXX, it wasn't "good enough" for them in the sense that you feel it is good enough for you--they used it only where it was in agreement with the Hebrew text (not necessarily from the tradition that gave us the Masoretic) or clarified the Hebrew text for their Greek audience.

But did they consider it God-breathed? If they had, they would have never corrected it--one does not correct the words of God.

The New Testament quotes from the Septuagint in 93% (other sources claim 95%) of the time.

Misleading statement, since you fail to take into account the number of times there is no significant deviation between the LXX and MT for the authors to actually choose between. The author of the site I used for a resource fails to make this distinction as well, though we can derive somewhat from his numbers.

He claims that the NT quotes from the LXX 93% of the time and is in agreement with the MT 63% of the time. That means that even by his count, that 56% of the time there is no difference for the NT authors to choose between--and hence no indication of preference. That means that in passages in which there is any difference between the two readings, the LXX is being chosen 37% of the time and either the MT or the author's own translation of the Hebrew 7% of the time by his count, a ratio of about 5 to 1. Certainly that favors the LXX to a large degree, but not by the 93% to 7% that he implies!

Moreover, I think his counts are flawed. Unfortunately, he does not show all of the passages in which he finds deviations in favor of the LXX, and the 30 he presents only amount to about 10% of the NT quotes (which number from 280-300 depending on who is doing the counting--one source says 287 direct quotes, and since I'm not going to go through and count them, I'll use that figure for our discussion), or about a third of those he claims deviate. Let's assume for the moment that this is a representative sample.

Now, let's first strip out those quotes in which there is no actual disagreement in the MT, just a debate about the translation:

Isa. 7:14 - As mentioned, almah does in fact mean virgin (or the closest Hebrew word to it), so this is not actually a descrepancy.

Psa. 8:2 - The phrase erroneously translated in the author's example "founded a bulwark" is yisadta oz. Yisadta means "establish" (just as it is rendered in the LXX), while oz, while meaning "strength," can be used in the sense of "splendor," "majesty," or "praise," as it is in Psa. 29:1 (see the Thayer's Lexicon entry here). So again, there's no true disagreement; only a question of a translation choice.

Amos 5:25-27 - The phrase "Sakkuth your king" (Sakkuth melek'khem) can also be translated, with a different set of vowels (which were not added until well after Yeshua's time) "the tent of your Molech." So there's no real difference there; just a translation choice.

For Kiyun, this was the Assyrian name for the deity we commonly know as Saturn, who was in Coptic called Remphan. Since the LXX was rendered in Alexandria, it's hardly surprising that they decided to "update" the name to one the Egyptian Greeks would have actually heard of. In any case, there's no contradiction here, just another translation choice.

Isa. 53:7-8 - The website's author actually botches this one, since the quote is actually all from v. 8, which in an extremely woodenly literal translation of the MT Hebrew, reads, "From prison and from justice He was taken; and of His generation who will consider? For He was cut off from the land of the living."

The word translated "from prison" is mae'otzer, with otzer meaning "oppression," and that of a sort to bring about humiliation, as a barren womb brought to a woman (cf. Pro. 30:16)--hence the decision of the LXX translators to render it tapeinusei, a lowly estate or condition. Likewise, in this context, being taken "from judgment/justice" means the same thing as the literal translation of the LXX krisis antou erthe, "from His justice He was lifted away." Again, no distinction if one is actually referring to the LXX itself and not to a bad translation that makes a mountain out of less than a molehill.

I'm going to stop there for the time being, since it's late and I'm weary of looking up the original words in the original languages to compare meanings. Suffice to say that in many of the author's examples, there's no actual difference between the quotes--unless one is merely comparing two English translations. In other cases, which I've not even started into yet, the difference in translation amounts to a dynamic-equivalent translation choice that doesn't affect the meaning of the passage but might clarify it to a Greek audience (e.g., Isa. 8:17 or 29:13). In other cases, like Deu. 32:43, while the quote is not found in the MT, it is found in the DSS.

By the time you remove these passages, the number of times the NT agrees with both the LXX and the Hebrew text closes the gap substantially. The LXX probably does still "win," but the fact that the Apostles did correct it indicates that they were continually checking it against the Hebrew original and deciding on a case-by-case basis whether to use the default Greek translation of their day or render their own translation.

'Nuff said for now. I'm off to bed. Goodnight (or good morning by the time you read this, probably), and God bless.

7,214 posted on 01/21/2007 11:39:02 PM PST by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7207 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Kolokotronis; annalex; Agrarian; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; .30Carbine; Quix
I think the idea that Christianity is not Judaism comes not from Christ but from +Paul.

It doesn't come from Paul either, if one interprets his letters by his life. It comes from people misreading Paul because they haven't done their homework in the Tanakh and the Gospel accounts first.

7,215 posted on 01/21/2007 11:52:06 PM PST by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7211 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; kosta50; D-fendr
But D, you should learn [Greek]. Its very easy. In Greece there are children 2 years old who get by pretty well in it. By the time they're 3 they are quite fluent!

Well, wouldn't there be a very great difference between taking Greek as a new language today, and being able to understand the Greek of the scripture? I don't know. I was just thinking that if I took a class in Middle English or something that it would be like learning a foreign language(s). And the Greek would be much older.

7,216 posted on 01/21/2007 11:53:49 PM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5757 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis; xzins; annalex; blue-duncan; kosta50; Blogger; bornacatholic; ...

It is not Forest Keeper who is redefining words.

The "Mother of God" says exactly what its words mean.

The "Mother of the Incarnate 2d Person of the Trinity" means exactly what it says.

The 2d is an effort to communicate precisely. The first is an effort to speak in code, to intentionally be confusing, or to be misunderstanding of the Trinity. Mary was not the mother of the Father. The Father is just as likely to be called God in our Trinitarian system as is the Son.

Do you think Mary is the Mother of the Father?


7,217 posted on 01/22/2007 12:23:04 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7198 | View Replies]

To: Blogger; Mad Dawg
I actually like the Yankees best in the American League on religious grounds. It was one of the world series between the Yankees and the Braves. They showed both locker rooms and the Brave's were G-d d&(ming this and G-d d@#)($*ng that (something I absolutely can not STAND. I'll take the F word a million times over GD or JC used as a curse). Anyway, shortly thereafter, I don't remember who it was, but one of the Yankees was thanking His Lord Jesus Christ. I've liked them ever since.

Ah, finally one use for me being this far behind. :) I'm right with you in this thinking Blogger. Did anyone see the AFC Championship game last night? I was actually rooting for the Patriots, but during the trophy presentation ceremony, the owner of the Colts made very clear to everyone that he was giving thanks to God. He said it more than once. Then Head Coach Tony Dungy did the same thing, all on national television. I was thoroughly impressed. :) For the time being, I'm a new Colts fan!

7,218 posted on 01/22/2007 2:30:45 AM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5789 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi
If you need to know what the Church teaches here it is...

Thanks for you reference. I have book marked this and will use it in future references.

7,219 posted on 01/22/2007 4:18:37 AM PST by HarleyD ("...even the one whom He will choose, He will bring near Himself." Num 16:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7051 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Blogger; Dr. Eckleburg; blue-duncan; Kolokotronis; kosta50
"Works-based salvation" would imply that we earn our salvation independently of Christ through overall acts of righteousness.

In any context such as this, the word "based" does not at all imply exclusivity. It implies a main part or a foundation. Since you said the work of Christ was done (I agree here), and that salvation is not yet had by the believer, then the sine qua non of salvation can only remain in the works of men. Do you agree? Therefore, from the man's POV, his salvation, as he experiences it, is based on his works.

I see the Catholic view being that Christ's work made all this possible. IOW, in Catholicism, Christ didn't actually accomplish salvation for any person in particular for all time. Instead, He, by His sacrifice, made it POSSIBLE for men to choose to do their works, and THEN be saved for all time. I still think that with an explanation, that is a fair description of a "works-based" salvation.

Please note that I am not calling you a Nestorian or an Arian or anything like that. Sometimes, things just "sound" bad and need an explanation. LOL! :)

7,220 posted on 01/22/2007 5:15:24 AM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5884 | View Replies]

To: xzins; FormerLib; Forest Keeper; annalex; blue-duncan; kosta50; Blogger; bornacatholic
FK: "To a person who didn't know what was behind it, "mother of God" "sounds" bad for the reasons already discussed."

FL: "Do we really have to redefine our terms because some people don't know enough to figure such things out correctly? Political correctness run amok!"

X: "The 2d is an effort to communicate precisely. The first is an effort to speak in code, to intentionally be confusing, or to be misunderstanding of the Trinity. Mary was not the mother of the Father. The Father is just as likely to be called God in our Trinitarian system as is the Son."

It seems to me, Padre, that FL has hit the nail on the head. Why would it be necessary to change the Christologic term "Theotokos" because some Christians today don't understand or have a deficient knowledge of Christian Trinitarianism? After all, most Christians accept the dogmas of the Council of Ephesus and have for nearly 1700 years. Doesn't the fact that it sounds "odd", or one might feel compelled to assert that to say "Theotokos" is either to speak in code or evidence an intent to confuse or finally to misunderstand the Trinity actually point to a deficient preaching on the part of the pastors of those Christians that they haven't explained what Christians mean by the Trinity? Perhaps some solid preaching of the Creed is in order. The problem lies not with the Holy Fathers of the Council of Ephesus, but rather with modern catechetical methods.

X: "Do you think Mary is the Mother of the Father?"

Padre, why would anyone who understands that God is "Ο ΩΝ" or who prays the Creed then believe that the Theotokos is the mother of God the Father?

FK's use of the term "Mother of Christ" as explained by him is not heretical. The fact remains, however, that it was just that term which expressed the Nestorian heresy, a heresy which arose out of a deficient understanding of the Trinity. Given the fact that there appears to be a fear (for whatever reason) that the use of the Council term Theotokos is code or misleading, isn't it therefore very dangerous, in this age of people who don't understand Christian Trinitarianism, to revert back to old heretical formulas?

7,221 posted on 01/22/2007 6:11:34 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7217 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; xzins; FormerLib; Forest Keeper; annalex; blue-duncan; Blogger; bornacatholic; ...
Padre, why would anyone who understands that God is "Ο ΩΝ" or who prays the Creed then believe that the Theotokos is the mother of God the Father?

Simple logic, my friend.

If there is only one God and the Father is God and Mary is the Mother of God, then Mary is the Mother of the Father.

7,222 posted on 01/22/2007 6:15:13 AM PST by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7221 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
"It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. ..."

Wouldn't our consideration of our Lord Savior Christ Jesus returning for a millenial reign reinforce Judaism, while at the same time profess and manifest Christ Jesus?

7,223 posted on 01/22/2007 6:20:03 AM PST by Cvengr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7199 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; xzins; FormerLib; Forest Keeper; annalex; blue-duncan; Blogger; bornacatholic; ...
"Simple logic, my friend." Exactly, and therein lies the rub. Trinitarian theology isn't about simple logic. How does "simple logic" explain "Ο ΩΝ"? Expressed as best it can be in English, what is logical about the "existence" of Him Who creates "existence"? I suppose we could begin a discussion of what is meant by "hypostasis" if you want, but we'll end up at the same place where simple logic does little if any good.
7,224 posted on 01/22/2007 6:31:01 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7222 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; kosta50; sitetest; BlackElk; The_Reader_David
Brother, it appears to me that some will go to great lengths to maintain their own ideas of independent authority derived from the Bible.

As to how they differ from the heretics of Core/Korah and hias followers is unclear. In fact, there have been not a few posts in here which read as though they were lifted directly from Core/Korah...especially the explicit rejection of authority

Numbers 16 And behold Core the son of Isaar, the son of Caath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiron the sons of Eliab, and Hon the son of Pheleth of the children of Ruben, Rose up against Moses, and with them two hundred and fifty others of the children of Israel, leading men of the synagogue, and who in the time of assembly were called by name. And when they had stood up against Moses and Aaron, they said: Let it be enough for you, that all the multitude consisteth of holy ones, and the Lord is among them: Why lift you up yourselves above the people of the Lord?

*A you well know,..

Hebrews 13..teaches the authority Core/Korah and his followers rebelled against, still exists in the New Covenant...

Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation, 8 Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today; and the same for ever. Be not led away with various and strange doctrines...Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you

*BTW, whatever happened to Core and his authority-rejecting followers?

7,225 posted on 01/22/2007 6:53:23 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7221 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; annalex; Blogger; Dr. Eckleburg; Kolokotronis; xzins; FormerLib; Forest Keeper

I think I've found the hymn that explains this knotty theological conumdrum.


www.ziplo.com/grandpa.htm


7,226 posted on 01/22/2007 6:59:44 AM PST by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7222 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper

Wow! Thanks for the heads up! I fell asleep (It's the one way you know I used to be a clergyman: I still fall asleep Sunday afternoons -- religiously) during the Bears Saints game and had other fish to fry during the next game, so I missed it all. Yep, let's have an ecumenical agreement to root for the Colts.


7,227 posted on 01/22/2007 7:11:11 AM PST by Mad Dawg ("It's our humility which makes us great." -- Click and Clack, the Tappet Brothers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7218 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; Kolokotronis; annalex; Agrarian; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; .30Carbine; Quix
I think you did a good job, considering it was late.

And if they were double-checking the LXX, it wasn't "good enough" for them in the sense that you feel it is good enough

There is no evidence whatsoever that they were "double-checking." The fact remains that they used LXX in all but six times when quoting from the OT.

That means that even by his count, that 56% of the time there is no difference for the NT authors to choose between--and hence no indication of preference

That really means that the disagreement between the LXX and MT is a whopping 44% for whatever reason.

The LXX probably does still "win," but the fact that the Apostles did correct it indicates that they were continually checking it against the Hebrew original and deciding on a case-by-case basis whether to use the default Greek translation of their day or render their own translation

First, it's not a "fact" that they were "continually checking it against the Hebrew original..." because there is no such evidence anywhere.

Second, regardless of the size of the "gap," the very existence of the gap tells us that the existing copies of the Scripture, even in Apostoles' times, were not faultless, but diverged (as is the case with the NT) due to various sources of corruption.

The size of that gap matters, but the indisputable fact is that the Apostles used LXX predominantly, whether its text agreed or disagreed with the MT, with notable half-a-dozen exceptions to the contrary.

7,228 posted on 01/22/2007 7:23:51 AM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7214 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

Can someone remind me why this is such a screaming issue?


7,229 posted on 01/22/2007 7:28:07 AM PST by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7228 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan
LOL. I don't even have to go to the link.

Of course, referring that, ah, hymn to the doctrine of the Trinity ... well, let's just say I hear thunder and am taking cover. Where exactly do you live?

;)

The last time I said this, Blogger "laughed me to scorn", but I've taken my antidepressants and can handle it, I think. I may sniffle a little.

I propose: The copula in Trinitarian language is not commutative. That is to say that the statement "Jesus is God" does not imply the statement, "God is Jesus", and similarly to say "The Father is God" does not imply "God is the Father". This ain't geometry.

Another way to say this is that in the scheme I laid out before, to wit:

it starts getting tricky when you isolate one statement from the others.

But if the undivided Church goes with Theotokos, I'm sure not going to argue.

7,230 posted on 01/22/2007 7:29:05 AM PST by Mad Dawg ("It's our humility which makes us great." -- Click and Clack, the Tappet Brothers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7226 | View Replies]

To: Quix

If one figures the Bible alone is the source for salvation (which borders on idolotry of the Bible) then one must assume that only an uncorrupt version of the Bible can advise on an uncorrupt path to salvation.

Conversly if one beleives that teh church Christ gave the keys to bind and loose is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit Christ promised to send and thereefore can clarify the truth to correct human errors it becomes somewhat irrelevant.


7,231 posted on 01/22/2007 7:36:55 AM PST by kawaii (Orthodox Christianity -- Proclaiming the Truth Since 33 A.D.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7229 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

"I don't even have to go to the link."

See, that there is the problem with us moderns. We are so overly familiar with the words to the old hymns that we just mouth them without mining the lesson of the experience that some poor soul anguished over when writing about them under the influence of the spirits.


7,232 posted on 01/22/2007 7:40:24 AM PST by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7230 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; Forest Keeper

I believe in clear translation and interpretation.

Clarity is best achieved by precision.

Mother of God is not precise.

I know you can imagine instances when the lack of precision in language would lead to legal difficulties.


For my part, though, I think we've pretty well beat this horse to death. I'll stick with the expression: "Mother of Jesus the Christ." It is precise, and is not open to trinitarian nitpicking.


7,233 posted on 01/22/2007 7:41:20 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7221 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; All; Buggman; hosepipe; P-Marlowe; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; DarthVader

Thanks for the comment . . . evidently it was too much to benefit very many . . . perhaps particularly those most . . . edifiable? by such ponderings? LOL.

I would guess that many still don't have a clue what I was trying to accomplish. But it has to be experienced to be well felt, well understood, I think.

It seems to me . . . that

IF

there were NO DIFFERENCE, NO BENEFIT, NO ACHIEVABLE UPSMANSHIP INVOLVED

IN

the "MOTHER OF GOD" label,

IT WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN USED.

Mother of Jesus would have been sufficient and that would have been the end of it.

But the deification/near deification of Mary REQUIRES 100's of bits and pieces here and there . . .

here a pebble there a pebble . . . constructing her worshipfulness/adorationfulness/supreme-worthiness . . .

her God-like pedestal

and the MOTHER OF GOD one is a pretty big pebble toward that end.

1. If it's no different than MOTHER OF JESUS--USE MOTHER OF JESUS. If there's NO difference, why brook the least chance of offending God and others?

2. IF it IS different--what's the DIFFERENT PURPOSE IT FULFILLS, IF IT'S NOT AN IDOLATROUS ONE? The only plausible difference is an idolatrous one!

3. Subtle to not so subtle propaganda/subliminal mind control is at work in the MOTHER OF GOD label. And it is not just Mary that is being elevated to the God-like stratosphere.

IT IS PARTICULARLY AND PRIMARILY ALL THE HANGERS ON IN THE BUREAUCRATIC EDIFICE CONCOCTING THE NONSENSE IN THE FIRST PLACE. THEIR elevation and fattened coffers therefrom are paramount in the whole thing.

MARY herself knows better and has to be as revolted at the whole mucky bag of nonsense as anyone can be.


7,234 posted on 01/22/2007 7:41:34 AM PST by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7206 | View Replies]

To: kawaii; All; Alamo-Girl; .30Carbine; DarthVader; Buggman; Dr. Eckleburg; hosepipe
Ahhh. Thanks for reminding me in clearer form . . .

If one figures the Bible alone is the source for salvation (which borders on idolotry of the Bible) then one must assume that only an uncorrupt version of the Bible can advise on an uncorrupt path to salvation.

Not so fast hotshot.

That ASSUMES, PRESUMES that

1. all the contradictory encyclicals, pontifications, assumptions, inferences, extrapolations of the bureaucracy over the many centuries have all been an illusion and that everything from the bureaucracy has been 100% in agreement, flawless and 100% essential in support of; facilitative of; allowing for, fostering, yielding salvation to the serfs.

ROTFLOL! GUFFAWS TO THE MAX!

It's difficult to believe ANY RC person hereon REALLY believes THAT! But that's essentially what was postulated in the post I'm responding to.

2. --that God is unable or unwilling or it just doesn't work for essentials of the Scriptural truths about establishing a Salvation relationship with God that can be well transmitted millions of ways--even with any various dozens? of flaws in different versions of the text.

ROTFLOL! GUFFAWS TO THE MAX!

Millions of believers the world over for 2,000 years have proven that to be a silly notion.

3. Those who call on the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved.
4. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.
5. Confess with your mouth; believe in your heart and be saved.
6. Believe and be baptised unto salvation.
7. SEEK THE LORD and you shall find Him.

Terribly complicated, all those. Better run to the bureaucracy's many halled library to figure out what such simple truths mean. Better get all the bureaucratic interpreters to pontificate for endless hours so we don't misconstrue:

COME UNTO ME ALL YOU THAT LABOR AND ARE HEAVY LADEN!

COME UNTO ME LITTLE CHILDREN.

LOL with tears.

7,235 posted on 01/22/2007 7:58:17 AM PST by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7231 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; kosta50
Er, if I may, I’d like to raise just one difference in translation that we discussed earlier to get your “take” on it (6758 was my last remark.

Of all the types of translation errors that can be made, missing one of the names or titles of God is most disturbing to me. In this case, “God is the Rock.” In Hebrew, tzur - the Septuagint translation drops that term and uses something like God or Mighty One.

But Peter and Paul both evidently knew the name, i.e. that God is the Rock:

Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass: Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. [He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he. – Deu 32:1-4

For who [is] God, save the LORD? and who [is] a rock, save our God? – 2 Sam 22:32

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: - Matt 7:4

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. – 1 Cor 10:1-4

Unto you therefore which believe [he is] precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, [even to them] which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. – 1 Peter 2:7-8

See also: Biblical and Talmudic Names for God

The title itself illuminates the following passage, i.e. God is the Rock!:

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. – Matt 16:16-18


7,236 posted on 01/22/2007 7:58:49 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7228 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

The idea of subordinating God to categories of human logic is responsible for much mischief. Whether it's Origen's neoplatonism, John Italus trying to give rational explanations for the Eucharist, scholasticism with its 'created grace', or 'sola scriptura' which is never as advertised, but represents the replacement of Holy Tradition with a rationalistic human tradition as the context in which the Scriptures are read, inisiting that God fits into our created logical frameworks leads to hersies.

Jesus is God, the Son: Mary gave birth to Him: Mary is the Mother of God.

Only one Person of the Trinity is Incarnate: only the Son has a mother according to the flesh: Mary is not the mother of the Father or the Spirit.

Keep logic, which is the deep structure of created binary distinction, none of which are applicable to God, in its proper place.


7,237 posted on 01/22/2007 8:05:29 AM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7222 | View Replies]

To: Quix; xzins; P-Marlowe
I really don't wish to participate much in a debate about the titles given to Mary.

My position all along has been that Mary is a very humble servant of God - as is Peter, Paul, Moses, Abraham and so on. And for that reason I believe she would be uncomfortable with some of the honor given to her, e.g. Queen of Heaven, Mother of God, etc. Of a Truth, she is the "Blessed Mother of the Incarnate Word" - but going further, I believe makes her uncomfortable.

Likewise, I cannot imagine Peter being comfortable with a title like His Holiness. He and Paul both were brought to their knees to serve Christ.

I feel the same about Moses and Abraham who were highly exalted by the Jews, I cannot imagine either of them being comfortable with all that attention.

In fact, if they were all right here participating on this forum – I would see each of them – Mary, Moses, Abraham, Peter, Paul – saying pretty much the same words the angel said here in Revelation:

Then saith he unto me, See [thou do it] not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God. – Rev 22:19

Other than that, I have nothing to say - because all of these people - whether Christian or Jew - who venerate these fellowservants by all appearances themselves do it out of love and humility.

Worship God!

Maranatha, Jesus!

7,238 posted on 01/22/2007 8:12:27 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7234 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; Kolokotronis; annalex; Agrarian; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; .30Carbine; Quix
Kosta: I think the idea that Christianity is not Judaism comes not from Christ but from +Paul

Buggman: It doesn't come from Paul either, if one interprets his letters by his life. It comes from people misreading Paul because they haven't done their homework in the Tanakh and the Gospel accounts first

Christ did not teach abandoning the Law, circumcision, dietary restrictions, etc. That's where the disagreement between +Paul and the Apostles who knew Christ personally arose. To them, +Pauline gospel (he called it 'my gospel') rang foreign to what they remembered from Christ's teachings.

More importantly, if they were all inspired, and filled with Spirit, how could they be in disagreement?

Anti-judaizing elements in Christian movmeents appear relatively early (Didache, Epistle of Barnabas), calling the Jews "hypocrites," and claiming that the Jews were never in covenant with God. The latter (from the Epistle of Barnabas) disappeared from the Christian Bibles after the 4th century. But, as you observed earlier, the anti-judaizing rants of Christian leaders continued well into the fifth century (+John Chrysostom).

There is no other author of post-Pentecost Christianity other than +Paul. The Church in Jerusalem died out. We know next to nothing about its practices other than that it was very much like a synagogue and allegedly did not use the Eucharist.

It [the idea that Christianity is not Judaism] comes from people misreading Paul because they haven't done their homework in the Tanakh and the Gospel accounts first

How so? When +Paul preached 'his gospel' the Gospels were not written yet. From 44 until his death in the mid 60's of the first century, +Paul pretty much interpreted Christ's message to the Hellenized Jews and Gentiles without Gospels.

7,239 posted on 01/22/2007 8:12:37 AM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7215 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

Then saith he unto me, See [thou do it] not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God. – Rev 22:19

Other than that, I have nothing to say - because all of these people - whether Christian or Jew - who venerate these fellowservants by all appearances themselves do it out of love and humility.
= = =

Excellent points as usual. Thanks.


7,240 posted on 01/22/2007 8:20:35 AM PST by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7238 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
missing one of the names or titles of God is most disturbing to me. In this case, “God is the Rock.” In Hebrew, tzur - the Septuagint translation drops that term and uses something like God or Mighty One

Apparently, it wasn't disturbing enough for the Apostles, A-G, for they used the Septuagint (LXX).

I am not sure what wonderful combinations one can come up with by adding different accent marks, but one thing is for sure: whatever was written in the Septuagint was before Christ, and therefore cannot be accused of bias with respect to Him, unless you can show that dropping tzur is a latter-day corruption.

7,241 posted on 01/22/2007 8:25:46 AM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7236 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Can someone remind me why this is such a screaming issue?

It's not screaming it's alarming. Your western Bible is based on Hebrew OT, while the NT is chock-full of Septuagint-based OT quotes. As you probably surmized, the Apostles used LXX; Luther decided it was the Hebrew text that was 'more better.' But, then again, that was not the only thing Luther didn't get right.

IOW: we ain't readin' the same Bible, got it?

7,242 posted on 01/22/2007 8:35:59 AM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7229 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

On top of which Protestants claim to be saved by their Bible's alone. Reading the wrong version is a pretty big deal for them. (Less so for the Orthodox, who don't view the Bible as the standalone guide to Christianity or the sole source of doctrine)


7,243 posted on 01/22/2007 8:38:03 AM PST by kawaii (Orthodox Christianity -- Proclaiming the Truth Since 33 A.D.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7242 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
Christ did not teach abandoning the Law, circumcision, dietary restrictions, etc. That's where the disagreement between +Paul and the Apostles who knew Christ personally arose. To them, +Pauline gospel (he called it 'my gospel') rang foreign to what they remembered from Christ's teachings.

If this were true ... how could the Jerusalem Council (involving Peter, Paul, James, and others) ... agree to abandon circumcision as a requirement for Gentile christians ?

More importantly, if they were all inspired, and filled with Spirit, how could they be in disagreement?

It is the Spirit which works to bring our imperfect understandings ... into agreement ... with the Truth (of course).

He's obviously still working on it.

We are imperfect receivers ... if you will.

And again, looking at the issue from the opposite perspective, ...

Would we, could we ... agree on as much as we do ... without the guidance of the Spirit ?

7,244 posted on 01/22/2007 8:41:35 AM PST by Quester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7239 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; blue-duncan; annalex; wmfights; P-Marlowe; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; Blogger; xzins; ...
I'll have to break down your paragraph to give you a better answer. :)

Is it a tenet of Protestantism that the hierarchs who determined most of the canon of scripture you study were merely performing a sort of automated housekeeping project, ...

In my view, God ALONE determined what would be, and would not be in scripture. He alone caused it to be correctly written, determined within early practicing churches, and finally assembled formally according to His exact specifications. All those involved acted precisely as God had preordained it from before time. That would be the only way to ensure that the scriptures are not only inerrant, but perfect. The scriptures are God's revelations to His most beloved on earth. How could they be any less than perfect?

Yes, there are squabbles about translations and the Apocrypha, and such, but those are squabbles among men. I don't think that touches the idea that God DID, in fact, lay down one complete and perfect scripture. I would be fairly sure that none of us has a letter for letter copy of it. IMO, the vast majority of the problems come from interpretation, not translation.

... understanding little if anything of what they were reading, persisting as they did in their "unscriptural" liturgies and ecclesial structure, venerating icons, praying to saints, etc. ...

I have no idea how much the Fathers of that time understood, or didn't. I can't name a post, but I thought you had agreed earlier that in the first days the structure of the early Christian churches and the worship that was actually practiced was not at all under an "iron fist", as some would refer to it today. (Of course, this is much more so in Catholicism.) That would seem to leave open a lot of questions as to just how many actual Christians practiced the things you listed above.

In addition, the Bible is littered with examples of just how fast God's people turned against Him. The various experiences of Moses are one example. I make no comparison in degree, but merely point out that just because somebody does something "soon after" doesn't make it right by definition.

... so that, 1100+ years later, a few Western European guys angry at the medieval Papacy would finally and at long last sort of understand what was necessary for salvation and that from that "sort of" level of understanding arises the at long last harmonious theology of 21st century Protestantism?

Well, I think there is a debate on just when Reformed beliefs "started". Remember how many Patristic writings you have been so kind to show me I have found favor with? I figure there has to be a reason for that. I suppose it may go back to the interpretation of the interpreters. I do not at all think that my theology was "born" with the advent of the original Reformers. Those original Reformers were just the most famous ones to make a federal case out of it. :)

7,245 posted on 01/22/2007 8:42:16 AM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5891 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
In my view, God ALONE determined what would be, and would not be in scripture. He alone caused it to be correctly written, determined within early practicing churches, and finally assembled formally according to His exact specifications. All those involved acted precisely as God had preordained it from before time. That would be the only way to ensure that the scriptures are not only inerrant, but perfect. The scriptures are God's revelations to His most beloved on earth. How could they be any less than perfect?

Indeed Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit to accomplish just this! In fact there were 7 ecumenical councils where the representatives from EVERY CHURCH came together in the presence of the Holy Spirit to accomplish this. Not only were there hundreds of representatives there, there were thousands of priests, and lay folks there too!
7,246 posted on 01/22/2007 8:44:54 AM PST by kawaii (Orthodox Christianity -- Proclaiming the Truth Since 33 A.D.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7245 | View Replies]

To: kawaii; kosta50; Kolokotronis
On top of which Protestants claim to be saved by their Bible's alone.

The above is an extremely uneducated view. It would be like my saying that Catholics claim to be saved by the Pope alone.

Protestants claim to be saved "through grace alone, by faith alone, because of Jesus Christ alone."

7,247 posted on 01/22/2007 8:55:55 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7243 | View Replies]

To: Quester
If this were true ... how could the Jerusalem Council (involving Peter, Paul, James, and others) ... agree to abandon circumcision as a requirement for Gentile Christians?

It wasn't just circumcision; it was entire Judaism! You tell me how and why? Christ never said the Law did not apply because those who believe in Him are under grace. +Paul did. Justified under grace is not Judaism.

Even +Barnabas, who brought +Paul to Jerusalem, and was the only close friend of +Paul's at that time among Apostles, sided with +Peter and the rest.

The Church was dying. The Christians were being hunted (read up on the underground life of the Cappadocian Christians, where +Paul taught, living in carved out caved). Israel rejected Christ. In order for the Church to survive, it had to seek its existence elsewhere. Knowing the Gentiles would never accept Judaism, +Paul convinced the rest that it was "do or die."

It is the Spirit which works to bring our imperfect understandings ... into agreement ... with the Truth (of course)

Apostles had imperfect understanding, and they were inspired?

Would we, could we ... agree on as much as we do ... without the guidance of the Spirit?

I wouldn't give us that much credit. We don't even fully agree on the Holy Trinity or Christiology, although we may use the same words.

Two thousand years later, there is a huge body of Protestants who are agreeing only with themselves individually, a little bit here and a little bit there. There are 30,000 various Protestant 'churches' with their own theology and creeds. Even the Apostolic Church is in deep disagreement on some issues and has been for one thousand years.

The Church has failed miserably to stop secularization. In Europe 5% of the people attend church regularly. In America (some figures are over-inflated) the percentage is much higher, but America is a secular society through-and-through.

You call that a success? It's not the failure of the Spirit. We failed. Miserably.

7,248 posted on 01/22/2007 9:21:58 AM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7244 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis; blue-duncan; annalex; wmfights; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; Blogger; ...
Well, I think there is a debate on just when Reformed beliefs "started"

Well, the father of sola fide is Marcion. Some Baptist and reformed individuals see him as the start of the "alternative" church. In my opinion they couldn't have picked a better individual. :)

7,249 posted on 01/22/2007 9:25:10 AM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7245 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; xzins
FK's use of the term "Mother of Christ" as explained by him is not heretical. The fact remains, however, that it was just that term which expressed the Nestorian heresy, a heresy which arose out of a deficient understanding of the Trinity. Given the fact that there appears to be a fear (for whatever reason) that the use of the Council term Theotokos is code or misleading, isn't it therefore very dangerous, in this age of people who don't understand Christian Trinitarianism, to revert back to old heretical formulas?
Better still, call her the Mother of Jesus and then define who Jesus was, including at His incarnation and prior to. I would submit "Mother of God" doesn't deal with Jesus prior to the incarnation and therefore is deficient as well. Focussing on the person of Christ obliterates this confusion. Theotokos may be a term with some longevity in Orthodox circles. It doesn't appear that Orthodoxy has as many nominal "Orthodox" as other Christian groups do. However, we want our faith to communicate to the masses. Even 100 years ago when people actually read books (wonder of wonders), it would have caused less confusion. Today, you have very little opportunity to share who Christ is period. The mind shuts off very quickly. We have to be precise and clear in order to get that little "sound byte" which might register on the screen of their minds. Even more so the younger you get. Mother of Christ is not heretical any more than "Christ" is heretical because some people have misused it. It is more precise than Mother of God but less precise than the Biblical Mother of Jesus since there are many who call themselves Christ. So- why not stick with "Mother of Jesus" and then talk about who he was 100% God and 100% Man, our Savior, Justifier, King, Judge.
7,250 posted on 01/22/2007 9:26:47 AM PST by Blogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7221 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 7,151-7,2007,201-7,2507,251-7,300 ... 16,251-16,256 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson