Posted on 06/13/2011 3:57:07 PM PDT by HarleyD
In all of our postings and participation in threads, why would this be a surprise or an issue of contention to you?
However, my point was that the early Christians did not need the council of Nicea to figure it out for them and put it into writing. They had the Scriptures as well as the teachings of the Apostles, so they believed in the truth of the divinity of Christ and the triune nature of the Godhead long before Nicea.
Wrong. The early Councils were only convened in response to a crisis in the Church. Or crises. Nicea defined early Christianity, which was, shall we say, extremely variant at that point. One of them was Christology - hence the Nicene Creed.
Finally, I can tell by your response that you probably did not bother to read the article at the link. It discussed far more things than Tacitus.
It spent the first third on Tacitus and spent the rest throwing analogies about and using them as proofs. Believing Christians have no need of this author, and non Christians can use this article to attack Protestant Christianity at the very least.
So the Holy Spirit raped her? Jesus is a product of rape? Or is Mary just a slut in Protestant eyes?
Must there be arguments about EVERYTHING Iscool says???
Only if he says things which should be contested by Christians. Hmmm, maybe you're right.
The Councils were convened because of heretics that were trying to infiltrate the true faith. This was just as they were warned about wolves among the sheep and damnable heresies that would creep in. They were prepared because they had the teachings of the Apostles backed up by the Holy Scriptures and the presence of the Holy Spirit within them.
No, he had her permission.
Why attack me? Are these original or later additions? Yes or no.
Why on earth would the early Christians - who were mostly Jewish - reject the OT or discontinue reading it, proving Jesus as the Messiah from it and studying it?
You don't know this? They converted from Judaism. That meant that they were dead from Judaism. The OT did not mean anything because they had a new Testament from God. Read some history, please.
Honestly, sometimes I get the impression that the early church is thought to be nothing but a bunch of idiot bumpkins without The Church to show them everything.
They started to diverge immediately. Read Acts and Paul especially. The Church needed to herd them in because they were starting to believe in all kinds of weird things.
I'm honestly not picking on you tonight, Mark, but I find I must answer some of these wild things you are coming out with.
Let us see what you have.
2 Corinthians 5: 1 For we know that if our earthly dwelling, 1 a tent, should be destroyed, we have a building from God, a dwelling not made with hands, eternal in heaven. 2 2 For in this tent we groan, longing to be further clothed with our heavenly habitation 3 if indeed, when we have taken it off, 3 we shall not be found naked. 4 For while we are in this tent we groan and are weighed down, because we do not wish to be unclothed 4 but to be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now the one who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a first installment. 5 6 6 So we are always courageous, although we know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, 7 for we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 Yet we are courageous, and we would rather leave the body and go home to the Lord. 9 Therefore, we aspire to please him, whether we are at home or away. 10 For we must all appear 7 before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive recompense, according to what he did in the body, whether good or evil.
Nope. It says that we will all be Judged before God. No surety here.
Galatians 2: 15 15 We, who are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles, 16 (yet) who know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. 16
May be. It is up to Christ at our Judgement. No surety here either.
Romans 3:
Justification is not salvation. If it were salvation, Paul would have said that expressly.
24 For in hope we were saved. Now hope that sees for itself is not hope. For who hopes for what one sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait with endurance.
Hope of salvation. Not surety. Nope. Paul did not preach surety of salvation, as I have posted many times, with a great deal of Pauline verse. You guys have him all wrong.
I could go on, there are many, many more but it is late and time for bed. I find it hard to believe that a person who claims to study the Bible would ever say that Paul did not know he was saved.
Because he says so himself. You want the litany of verse once again? Remember that Paul also said that God wishes all men to be saved. That goes against the OSAS crowd does it not?
The Torah was translated by 72 Jewish scholars into Greek for the library of Alexandria in ---- > 300 BC <---- and that has NOTHING to do with Augustine or any of the others you mentioned .
You claimed that the Egyptians were pagan and were not Christian. You also picked the one Jewish reference out of a plethora of Christian references. Nice.
The Consensus Patrum overrules individuals.
The Protoevangelium is not Canon, yet it obviously seriously influenced the early Church.
Tell me who wrote 2 Peter ca. 150 AD and whether he was an eyewitness of Christ.
The Church’s belief about Mary started long before any NT Scripture was ever written.
That would make Mary a brother of Jesus...
Jesus is a child of God? How fascinating. And boatbums comes to the rescue of you. I wonder why this is, with your obvious non Christianity being advertised.
You guys crack me up...So the Holy Spirit and Mary had sexual intercourse according to your religion...
Ah, so you believe that God was a rapist or that Mary was a slut. Interesting.
God says Mary's husband was Joseph, NOT the Holy Spirit...And again, a marriage is the consumation of a couple...Again Mary and Joseph had sexual relations or God lied...
A marriage is NOT a consummation of a couple. It is a declared state. Many marriages are not consummated. Once again, Iscool, you get it boneachingly wrong.
Put that bible up before you hurt yourself, or more importantly, someone else...
Since I preach to you from the Bible and consistently in my entire posting history, I have no idea where you are coming from.
Thank you for illustrating my point.
We consider it a spiritual marriage of consent to God. As opposed to a physical marriage to Joseph. That way nothing is compromised.
Applause. You are correct, if you include the addition of the Tradition of the Church to that point.
No, he had her permission.
Umm, every lady of the night gives her permission as well. Will you answer the question?
If we operate from that point of view, it may prove worthwhile.
Can we admit that there is a wonderful and fruitful tension here, even if we agree on nothing else?
She was pledged to one man, yet she consented to bear a child that was not his.
I often think a good question can be more fruitful in the soul than even the right answer.
Clearly when we use words like "spouse", "daughter", and even "mother" about Mary, we are taking leave of our senses. That's almost exactly the right expression.
As I have said before (forgive me, it is the privilege of the old to be repetitious, because, well, who can stop them?):
Even to think about "one" with respect to God is to realize that our categories of thought are at least stressed if not blown apart by the Triune God.
When I became a father, after the flesh, I learned something about God. But what I learned, after a while, was that HE is the REAL Father, and I am a simulacrum, and not a very persuasive one, at that!
When Mary utters her "fiat" (as opposed, obviously, to her Alfa Romeo) all the rules of thought are stretched to the point of rupture.
Rape, obviously, will not do as a category. Neither with bastardy. We are treading new ground, ground which requires us to take our shoes off.
Can we not agree that there is a way in which even the guys on this forum can claim to have been at least invited to be the bride of Christ -- while at the same time we would rightly scoff at any interpretation of that statement which veered into sniggering jokes about homosexuality?
In the best case, the case we hope and pray for, the intimate and total mutual self-offering of husband and wife is fruitful. Their love is productive, generative, a source of new life.
Whatever happened between God and Mary was like that, only in spades. I mean, SUCH new life that from it new life was spread to all creation!
Isn't this what we all pray for? "Lord, may my assent, my complete and unreserved (or as complete and unreserved as this sinner can manage) assent to you be a vehicle through which you make life available to those who do not know you."
May my feeble attempt to give my will to you -- as I pray daily when I ask that your will be done -- make me an instrument with which you share your love with a world in tortured and crying need.
We offer, or we wish we could offer, to God a self-yielding and assent (in all the trashy novels, the woman is always crying, "Yes! Yes!" in moments of passion) that we husbands wish our wives would offer to us and which we at least THINK we offer to them.
So talking of Mary as spouse of God is in one way obviously inadequate and the material of jokes. But in another way, is it really so very bad?
Amen. Very well said. And just because we offer ourselves to God mind, body, heart and soul doesn't mean that we cannot still love our spouses with all our hearts. I think you make a very good point about how even men are to be the "bride" of Christ, so I think it beneficial to get beyond earthy and human connotations of the words and understand their spirit.
I honor Mary and admire her very much. I don't think I have ever said other than that. She was so brave at such a young age but her faith and trust in God to take care of all her cares and worries concerning what she was to do in his plan for our (and hers) salvation is a shining example to us all no matter our age or our gender. I agree that talking of Mary as the spouse of God certainly does render not only Scriptural problems but the opportunity for crassness that she does not deserve. She rejoiced in God her savior and so should we.
You wrote ->The Septuagint was written in Alexandria, by the way.
I wrote —>The Torah was translated by 72 Jewish scholars into Greek for the library of Alexandria in —— > 300 BC <—— and that has NOTHING to do with Augustine or any of the others you mentioned .
you wrote -—>You claimed that the Egyptians were pagan and were not Christian. You also picked the one Jewish reference out of a plethora of Christian references. Nice.
Who was Arius from Alexandria?
Why did the early Christians think of him ?
He denied the Deity of Christ and the trinity and so did many of text/works coming from Alexandria were considered the worst kind of manuscripts .
Oh but the include stuff like men are saved by works and scriptures should not be taken literally.
Hmmmmmmmmmm does not your Bible include the first 5 books ?
(that’s Torah and that is what was translated for the Library of Alexandria - the first 5 books 300BC for Ptolemy)
I think at this point we just hug and kiss each other and leave the hairy stuff to God.
I’m sure that there was an original Septuagint. It seems highly unlikely that there were parallel Septuagints created at the same time. But like the books of Scripture, they were copied with either inadvertant or deliberate changes over time.
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.