 |
| As we approach London, the New Agers have memories of 33 years ago. This was the 1979 Mind Body Spirit Festival where Benjamin Creme, Sir George Trevelyan, USA New Age leaders (Leland Steward, Barbara Marx Hubbard, Willis Harman et al) played a major role. The "Mind - Body - Spirit" festivals were major coming out parties for the New age Movement. They were expecting it might culminate in 1982 and similar to 1929 they had a major disappointment. This was given me by a client who was once active in the New Age Movement on an international scale. He has shared many other interesting materials as well which I will be putting out here. Constance |
Friday, July 13, 2012
London New Age -- 33 years ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
339 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 339 of 339"the couple would probably be forced to formally marry or some flogging."
I asked you what YOU would do if you were that judge in that situation. Replying with a lesson on moral philosophy is out of place - you have to make a spot decision what to DO. Your reply - written in the passive, and 'probably', and failing to quote any law which they supposedly broke - is more question-ducking.
Either you are not quoting such a law because you can't find it, or there isn't one. In the latter case, by advocating punishment you are ADDING TO THE LAW. Do you want reminding what Jesus said to the Pharisees about that?
I didn't mention money in my scenario because the witnesses who caught the couple did not see any. It may or may not be involved. Prostitution is another thing that God disapproves of but does not forbid in Mosaic Law a single woman who is not a virgin from doing. He will deal with that on the day of judgement too, rather than through earthly judges.
God recognises the difference between adultery and fornication, which you don't. Think it through, because in different situations this is the difference between who is the legitimate and the illegitimate heir. God also recognises the difference between virgin and anon-virgin, regardless of how the woman had lost it.
Exact passage please, Christine. We wouldn't want to add to the law, would we?
my answer was based on having read the WHOLE Torah and the rest of the bible through three times, each time in a matter of a few months.
Prostitution was EXPLICITLY FORBIDDEN to Israelite women Deut. 23:17 which also forbids Israelite men to be sodomites that I suppose means its permitted to go to either of such if they are not Israelite? there is also repeated that there is one law for the Israelite and the stranger among them, only exceptions being when there were laws that applied only to priests, or suchlike.
vs. 18 says that the wages of such are not to be brought to the house of The Lord, for such is abomination to Him, which effectively prohibits all this. "price of a dog" would relate to sodomy putting activities in the category of abomination would prohibit all parties pimp, whore of either sex, and the client.
yes I know the difference between fornication and adultery in the narrow sense, but it is a gradation. Polygamy is obviously adultery, but it is adultery with a relationship and responsibility context and presumably the permission of the other wives, who can leave without paying bride price back if the new gal gets more attention.
originally, the bonding leading to sex would result in a solid relationship and sense of belonging to each other. Later as sin warped us, marriage laws were developed.
in casual adultery and fornication you have no strings, no relationship, no nothing. The concubine was put on the same economic level as the formal wife and same right of leaving, and was not to be set loose at whim, no high traffic change of personnel harems.
"Do not prostitute your daughter, to cause her to be a harlot; lest the land fall into harlotry, and the land become full of wickedness." Lev. 19:29 for the land to become full of wickedness would mean the men the clients were being wicked.
obviously buying what it is forbidden to sell is prohibited that prohibition is built into the prohibition on selling.
you have to be playing very nit picky pharisaical games to think that going to a prostitute is allowed, if such a person's income and actions are abomination.
repent.
re axis flip, no I am not confusing these two, they are distinct. I am talking about PHYSICAL axis flip or at least change of angle. And there is some concern among some scientists that the migration of the magnetic pole, which is fast going WAY out of normal range of slight variation, might result eventually in causing such a physical change by engaging the magnetic elements in the mantle and crust.
This is a very minority worry.
However, old legends about sunrise in wrong place, if it isn't a warped memory of changes on the surface only, or of Joshua's long day, as it affected everyone else, would fit this scenario nicely.
A roll over that went angular in the same general direction as the rotation would not be overwhelming the problem is all those millions of square miles of water BULGING at the equator, which would SLOSH if disruption were too drastic. The bulge is caused by centrifugal force, and sea level isn't the same everywhere because of this.
"I am talking about PHYSICAL axis flip or at least change of angle. And there is some concern among some scientists that the migration of the magnetic pole, which is fast going WAY out of normal range of slight variation, might result eventually in causing such a physical change by engaging the magnetic elements in the mantle and crust."
Yes the earth's magnetic field is doing unusual things that might be the early stages of a flip. But the idea that this could cause a physical axis flip by interacting with magnetic rock is nonsense. There will be some tiny effect but if you actually calculate the numbers you find it is millions of times too small to make a significant difference. To calculate the numbers you have to understand the physics and then do the various multiplications competently.
"A roll over that went angular in the same general direction as the rotation would not be overwhelming the problem is all those millions of square miles of water BULGING at the equator, which would SLOSH if disruption were too drastic. The bulge is caused by centrifugal force, and sea level isn't the same everywhere because of this."
Look, the earth's angular momentum comes from the the entire mass of the earth rotating, whereas the angular momentum of all the water in the oceans is negligible, because the ocean depth averages a couple of miles few thousand feet whereas the radius of the earth is 4000 miles. So there is no possible mechanism there either.
We can relax about this.
Physicist
You can't find any prohibition on the widow and the single man fornicating in Mosaic Law can you Christine? Deut 23:17 is specific to pagan temple prostitution which was rife among ancient Israel's neighbors, and even so you have not considered the case in which they do it for lust not money. Check the Hebrew of Deuteronomy. If you say that they should nevertheless be punished then you are adding to the law and you, not I, are counted among the pharisees. It's wrongful action alright, but this is one that God punishes on the day of judgement, not through ancient Israel's judges.
the whole land falling to wickedness as an outcome in Lev. points to more than paganism, and Deut. is a prevention of pagan type temple prostitution or anything resembling it getting into YHWHism ON THE BASIS
THAT THIS IS ABOMINATION TO HIM.
What does that tell you? prostitution is an abomination to YHWH, so much so that He will not allow it in His cultus, nor any
money got from it to be presented.
THE PROHIBITIONS ARE BUILT IN. YOU ARE NOT READING THE TORAH AS A COHESIVE ORGANIC UNIT which is the way it is considered by rabbinic thinking.
In Christianity, the ritual part is eschewed ONLY because seen as pointing to and fulfilled in Christ. The moral parts are a continuation from the past (note Abraham assuming trouble in a land that didn't fear YHWH) and to the present.
I repeat, WHERE DO YOU FIND EXPLICIT PERMISSION TO GO TO A PROSTITUTE, OR TO ENGAGE IN CASUAL SEX WITH WHOEVER?
YOU DON'T.
Everything built into the Law contextually goes against this.
The very fact that prostitution is so abominable to God that He will not have it touch His cultus, shows that it is abominable period. Does He say no animal blood? NO does he say no money from normal sources? NO does He say no plant offerings? NO
HE SAYS NO MONEY GOT IN CONNECTION WITH PROSTITUTION AND NO HUMAN SACRIFICE OF INFANTS.
It is not PAGAN temple prostitution forbidden vs. YHWH temple prostitution, it is no prostitution to be any part of YHWH temple service even indirectly by bringing hire from such into it
BECAUSE IT IS ABOMINATION.
Anything called abomination is ipso facto prohibited, whether to do sell or buy or provide. The people are ALL to be HOLY.
in addition if no prostitution was involved, the solution would be to make them marry, and if it was part of a pattern of sleeping around this would be "playing the harlot" and probably result in flogging.
The dictates on marriage of a non married couple, presuppose they are known to each other, and focus on the need of paying the bride price even if no formal agreement had been made.
A seduction victim cannot be divorced though nothing about her choosing to divorce him, the prohibition on women initiating divorce developed much later in rabbinic law. Deut. deals with this, and some translations call it rape, but the KJV and NKJV show totally different words in use and in Hebrew they are not even related, and the non betrothed virgin is described in the same way as the willing adulteress "they are found." Option to not marry lies with the girl and her family.
The rape victim is described as like a murder victim, not like someone robbed of property belonging to another so not at fault, so this is clearly placed as a crime against her person rather than primarily against her husband or fiance, which opens the door to execution for anyone who rapes anyone regardless of the victim's status.
Christine,
Let me put it another way. A widow and a single man in ancient Israel are caught in fornication by two witnesses. They end up before the local judge. The man says to the judge: "Where did Moses state any penalty for what we did? We are both single and she was not a virgin. If you can't find any penalty in Moses then you can lecture us all you like about morality but then have to let us go free, don't you?"
Informed by Mosaic Law, how would you respond, and why?
I acknowledge your freedom to discuss related subjects but in any reply please include an answer to this specific question.
Forget Javier.
www.harunyahya.com/en/works/122974
"..the end of the world will be so
fine and glorious.."
Moses did not give specific penalties for a lot of things in fact, very few. But flogging was to be under 40 lashes. Punishment could be scaled.
given the precedent of demanding that when a sexual partner is known they marry (and if she's a virgin the bride price get's paid but this is irrelevant here) I would say, are they a steady couple and don't do this with others? marry them to each other. If this is casual with other partners allowed, flog them. if the steady partner is another, flog them and if the steady partner will have whoever, make a marriage. if they are betrothed to each other, this doesn't matter since a betrothal ranked like a marriage notice a betrothed virgin is referred to as her fiance's woman.
If either one of them is in the habit of seducing with lies about love and so forth and is unfaithful, the various victims can decide the result. Which could get real serious.
If this is a onetime event that was caught, marry them off to each other. If they refuse, flog them let them go and publically penalize them as unworthy people, public shaming. Maybe fines.
I already explained in less detail what the likely result would be.
DA14 various articles show the astronomers can't get their stories straight on its size, how close it will come, admit it could knock out a satellite, and the exact orbit is unknown.
That means it is a definite possible impact. That it would hit in the south strikes me as dubious given the orbital diagram.
If it does release the same power as tunguska, well, that was felt in London. How that could mean only a small tsunami I don't know, that depends on a lot anyway.
Christine,
I will take your word for this, But, in a culture of pre-marital sex, where people are not pressured to marry, is that if they marry someone else later, to whom are they married?
Savvy
whoever they agree. However, a touch of adultery stains everything because of the one flesh condition vis a vis others. If any of these others were persons they should NEVER have this condition with that is additional sin. The act of sex without permanent intent and commitment is sort of like
intending to commit adultery, and since it is not a marriage of any sort by intent, it is flawed and adulterous (diluting, contaminating)in itself. It is AS IF one got married with the intent of committing adultery as soon as possible.
Who has primary claim on the parties? well, in chaos the best thing is just sort it out by having the cycle stop at where they are, or with the favorite if that person is free. Whatever promotes stability and cessation of sin. Especially if pregnancy or children are in the picture.
An excellent program a Texas high school did, was to keep the pregnant girls in school, and put them and the fathers of their children through parenting and job skills classes.
The hypocritical conservatives screamed about this, wanting things invisible rather than not happening. Here is a program that puts an end to the problem, gets them family-ized and responsible, and sends a message to everyone.
The usual approach of the girl leaves school and hides, does nothing to penalize the boy, nor does it help her about the child.
This approach even if done from pragmatic atheist but realistic rather than Chritian premises, nonetheless is far more consistent with Christian premises, in that it promotes responsibility, parenting, and eventually marriage and breaking them up would merely set them up for more of the same with other partners later.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48264100/ns/local_news-san_francisco_bay_area_ca/t/firewalk-tony-robbins-event-injures/
I guess this Tony Robbins event went a little too far in the firewalking. The name of his conference is interesting "Unleash the Power Within"
Constance's link group incl. the Herescope blog ("have you checked your daily herescope?") it is about all kinds of heresies plagueing the churches.
The second link is very important, and also shows the serpent seed heresy was taught by William Branham back of a lot of pentecostal stuff especially Latter Rain and derived teachings, which Constance exposes in A PLANNED DECEPTION.
the background is the first link.
http://www.herescope.blogspot.com/2012/07/nephilim-eschatology.html
http://www.herescope.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-serpent-seed-nephilim.html
Now, A real good book on transhumanism and its agenda which incl. this false teaching, but has LOTS of good information incl. a bit about exorcism, and witchcraft sneaking into the churches, is
FORBIDDEN GATES by Tom Horn, a major player in this nephilim stuff.
Teo takes on it are his crowd, that think it goes on now and that such hybrids are not saveable, and another guy who argues this is a delusion, it happened long ago and never again. A third take is its real, but they are saveable.
A nephilim hunting outfit seems to be trying to start up, based on the first take on this.
Tom Horn himself has extensive background in the military industrial complex, DARPA connections, etc. and taking this in light of Nick Redfern's findings in FINAL EVENTS makes me figure Horn is part of some agenda that would use this as an excuse for totalitarian rule in the US.
Whatever. Read the links.
Dear Constance, I pray that your family issues will be resolved quickly and that you will be given support to give your best attention to your life priorities. I have never written to you before but have benefited from your comments and observations. Today I was so upset that I had to plough through 217 irrelevant blogs looking for comments more in the line of Herb Peters. Would it be possible to limit each blogger to just three short comments on your own postings. Most of what is here lately is mind-numbing and far away from your subject of the NAM. I know you're busy but there's so little on the Internet that provides your expertise in the NAM. By the way, what's happened to Holly Pivec? Doesn't she believe her late father's observations any more? Look after your own health. Beni.
http://www.fulfilledprophecy.com/page/site-owners/
Holly and her husband are the site owners.
"DA14 various articles show the astronomers can't get their stories straight on its size, how close it will come, admit it could knock out a satellite, and the exact orbit is unknown."
It shows that reporters and amateurs can't get their facts straight. The astronomers know the orbit to good accuracy which is why they say it will come 17000 miles from us, not 20000 or 10000. Its exact size is harder to determine, but that is irrelevant to the orbital dynamics.
"That means it is a definite possible impact."
Rather than a possible definite impact?
It's not going to hit, relax.
Physicist
I asked: "A widow and a single man in ancient Israel are caught in fornication by two witnesses. They end up before the local judge. The man says to the judge: "Where did Moses state any penalty for what we did? We are both single and she was not a virgin. If you can't find any penalty in Moses then you can lecture us all you like about morality but you then have to let us go free"... how would you respond, and why?"
Christine replied: "are they a steady couple and don't do this with others? marry them to each other. If this is casual with other partners allowed, flog them. if the steady partner is another, flog them and if the steady partner will have whoever, make a marriage."
Christine, you have just added to the law. Take it up with Jesus, not me.
The Olympic opening ceremony in London on Friday is, among other things, to celebrate British culture by telling "the story of two girls defying their parents to head out on the town, aided and abetted in meeting their friends by social media. Their journey takes them through nightclubs playing music from the great decades of British popular music, from the 60s to the Noughties." (Daily Telegraph)
For the sake of veracity I presume that they are depicted getting drunk, vomiting on the pavement, and then picking up two men who get them pregnant, after which one has an abortion and the other is given a free flat and a generous allowance on the taxpayer while her child goes on to follow in her mother's footsteps.
O what has happened to my country?
Brit
Dear Physicist,
I am aware that this question falls in the realm of speculation, but do you think that there may have been an "axis flip" at the time of the Flood?
And if so, do you think this might partially account for our not being able to find the places where the antedeluvian civilizations flourished?
This question has long intrigued me.
" Its exact size is harder to determine, but that is irrelevant to the orbital dynamics.'
nonsense. size involves mass affects orbital dynamics and they don't even know the full orbit yet.
Susanna,
This is Physicist. I believe that science and scripture positively accord - because both originate with God - with the exception of miracles. On this basis I have an understanding of Genesis 1 that satisfies me. The Flood is trickier, however. The narrative makes clear that all humans are descended from ONLY the 8 persons on the Ark (and some of those were closely related - Noah, his wife, their 3 sons and *their* wives.) That is a genetic bottleneck. There should likewise be a genetic bottleneck in animal species at the same epoch. But geneticists don't find that. (It works for house cats, incidentally - they all seem to be derived from a small number of females in the Middle East some thousands of years ago. But this makes the issue for other species worse, because it shows that the Bible backs up much of the genetics involved.) Also, there is more genetic diversity among humans in Africa than among everybody else, indicating that a sub-population of humans migrated out of Africa to colonise the rest of the world. Yet the Ark came down in URARTU in Mesopotamia (forget Mt Ararat, the same word in Hebrew), and the Tower of Babel from which we dispersed is believed to have been located round there too.
Local or global flood? If local, so as to wipe out all the nephilim and all humans in the restricted area into which they had spread out by that stage, why preserve animals, especially birds? If a global flood, where did the water come from and go to? The water accountancy might be dealable with by supposing that Noah's area was flooded but that the high mountains were covered with a blanket of snow in a short-term global cooling event caused by some natural cataclysm. That too would explain why much land was not wrecked for plant growth by salt from sea water. But what kind of cataclysm could cause this, followed by recession of the waters after a month or so, is not clear to me. I don't see how an axis flip would help.
We are told that it rained for a month and that the sources of the great ocean were broken asunder (literal translation). Rain does not normally cause sea level to rise, so what else was going on? The Hebrew is consistent with the break-up and melting of an ice sheet. But again, by what mechanism?
The Flood narrative is challenging. As a scientist and evangelical Christian I intend to live in the tension and keep pondering. I will not default to either secular denial of scripture or to blithe creationist ridiculing of scientific principles that they have no understanding of. The scenario I have outlined is a start and I hope it can be taken further. Sorry I can't be more helpful at this stage. May God be with you.
Physicist
Me: "Its exact size is harder to determine, but that is irrelevant to the orbital dynamics.'
Christine: "nonsense. size involves mass affects orbital dynamics"
So you think that if you drop a 2-pound weight then it takes a different length of time to fall to the ground than a 1-pound weight?
Physicist
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/24/greenland-ice-sheet-thaw-nasa/print
Frankly I think there is some subsurface volcanism to blame. i suspected the same for Antarctica and someone pooh poohed it, then a while later there was a brief mention of some such thing going on.
"So you think that if you drop a 2-pound weight then it takes a different length of time to fall to the ground than a 1-pound weight?"
Now I am back to suspecting your credentials are phony.
This has nothing to do with it. Any astronomer beginning class text or teacher will tell you that the mass of an object in space has something to do with its orbital dynamics especially issues like how its orbit can be affected.
Trash Christine, the situations are exactly the same: motion under the influence of the gravitational interaction between the earth and something much lighter than itself, whether an asteroid, a 1-pound weight or a 2-pound weight. ('Much lighter' means that the effect on the earth's orbit of the asteroid or weight is negligible compared to the effect of the earth on the asteroid's motion.)
To help you see what I'm saying, suppose I landed on the asteroid and sawed it non-explosively in two. Now we have not one asteroid but two smaller ones. If orbit (relative to the earth) depended on mass then they would suddenly lurch and diverge from their former trajectory. But it should be intuitively obvious that they just carry on, touching each other along the sawed surface but neither pressing against each other nor diverging.
If you can't understand this then the least you could do is show a little humility and shut up about physical science. You are confusing people.
Physicist
('Much lighter' means that the effect on the earth's orbit of the asteroid or weight is negligible compared to the effect of the earth on the asteroid's motion.)
which is eactly why, in the absence of certainty of DA14's orbit, and if anything disturbs it, why the earth could pull it in.
asteroid or not asteroid, cumbre vieja is only a matter of time, and that will take out the east coast. maybe not this year, but unless God restrains it, that collapse will send a huge tsunami our way.
New Madrid Fault is another when not if.
And there's the economy. Stuff you buy cheaper now that is more expensive later you don't have to spend money on later.
SO STORE STUFF UP.
Me: "'Much lighter' means that the effect on the earth's orbit of the asteroid or weight is negligible compared to the effect of the earth on the asteroid's motion."
Christine: "which is eactly why, in the absence of certainty of DA14's orbit, and if anything disturbs it, why the earth could pull it in."
The calculation of its trajectory, based on observations of where it was at earlier times, knowledge of the earth's orbit round the sun, and the gravitational effect on it of the earth and of the sun, HAS BEEN DONE. That is where the 17000 miles figure for closest approach came from. If you look at the calculations you will find that its mass was not needed and I have given an intuitive explanation why. If you don't understand that then you are hardly likely to understand the equations themselves - Newton's laws in mathematical form with the inverse-square law for gravitational interaction.
Physicist
I don't need equations or understanding them, to notice that the officials, when not reassuring us, are hemming and hawing and by their own admission do not know the thing's actual orbit.
Chances are whatever DOES hit us will be something we did not see coming until it was on us.
Did you know that astronomers admit the total number of NEOs is unknown?
"I don't need equations or understanding them, to notice that the officials, when not reassuring us, are hemming and hawing and by their own admission do not know the thing's actual orbit."
You are simply repeating comments that I have shown repeatedly to be wrong above; the trajectory is known easily to sufficient accuracy to be certain it will miss us. You say that officials by their own admission do not know the orbit of Asteroid 2012 DA14. Name one, together with the relevant quote (and not from the day this asteroid was discovered, when we wouldn't have known its position and velocity to sufficient accuracy as that takes observation over some time to ascertain).
"Did you know that astronomers admit the total number of NEOs is unknown?"
Yes, of course. It depends on how near and what size. Grains of space dust a million miles away are NEOs but we don't worry about them. Make a specific statement and we can discuss it constructively.
Physicist
the specific statement, NEOs not being all catalogued and these incl. earth crossers if you know all that much you shouldn't have to have a map drawn for you
here's the map.
NEOs incl. earth orbit crossers, total number unknown = somewhere out there is something we know nothing about that will get close enough especially if something disrupts its normal orbit, as does happen now and then, to smack us.
therefore everyone should revive the old custom in the days of past centuries even into the mid 1900s, and keep a pantry well stocked, have a couple of months of supplies on hand.
Most people don't know this, but almost no stores keep an inventory to speak of. They have computer programming to determine what to order based on what is sold or asked for repeatedly.
These deliveries are once or twice a week.
No store has much more than three days of food at any given time.
If there is a major disruption of the supply lines at any time the places affected - and you may not be, or you may be affected - will be in bad shape for quite a while.
Govt. help is unreliable and minimal, just look at the mess during Katrina. and they even wouldn't let civilians bring in water and food from outside.
Twelve Steps for Recovering New Agers
http://www.snakelyone.com/12step.htm
Message from www.thewarningsecondcoming.com
on June 1, 2012 @ 8:15pm
"666 will be embedded, its number hidden, into a chip which you will be forced to accept just as you would any vaccination."
Catherine
Message from
www.thewarningsecondcoming.com
on June 17, 2012 @ 8:15 pm
"Their wicked plans also include a new global vaccination which will create disease all over the world."
Found in the above message..."They have been planning the introduction of the Mark of the Beast, a chip which every man and woman will be forced to have implanted in their bodies to access food..."
Catherine
Christine,
It is a scientific fact that sex by it's very nature speaks the language of permanence and marriage, regardless of how much our culture wants to deny it.
"Our bodies conspire in a myriad of ways to make sex a permanent, self-giving act. Hormonally, sexual arousal and intercourse set off a chain reaction designed to keep married couples bound together. Women experience a flood of oxytocin -- the same hormone which they produce in labor and in nursing a baby. Oxytocin causes a woman to be forgetful, decreases her ability to think rationally -- and causes an incredibly strong emotional attachment to form with the man she is with. Men also produce some oxytocin during sexual intercourse. But their bodies also produce a hormone called vasopressin. Vasopressin, called "the monogamy molecule," kicks in after sexual activity, and its impact is to heighten a man’s sense of responsibility. It encourages that part of him which says, "My gosh, she may be carrying my child! I’d better get serious about life! I’ve got to get to work, to provide for this family!"
- Mary Beth Bonacci
Studies have also shown that oxytocin is more strongly formed with the first person you sleep with.
Anon@6:47 p.m
Christine is right from the scientific perspective too.
Marriage simply affirms what already exists, such as love, commitment etc. Legal marriage did not cause these things. It was a result of this.
"Studies have also shown that oxytocin is more strongly formed with the first person you sleep with"
Which studies, and by how much? I rather doubt that this has any significant effect. God smiles upon the remarriage of respectable widows.
Yes, sex bonds a couple. That is one reason why it should be reserved for marriage. (The likelihood of children is another.) But it is not the case that a single man and a virgin who have sex become married in God's eyes by the very act. That view is too mystical and modern-Western-romantic. According to Mosaic Law they enter a situation in which they *should* get married. What does getting married mean? It involves acknowledging that you are entering a relationship that is permanent, intimate and exclusive, and public in character. In the Ancient Near East dowries and bride-prices, each having a distinct function, were exchanged. The contractual aspects of marriage have been blithely ignored by those who take the mystical viewpoint, but nobody in ancient Israel would have regarded a marriage as existing without them. When God legislated ancient Israel he used words in the way that they would have been understood then. He said that such a couple must GET married, not that they were married in His sight.
Notice that this legislation applies to a man and a virgin but not to a man and a widow. So according to the mystical view, a man and a virgin who have sex are married in God's eyes, but a man and a widow are not. That is absurd.
Christine: "Did you know that astronomers admit the total number of NEOs is unknown?"
Me: "Yes, of course. It depends on how near and what size. Grains of space dust a million miles away are NEOs but we don't worry about them. Make a specific statement and we can discuss it constructively."
Christine: "the specific statement, NEOs not being all catalogued and these incl. earth crossers... total number unknown = somewhere out there is something we know nothing about that will get close enough especially if something disrupts its normal orbit, as does happen now and then, to smack us."
That's a specific statement? I meant that all objects above what size have been categorized to how far away from us? In all physics discussions there comes a point when, to go any further, you have to look at the numbers. Anybody who can't do that should accept that they are out of their depth and leave the arena to those who understand. Persons who are serious can learn some more physics and come back, of course. We welcome that.
Physicist
As I said, you take what is there and you work with that if the situation is not described exactly.
WHAT IS IT MOST SIMILAR TO? WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW THAT EXISTS?
if widow/divorcee was Israelite and taking money or many partners so "playing the harlot" there was the death penalty SO THAT THE LAND NOT FALL INTO WICKEDNESS. This concern would apply in this situation. Is this wickedness or sloppiness?
How do you define wickedness? Canaanites a model, don't be like them, and they did this. IF THE PEOPLE FALL INTO WICKEDNESS GOD WILL SEND PLAGUE OR INVASION.
concubine status was legtitimate it is intimate, exclusive and public but as for permanent, divorce was possible at will as in marriage.
My point about sex and marriage is fornication is AS IF you got married intending divorce and adultery as quickly as possible, The one flesh situation exists.
So how do you deal with it? If it is with someone (same sex, animal or too close relative) where it should not exist in the first place, death.
If not, then you have several options.
The point about sex is it CREATES the one flesh situation AUTOMATICALLY in and of itself. never mind if you feel bonded or not.
St. Paul in I cor. 6 quote makes that very clear, the context is harlotry. The rule still holds.
BUT HE DOES NOT SAY, you must marry last prostitute you were But disorder must be put in order. If you have a secret lover, take the person as mate publically.
In Pau's time Roman law had three forms of marriage. propertied people used a formal thing in a temple seeking blessing of false gods. This is the format we use now, seeking the True God's blessing. The second level for average people less formal but had contract.
The third was "usus" if a couple lived together for a year and a day.
This element I think was required in any marriage and I read that many women would leave their husband's home for one night a year, to avoid coming altogether under his authority.
Usus was normative for the element that most Christians were drawn from since few wise, powerful or wealthy joined observed Paul but he didn't denounce usus marriage.
Basically the distinction is like that among street people, bikers etc. between a woman who is with only one man, and rarely changes partners, and one who sleeps around, maybe stays with a man a few weeks. The latter would be in rap terms a "ho," whether she took pay or not.
Exacty the same categorizing is shown, when the man who seduces a girl has to marry her, and she being a virgin under her father's roof must have bride price paid for her, the focus being pay up don't escape this by eloping so to speak,
yet is NOT referred to as "playing the harlot."
And since the focus of the rule about the virgin is the bride price, there is no reason to exclude the marriage formal or at least concubine formal issue, simply because she is not a virgin, it only means there would be no pay.
The bride price transfers the fruit of a womb from one family lineage to another.
In I Chronicles we see a man of Judah had no sons, so he married his daughter to his Egyptian slave, and raised the resulting sons to his family name, and these are enrolled as in Judah. Here the woman was not transferred to another lineage, and the original built in matrilineality ("leave his father and mother and cleave to his woman" "she is my sister but the daughter of my father not of my mother" Abraham "the foal follows the dam" Arab bedouin horse breeding and ownership issues principle) was revived, and the Egyptian slave was taken to her, instead of vice versa and she and her children remained in her father's lineage.
Please look up the meaning of eisegesis and exegesis, Christine. Your lengthy response and failure to quote any verse of Mosaic Law constitutes the former. By reasoning in a loose manner from situations covered in Mosaic Law to something not covered you are in fact adding to the law and in effect saying that God got it wrong.
There are sharp penalties for nonmarital sexual activity of virgins, married women and priest's daughters. Nonmarital sexual activity by other women and by men are, while deplored by God, not legislated against. God was put on the spot by human sin - He had to come up with a legal code that would be accepted by ancient Israel (remember He gave them the choice of turning him down) and sometimes He had to choose the lesser of two sins. If He does not legislate against something that is wrong, you can be sure He will see to it on the day of judgement. Saying that ancient Israel should penalise something when Mosaic Law didn't is simply putting you among the Pharisees.
Regarding the one-flesh mystical view of marriage, you have not dealt with the reductio ad absurdum argument against it presented in the last paragraph at 3.00am.
Anon@12:14 p.m.
Marriage is only until death. But, the fact about oxycotin is true.
"Outside of marriage oxytocin can make life confusing because of the bonding and break-ups between people. The strongest oxytocin bond is formed with the first person you have sex with in your life. The more partners a person has the weaker the bond becomes with each different sexual relationship.
Source(s):
Dr. Miriam Grossman, M.D., psychiatrist, and author of Unprotected: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness Endangers Every Student
Eric J. Keroack, M.D., FACOG and Dr. John R. Diggs Jr., M.D., "Bonding Imperative," A Special Report from the Abstinence Medical Council
Now this does not mean that a widow cannot form an emotional bond with her new husband.
It's commonly known that women generally get more depressed than men when they have more sexual partners.
I am taking a logical perspective here. Sexual brain chemistry in men and women, is designed to speak the language of permanence and parenthood, regardless of whether conception takes place.
In men the Vasopressin, increases the protective side of them, the same as in a when a parent would want to protect their offspring.
The scientific studies are shown here.
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=1492
Now Marriage simply affirms what already exists in the very make-up of men and women. And this is how marriage laws developed.
Someone I know, a non-Christian once told me, that he felt more married when his daughter was born, than when the legal marriage took place after that.
A sexual relationship already affirmed what legal marriage does.
Now, if someone sleeps with someone they are not married too, it is wrong, simply because they are not intending the language of permanence, with an act that causes it.
The re-married widow is intending the language of permanence.
Anon@12:14 p.m.
The scientific evidence on sexual brian chemistry proves that sex is one-flesh union or marriage.
This is what Jesus meant by marriage, the two becoming one flesh.
This is not just mystical. It's just an added bonus that science confirms what God already proposed.
"The scientific evidence on sexual brian chemistry proves that sex is one-flesh union or marriage. This is what Jesus meant by marriage, the two becoming one flesh."
It is good to learn about the hormonal basis of bonding. But this knowledge does not constitute scientific proof that, in your words, "sex is marriage". To assert that is to go one step beyond what is actually implied. We have here scientific reason why sex should be done only in marriage and not outside marriage. This provides the Why underlying one of God's regulations. (Another Why concerns the conception of children, of course.) We agree about a lot. But to say that "sex is marriage" is to ignore the biblical description of the word marriage as a covenant, to ignore the understanding of the word in the culture of Jesus' day, and to raise paradoxes like which (if any) of her clients a repented prostitute should marry, and why.
Catherine,
Thank you for sharing that link on the chip implant. You can find the article by clicking 666 in the site search. There is alot of other very interesting information about the world getting prepared for the anti-christ in that site. I have been seeing a lot more information coming out on this chip implant and even the possibility that this is included in the new health care plan where it talks about a "national registry device". That seems to be a very subtle term they are calling it.
sex is not marriage but originally designed as like that, marriage originally was like the mating of two animals of a monogamous species.
After people started doing sex without such a mating context or with those they should not be doing it with, or adding additional mates, distinctions had to be made.
"Please look up the meaning of eisegesis and exegesis, Christine. Your lengthy response and failure to quote any verse of Mosaic Law constitutes the former. By reasoning in a loose manner from situations covered in Mosaic Law to something not covered you are in fact adding to the law and in effect saying that God got it wrong."
WRONG. not loose. cohesive, consistent taking the WHOLE thing into account, and doing EXACTLY what the priests and later rabbis did in dealing with a matter not specifically covered or too hard to decide and it was referred to the priests.
you prove you know the Mosaic Law well enough to show me that place where it says, if a decision is too hard for the local judges it goes to the priests, and I haven't given you precise wording anywhere to speak of here, so you can't just google it that easy and go to a Bible link.
read the whole thing. Learn to apply the whole thing.
I might add, that Jesus was by your definition doing eisegesis when He said regarding divorce, this was allowed for the hardness of your hearts, but from the beginning it was not so, and then cited Genesis not part of the code specifics given to Moses, but the context and overarching guide.
you are trying to nit pick and find an escape hatch for things, and in this resemble the pharisees who made twisted traditions by twisted exegesis.
when was the last time you picked up The Bible, started at Genesis 1:1 and kept on reading till you were too tired to go, and then started the next day from the place you left off, and do this until you finished the Torah, or for that matter THE ENTIRE BIBLE OT AND NT?
I have done this three times. (Granted on the third I skimmed a bit in genealogies and psalms.)
Anon@2:41 p.m.
I agree that Marriage is a covenant. But, are there are certain features that define it.
Are you saying that any two parties who enter into a contract with each other that is exclusive, and life-long are married?
Christine just answered your question. Sex was originally designed to be just that.
As for your question, the prostitute does not have to marry her clients, because there was no intention of permanence.
But this does not change the fact that her sin is not intending the marital act with the marital act.
You could call it fraud.
Christine,
Re the referral to the priests of difficult cases in law, that's in Deuteronomy 17.
There's a big difference in Mosaic Law between complex or grey areas where the priests become involved, and areas over which God is silent - as in the case of fornication between a widow and a single man. In having the couple flogged or insisting that they marry you are adding to the Law. See Jesus on that.
As you ask, I have read closely through the Bible and am currently working through a series of approximately 1000 tapes by my favourite Bible teacher David Pawson, who goes through all of the New Testament and about 1/3 of the Old line by line. I warmly recommend him to you and others here. And I have given a sermon in which I compared Mosaic Law against Hammurabic Law, Roman Law, mediaeval Catholic law, Sharia law and modern secular law.
When Jesus commented on divorce in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 He was entering a rabbinic debate between the schools of Shammai and Hillel.
"Are you saying that any two parties who enter into a contract with each other that is exclusive, and life-long are married?"
Nice question! If and only if it is also intimate, public knowledge and between man and woman, then Yes. I did mention all those caveats above, although not every caveat in every post.
Dear Physicist,
Thank you for your thoughtful answer to my question regarding a possible "axis flip."
I agree that it is better to live in the tension rather than to default to secular or creationist speculations.
May God Be With You As Well.
Jesus in saying divorce is not really ultimately legitimate only allowed by Moses as a concession, was "adding to the Law" in your definition, because He not only just spoke on a matter the Law was silent on, which is EXACTLY what the priests and levites were to do, solve such problems as they arose, HE ALSO CONTRADICTED THE LAW AS MAKING THE OFTEN DIVORCED AND REMARRIED TRULY CHASTE AND NOT GUILTY OF ANY DEGREE OF ADULTERY.
A classic example of this process occurs when the daughters of Zelophehad came before God through Moses on an inheritance issue, wanting to have their father's inheritance, who died without sons, and not in the rebellion of Korah and Dathan.
It was ruled that in such case the daughter must inherit, but she must not marry outside her tribe so the property doesn't travel tribe to tribe. (Obviously the issue is real estate not personal moveable property. So when they entered Canaan, the lot that would have fallen to their father became theirs.)
Now the BECAUSE is added, so if one had fallen in love with a man of another tribe, all she would have to do would be to pass her share on to her sisters or to a man in her tribe, and then marry, OR get the man to repudiate his tribe and join hers.
This is not adding this is interpreting and applying.
Once Moses was dead, things weren't that easy to sort out. Prior to that event, the LAW WAS SILENT on whether a woman could or should inherit. God Himself filled that gap.
The same process would follow later.
So by your definition, once God had proclaimed on inheritance, then LATER filled that silent zone, the female being not prohibited nor specified as a possible heir, you could argue God had engaged in eisegesis?
All I see you doing is scrambling to find an okay zone for fornication, under various excuses.
Fornication, whether as a cologuialism applied to casual sex, or technically referring to sex for pay, whether involving false gods or secular reasons was in the category of wickedness.
So why do you need a special specific you haven't the brains to sort out and apply what is there, what was given to people among whom apparently this didn't go on so it was a moot point at the time?
USE WHAT IS MOST SIMILAR, AND KEEP THE LARGER CONTEXT IN MIND.
The dispute between Gamaliel and Hillel was precisely this kind of thing. "some uncleanness" was not specified so it was a gray area. fornication by widowed or divorced single people would also be a gray area according to you, though obviously if this were allowed the land would become "filled with wickedness" just as much as if it was secular prostitution, sex for money or other consideration.
Notice that in Judges, when Samson went to an attractive courtesan, his situation went downhill from there. Obviously God was against this act.
Anon@5:58 p.m.
A public marriage between a man and a woman affirms what already exists. It does not make something suddenly a marriage. Shotgun weddings are not a marriage.
For a long time, Christianity had no public weddings, but did have a marriage. This was conferred by couple to each other.
A public wedding was put in place for witnesses who could give an account, when the validity of xyz marriage was in question.
Marriage did not require a priest or minister like it does today.
Jesus himself changed Mosaic law, or rather took it back to the covenant designed 'from the beginning'.
Physicist,
My friend Professor Alice Lindsey is an Anthropologist who approaches genesis from this perspective. She is not a creationist, but also does not dismiss the historical basis for these accounts, because of similar ones found in Neolitic civlizations.
She contends that African-Asiatic religions which are the world's oldest did have a biblical worldview.
You can read her at Just Genesis.
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.ca/
Dear Anon@9.02pm,
This is the Anon to whom you were responding. You wrote: "A public marriage between a man and a woman affirms what already exists."
I wonder if you are projecting modern ideas of romance on to Old Testament culture, in which marriages were frequently arranged between parents of teenage boys and girls. Provided that the parents were compassionate enough to heed any feedback from their children after an introduction, I see nothing wrong with such a system. But it does mean there was not a strong relationship before the day of the marriage, and presumably (and hopefully) that no sexual relationship was already in existence.
Moreover, the contractual aspect comes into being only when the couple pledge exclusivity and permanence to each other. Nowadays those pledges are in public, in words, and in the presence of a State-recognised priest or registrar. I do accept that this was not the case historically. There was nothing wrong with that, provided that the couple understood what marriage meant, and that the authorities knew who was married and who was not. (The authorities have to know because marriage has legal consequences.)
"Shotgun weddings are not a marriage."
I think they are. God commands them in Mosaic Law where a man seduces a virgin.
"Marriage did not require a priest or minister like it does today."
I agree - see above. Moreover, where the priest/registrar says that he now declares the couple husband and wife, he is asserting an authority that he does not have. The couple have authority to declare themselves married (provided it's not bigamous); what the priest/registrar is actually doing is RECOGNISING the marriage on behalf of the authorities.
An interesting historical note is that the move to formal pledges, witnessed by someone recognised by the State, took place (at the Council of Trent in Catholic lands and in the mid-18th century in England) because marriages contracted in this way were taken more seriously in the event of unhappiness than the less formal older way. But I agree that there is nothing wrong with that older way - it was the norm in Jesus' day. Even then, though, there had to be a day on which the father of the bride permits the groom to begin sleeping with his daughter; and on that day he demands a formal commitment from the groom to take care of her. It is easy to see how it all got formalised.
Are we converging?
"Jesus in saying divorce is not really ultimately legitimate only allowed by Moses as a concession, was "adding to the Law" in your definition, because He not only just spoke on a matter the Law was silent on, which is EXACTLY what the priests and levites were to do, solve such problems as they arose, HE ALSO CONTRADICTED THE LAW"
Jesus contradicted His Father's word? Please be careful, Christine.
Jesus demanded higher standards from those who followed Him than those who aimed simply to keep the Law of Moses. But this was not adding to the Law, because His movement was a voluntary one within ancient Israel.
"All I see you doing is scrambling to find an okay zone for fornication, under various excuses."
I said explicitly and often above that certain situations of fornication are wrong and would be dealt with by God on the Day of Judgement, but were not penalised in Mosaic Law. Why are you lying about me, Christine?
"MAlice Lindsey is an Anthropologist who approaches genesis from this perspective. She is not a creationist, but also does not dismiss the historical basis for these accounts, because of similar ones found in Neolitic civlizations."
David Rohl is a secular Jew who has done some remarkable work in ancient history of the Near East by taking the early parts of the Old Testament seriously. I don't agree with everything he has written but he has made many interesting contributions.
"She contends that African-Asiatic religions which are the world's oldest did have a biblical worldview."
I'm evangelical enough to believe that the original religion was Yahwism and totally monotheistic. I do believe you can find traces of monotheistic belief in a universal creator in some fallen pagan systems, although you have to look hard.
Sorry for calling Alice Lindsey, Malice Lindsey. It was an innocent typo - I copied in your text and was deleting the words "My friend" to the left of her name by holding a key down, but stopped one character too soon!
http://www.antipasministries.com/html/file0000238.htm
interesting article showing how the issues that I for one consider
legitimate, opposition to abortion and to the gay agenda, are
exploited as an excuse to sieze power by those who are also
ungodly, in their pride, their greed, their powerlust, and often
I might add, in doing exactly the same things secretly they oppose
publically.
Anon@3:15 a.m.
Even with arranged marriages, the INTENT was still to make a life-long commitment to each other, and have a family etc.
A formal marriage affirmed this intent.
I am simply saying that sexual brain chemistry in men and women speaks of this INTENT.
The sexual act by it's nature affirms the same.
The reason why the man had to marry the virgin is because of this.
He cheated her by engaging in a marital act without intending it.
In the case of a widow re-marrying the same INTEND exists.
In case of a prostitute, there is no intent, on any side.
This does mean that sex itself does not speak this language.
I am not saying that a couple who do not sleep with each other before the formal wedding are not married. They still INTEND to enter into the martial act.
Christians may someday have to go back to the original way they had marriages, without worrying about approval from the state, since legal state marriage is starting to become more incompatible with Christian values in many ways.
I hope this makes sense.
Anon@4:42 a.m.
The original religion was monotheistic.
For example Vedic Hinduism is the only form of Hinduism that is monotheistic. The Vedas also speak of a man-God, who was sacrificed for the sins of the world, in future predictions.
You will also find stories about Noah and the flood etc.
The strongest prayers against abortion are not found in the Bible, but in the VEDAS.
The same with ancient African texts.
I am sure you will agree that the WORD is a person Jesus Christ.
Susanna and Physicist,
I'm no scientist, nor much of a theologian,
but regarding the question about the Flood
of Noah's time, I'd like to heartily recommend
the book "The Science of God" by one Gerald L.
Schroeder (PhD from M.I.T, and the Weizmann Institute, Hebrew University, and the Volcani Research Institute in Israel ), in which he clarifies so many things which are usually thought to be disagreements between science and the Bible. He uses the work of Maimonides, quite a lot, to do so, which can have it's problems for Christians, but
I which think should be considered.
For instance most people don't notice how in Genesis chapter 2 and verses 5&6, God had not yet
caused it to rain on the earth when He caused a powerful spring the "gush out of the earth (aritz) " to water the whole face of the earth. And in Genesis 7v11, He caused "all the fountains of the great deep to burst forth and the windows of heaven were opened."
The point is that it wasn't only rain from above but
geysers? from below that burst forth.
Also, the Hebrew text has two different words for the one word that got translated into the English "earth". The first word used in the text is "adamah",
as in Gen. 6:7. But when it gets to the Flood of Noah,
God says he will destroy life from the face of the "aretz", not the "adamah", just as He says in Genesis 41, when the famine was on the "all the face of the
"aritz", and Genesis 47:13, where the was "no bread in all the "aritz".
Just food for thought.
"I am sure you will agree that the WORD is a person Jesus Christ."
You bet! And someone translated John 1:1 about Jesus, "In the beginning was the LOGOS...", into Chinese as "In the beginning was the TAO...", which I think is wonderful.
I tend to be conservative about parallels between Judaism and Christianity, on the one hand, and paganism on the other. Not dismissive, but conservative. Let me explain why. You can find creator gods all over world mythology, because its obvious that man didn't create the world. Also, it is obvious that we should worship our creator. But the idea that we should worship ONLY our creator, and that we fell away from Him into sin, are not things that ancient man could guess for himself. Nor would it benefit Satan to tell us through paganism. So, wherever the Fall away from a unique Creator appears in ancient religions, I am confident that it is a remnant of original Yahwism. (I'd love a list of where this appears in the world's myths!) But I am not confident that much else is.
My conservatism extends to prophecies of a god who dies and is resurrected. Nobody guessed it in advance even from the Old Testament, so people were hardly likely to guess it from pagan writings! Gods who die and are resurrected are common enough in mythology (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-death-rebirth_deity ). Once the tale was in place, some storyteller was likely to embellish it by adding an advance prophecy of it. That is how myths grow. In the case of Jesus' tale, the early church froze that process before it could start by collating the authentic accounts from Jesus' time into the New Testament, and they in turn were trusty because they came out of Judaism where the recording tradition was of non-embellishment (in case God was speaking).
I believe that the account of the Flood has survived in worldwide mythology not because it was witnessed worldwide - all witnesses but eight were wiped out - but because we are all descended from Noah and his family and the story was told from generation to generation as we dispersed, and made it into mythology.
David Rohl did a wonderful job of getting at the core of truth in various ancient eastern Mediterranean myths. In fact his secularism probably prevented him from getting bogged down in theological issues and helped him to correlate the texts with the archaeology.
I'll have a look at Alice Linsley. Thank you for the reference.
| think that with paganism you have not so much a figuring out, as a gradual forgetting and replacement of the truth with lies.
This means SOME truth will remain. And that in dealing with a pagan could be used in missions. Also in dealing with neo pagans, pagan reconstructionists, and indifferentists.
Paul,
Thank you for the reference to Schroeder. I've read him, in fact. He gave me the references in Talmud to where the Jews discussed things like who (if anybody) were Adam's in-laws. It seemed obvious to me that questions like that would have been discussed long before the creation-evolution wars, and the church fathers didn't have anything constructive to say, but I didn't know where to look in Jewish tradition.
Schroeder and I agree on quite a lot, including the fact that the Flood narrative is harder to reconcile with science than Genesis 1&2 are. My comments to Susanna above about the Flood take Schroeder's best shot into account, but the water accountancy was solved for me by one word from a wise elder in a church I was in some years ago before a move of town: Snow.
I read Schroeder only fairly recently, and it might be that I got the reference from you a few months ago on this blog. If so, many thanks.
I agree with him that YOM means 'era' rather than '24 hours' in Genesis 1. (It can ONLY mean 'era' in Job 15:23 & 18:20.) I think his attempt to quantify the six YOM of creation is a bit overdone, but he sorted out the references to evening and morning for me, which I had always thought were a strong argument for the 24-hour meaning. In fact we have interpretive translations in our English Bibles. With different vowels filled into these words in the original Hebrew (which was written without vowels) they mean "“there was a disordered mixture and there was control – the second/third (etc) era.” So God is progressively introducing order. I have no doubt that the double meaning is deliberate on God's part, but it is untranslatable.
Physicist
Anon@12.25pm,
I'd say the main reason why the man who seduces a virgin must marry her is in case she becomes pregnant, and because no other man would want to marry her her once it became publicly known that she was willing to have sex without being married.
"Christians may someday have to go back to the original way they had marriages, without worrying about approval from the state, since legal state marriage is starting to become more incompatible with Christian values in many ways."
I don't see that incompatibility - the problem today is that the State is willing to recognise too many things that aren't marriage as marriage, eg gays. But it seems to me that secular humanist nation States will someday simply derecognise marriage as an expedient solution to problems arising in a multicultural society, eg Muslims demanding polygamy. If that happened, we Christians could simply exchange pledges before God, no problem.
Anon@1:28 p.m.
I would say that "elements" of the truth can be found in these stories. But, Jesus is the fullness of ALL truth.
What you do think it's better, to tell someone else that Satan has darkened their intellect so they cannot get in or to try to find common ground with which we can start from.
"I'd say the main reason why the man who seduces a virgin must marry her is in case she becomes pregnant, and because no other man would want to marry her her once it became publicly known that she was willing to have sex without being married."
Yes, I would agree, and the only reason someone would not want to marry her, is because she already gave herself sexually or had that one-flesh union with someone else.
For example, a married woman who did not consummate her marriage for xyz reasons, would not have any difficulties.
Hence sex is still the marital act that speaks of both permanence and parenthood.
What exactly are we disagreeing about?
"What you do think it's better, to tell someone else that Satan has darkened their intellect so they cannot get in or to try to find common ground with which we can start from."
Evangelism isn't about discussing the pros and cons of their religion and mine. Surely it's about convicting people of their sin and telling them that there's a living answer?
"What exactly are we disagreeing about?"
No idea, for the last few I've just been chatting with a brother, ie you. I've learned from you and hopefully vice-versa.
Anon@2:41 p.m.
Yes, I agree, but there is a difference between Evangelization and prosletyzation.
When Christians live their faith it's more of an evangelical witness that when they simply profess it.
Yes, by all means have a response to those who seek it, but I am not a fan of picking on random people and hitting them over the head with the Bible.
"I'd say the main reason why the man who seduces a virgin must marry her is in case she becomes pregnant, and because no other man would want to marry her her once it became publicly known that she was willing to have sex without being married."
No such reason is given. But it makes perfect sense in the context of Genesis which is part of the Torah, and backbone to it. That thw two are one flesh, she has a claim on him, and vice versa, but her father should not be cheated of the bride price.
This protects her from heartbreaking seducers and so forth, and puts a brake on the men who want to tomcat around. Notice that pregnancy is not an issue either.
Since the core issue is the bride price, it follows that marriage or formal claiming as concubine, would be expected in the case of an unmarried couple.
The ease with which ex harlot Rahab got a husband (she is ancestor of David and of Our Lord Jesus Christ) doesn't look like it was that hard to get married.
Physicist,
You've made my day.
So now that I'm on a roll, may I also recommend
"Ancient Post Flood History" by Ken Johnson, Th.D. ?
And with that I promise I'll cease and desist my
presumptuous recommendations.
It's just that I find the subject so fascinating. The Book Of Jasher, for instance, which is mentioned in Joshua 10, II Samuel 1 and II Timothy 3, is full of historical insights and there were many ancient texts during the very early years of Christianity, which were studied by the early church fathers, as well as
Josephus, Eusebius, and others.
My own rationalization is that the Hebrew calendar
dates from the creation of Adam, as opposed to the creation of the earth, and that everything previous to Adam and Eve is more the way Schroeder and/or the Talmud would have it. After all the word "world" refers to the world of mankind, not the planet or the earth, therefore it's not unreasonable to to equate the creation of the world with the creation of Adam and Eve, especially when that perspective makes everything fall beautifully into place: the Hebrew calender and every other subsequent system.
Now, don't try to recommend any Calculus textbooks or Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to me. I'm just a lowly musician and arborist.
Christine ,
God does call people to forgiveness in the case of Rahab, but it's commonly known that men are possessive about their wives.
Feminists often cite double standards, but this only existed because a woman was considered to be more virtuous sexually than a man.
A chaste woman could inspire a man to be better, in ways that others could not.
Some refute this theory, saying that it was because there were restrictions placed on women. Once the gloves were off, women have shown to be equally as promiscous as men.
What is your theory on this?
Anon@2:43 p.m.
Yes, I have liked this conversation. This is a sister in Christ.
"God does call people to forgiveness in the case of Rahab, but it's commonly known that men are possessive about their wives. "
they are possessive about wives and lovers, and so are women.
"Feminists often cite double standards, but this only existed because a woman was considered to be more virtuous sexually than a man."
quite the contrary in origin. women were often seen as temptresses and sexually insatiable. A sharp lid was to be put on this. And there were more consequences potentially.
Also, women were less useful and essential and more expendable than men. So it is more convenient to kill a non producer non warrior etc. who doesn't keep the family name going, than one who is any of these things.
you don't need to be a feminist to reject double standards.
Paul says almost nothing about female chastity, but harps on that of men.
"quite the contrary in origin. women were often seen as temptresses and sexually insatiable. A sharp lid was to be put on this. And there were more consequences potentially."
I reject double standards too, but this makes sense if you understand the pagan world. A pagan man could be less chaste than a pagan woman.
Christianity changed this, where men were expected to be as chaste as women.
Yes Paul and Jesus had a lot to say to men. People often like to accuse Paul of being anti-woman, but that's just a selective bias.
The double standard complained of by feminists is that adultery by a wife is punishable by death but adultery by a husband is not punished at all in Moses. That's clearly because an adulterous woman is liable to give birth to a child who is not the husband's yet the labor of the husband has to support it. The man's role of provision is in contrast self-policing, because he goes hungry too if he doesn't work hard enough to provide. Feminists ALWAYS ignore the male role of provision when they grumble about asymmetry.
I agree with Christine that women were often seen by men as temptresses and sexually insatiable. I am convinced that this is behind the horror that is female 'circumcision'.
aside from economic interests, there were also moral concepts.
It doesn't matter, in the typical adultery concern, whether the woman gets pregnant or not, and normally it takes many many incidents of sex before a woman conceives, though occasionally it happens on the one time out.
The issue is that she is defiled.
One incident alone is enough to make a major issue of it.
In Malachi, God condemns men who had divorced their wives to marry other women condemning them for betraying "the companion of your youth" and these men's prayers were NOT being heard, while those of the abandoned wives were being heard.
well, when you stop and think about it, the man is also. In fact the faithless Israelites are routinely compared to faithless wives, as if the whole people is married to God.
The circumcision also cuts a membrane under the tip of the penis, which usually breaks after a few times of sexual intercourse, if he is not circumcised, sort of a male hymen.
Paul,
I have my doubts about whether the text of the Book of Jasher that is available today has anything to do with the Book mentioned in Joshua. I believe in the authenticity of the still-extant Book of Enoch a lot more.
Try also Calculus Made Easy by Silvanus Thompson!
Physicist
I agree the Books of Jasher and Jubilles are probably redacted and messed with. These having been apparently private productions of history, in some parts reading like historical fiction, and not part of what was considered sacred, they would not have been subject to such care.
Enoch ditto, though there are parts that are probably legitimate more or less. The whole is cobbled together I think from much stuff but there are elements that are similar to things Jesus taught so probably reflect some divine wisdom in the writer or in whatever the writer drew on.
None of these arein the Deuterocanonical books that Luther high handedly cut out of The Bible (and would have cut out James also)
which had been accepted from earliest days as legitimate information and teaching though not for liturgical purposes to establish doctrine, not on a par with the rest of the Bible but definitely not to be rejected.
So I doubt one should base much on Jasher, Jubilees or Enoch, certainly not when a conflict exists.
The nephilim hybrid concerns of some sensationalist people are not even supported since all of the remarks about angels and women tell of lust as motive, not genetics or intent to reproduce.
Anon@6:43 p.m.
Are you then saying that Jesus stopping the stoning of the adulterous woman, went against Mosaic law or that Jesus added to the law?
"Feminists ALWAYS ignore the male role of provision when they grumble about asymmetry."
This is because they think the world did not exist before the 60s.
Christine,
Part of the Book of Enoch as it was in Jesus' day was quoted in the New Testament letter of Jude, who specifically said that this was the Enoch of the Flood era. So, although Christians should not take this book as canonical (it is not in the Bible), we should believe that it is authentic. I know of no reason to suppose that significant tamperings have been made with it since then - whereas today's so-called Book of Jasher has very doubtful provenance.
"None of these are in the Deuterocanonical books that Luther high handedly cut out of The Bible"
He was simply following the ancient tradition of the church father St Jerome, who denied the canonicity of those books more than 1000 years earlier. And he had good grounds for doing so, for none of them claims divine authority (as do the law and prophets). Also:
* The Letter of Jeremiah (often printed as the 6th chapter of Baruch) says (in verse 2) that the Jews would be in Babylon for seven generations, whereas Jeremiah (25:11) stated (correctly) 70 years.
* Supposedly Tobit was alive when the Assyrians invaded Israel in 722BC (Tobit 1:3), and also alive more than 200 years earlier when Jeroboam’s revolt against Jerusalem (Tobit 1:4-5) divided Israel into northern and southern kingdoms. Yet he is said to have lived less than 130 years (Tobit 14:2)!
* Sirach has this to say on bringing up children: “He who loves his son will whip him often… If you play with your child, he will grieve you; do not laugh with him, or you will have sorrow with him… give him no freedom in his youth… make his yoke heavy” (ch. 30). Is this consistent with the loving discipline proposed in Proverbs, or Paul at Ephesians 6:4, or Jesus talking tenderly of children in Matthew 18:1-10?
"Are you then saying that Jesus stopping the stoning of the adulterous woman, went against Mosaic law or that Jesus added to the law?"
That was a lynch mob, not a court. Matters were less formal then than today but there was still such a thing a due process. And the passage is not in every family of manuscripts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RN2qP6YZ62E&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg&index=2&feature=plcp
Fleshing Out Skull and Bones with Kris Millegan
Anon@12:34 p.m.
That is an excuse, not a reason. Jesus forgave the woman, holding her to the same standard as her husband on this issue.
Deuterocanonicals - they were never listed in canons or shown as authoritative on a level with the rest of Scripture, but they were always considered useful. Sirach may have overdone it, but there is a lot of good stuff there, and the general message, that the parent should keep some boundaries and authority regarding the child, instead of being its mere playmate or equal, is valid.
A book called Toxic Parents shows that this renunciation of the parent role is often a feature of destructive parenting. There are different kinds.
Also, Sirach's context is unknown. What kind of peer group is plagueing the child's situation?
Now as for the woman taken in adultery, The Law specified that BOTH parties were to die, but this woman was brought in alone, though taken in the act.
Jesus then says who is without THIS sin (according to one translation) cast the first stone.
The possibility is that the woman was playing with those men, or one of their friends. That she was making money on the side like some prostitute housewives today and was known to them.
Even without that, the men may have been guilty with other women.
The older, more clearly thinking recognized first and left then the younger.
NO ADDITION TO THE LAW, NO BREAKING OF IT, application of ALL of it to the situation.
so called eisegesis. No, it isn't.
Also, Jesus' Sermon on the Mount is largely an exegesis on the 10th commandment, which by implication as well as literally slams all the mental processes that lead up to prohibited acts.
eisegesis I suppose you would call it.
Moses allowed divorce, Jesus pointed out this doesn't leave you pure because it was not from the beginning.
Anon@12:28 p.m.
Jesus himself quoted from the duetrocanonical books.
St. Jerome did not oppose them.
Here is a snip from Columbia University (Secular institution)
"As to the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Jerome made hasty translations of Tobit, Judith, and the additions to Daniel and Esther; the rest he did not touch, hence the Vulgate includes Old Latin versions of them."
http://www.answers.com/topic/vulgate
The Latin Vulgate which was written in 400 A.D. by Jerome, included the Deuterocanonical books. Their formal acceptance happened at Trent as a response to the Reform.
This was the first time the Deuterocanonical books were called into serious question.
The Gutenberg Bible of 1455 contained the Deuterocanonical books. It was the Vulgate. It was written in Latin.
It predates the Reformation.
Jews ratified their canon at the Council of Jamnia.
This was after the Resurrection, hence not binding on Christians
"Deuterocanonicals - they were never listed in canons or shown as authoritative on a level with the rest of Scripture, but they were always considered useful."
As a protestant I agree with you Christine, but I think you are at odds with your Eastern Orthodox parish priest and hierarchy.
Christine,
Jesus himself quoted from the books a lot. 1/3 of the Bible contains them.
It's not true that they were not regarded as canon.
My mistake, sorry, some deuterocanonicals were read in church at one point, but I don't think they figuredc in Holy Liturgy later. Nonetheless, they were always accepted as legitimate and incl. with the rest of The Bible as legitimate for study.
Jerome may have had a good point about some of it, but that doesn't eliminate everything in the particular books as wrong. The only reason for excluding the historical books of Macabbees was that it mentioned prayer for the dead, which is hardly inconsistent with Jesus saying "with God all things are possible" and "I have the keys of Hades and of death."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratorian_fragment from c. AD 170 by internal evidence, does mention the Wisdom of Solomon as to be accepted and read, and an Acts of Peter (two different similar named books existed, one gnostic one not but now lost) and The Shepherd of Hermas was apparently read and mentions differences some churches not allowing somethng to be read.
Since it is a fragment not the whole list, it is possible some others were on it, but as things developed the Shepherd of Hermas (a bunch of strange visions and meditations) was chucked and what came to be kept for reading in Holy Liturgy was only from Apostles.
What Rome in the west did I don't know, and since they went schismatic with their legally questionable excommunication of Constantinople in AD 1054, I don't know if deuterocanonicals are read out in church services or not.
On Constance's link list, go to Lee Penn author of False Dawn, and in his articles is an examination of the AD 1054 excommunication.
Christine,
Was it really illegal?
The Eastern Patriarch Cerularius tried to force the Byzantine rite on the Romans living in the Eastern Empire.
So, he took armed soldiers into the Latin churches in Constantinople, and had them open the Tabernacles and throw the consecrated Eucharist in the streets.
This is a historical fact.
It is discussed by both Kallistos Ware and by Meyendorff in their books.
And this is why Rome served Cerularius with a bull of excommunication in 1054.
I do think desecration of the Eucharist is a ground for Excommunication.
I also do not think the books are read at Mass, but I will keep an eye out for it.
Even before the schism the East and West had different liturgies.
This was approved by Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople. The declaration concerns the Catholic-Orthodox exchange of excommunications in 1054.
"Among the obstacles along the road of the development of these fraternal relations of confidence and esteem, there is the memory of the decisions, actions and painful incidents which in 1054 resulted in the sentence of excommunication leveled against the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and two other persons by the legate of the Roman See under the leadership of Cardinal Humbertus, legates who then became the object of a similar sentence pronounced by the patriarch and the Synod of Constantinople.
Thus it is important to recognize the excesses which accompanied them and later led to consequences which, insofar as we can judge, went much further than their authors had intended and foreseen. They had directed their censures against the persons concerned and not the Churches. These censures were not intended to break ecclesiastical communion between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople."
Dear Paul,
I have had a lot of family functions going on and haven't had time to sneak in here much.
But I want to thank you for your recommendations and reference to Schroeder!
That he used the work of Maimonides carries great weight with me because Maimonides was a great Jewish Rabbi and Aristotelian scholar whom I greatly respect - especially because of the influence he had over the great theologian Thomas Aquinas. ( i.e. the famous "five proofs" for the existence of God).
As I have said earlier, I am very much intrigued by the subject of the antedeluvian civilization, including its culture which was corrupt and worthy of being destroyed by God.... and the type of technology it may have had - if it had any at all.
Thanks again.
Dear Susanna and Paul
Schroeder bases his work on Nahmanides, not Maimonides. They are different medieval Jewish rabbis. Nahmanides was a kabbalist, but he nevertheless had some remarkable insights about science and scripture.
Physicist
"The Eastern Patriarch Cerularius tried to force the Byzantine rite on the Romans living in the Eastern Empire. So, he took armed soldiers into the Latin churches in Constantinople, and had them open the Tabernacles and throw the consecrated Eucharist in the streets. "
I have never heard this story before, and on checking I find it is only one thing among many in the text of the bull. (Some argue it didn't happen because contemporary accounts don't mention it, the desecration that is, not the church closure, and the bull may have been altered, polemic purposes, but I assume it probably happened, precisely because the Orthodox - probably wrongly - did not believe that the Latin unleavened hosts were in fact the Body of Christ but a fraud. )
in 12something, when Latin Crusaders sacked Constantinople, similarly desecrated the Eucharist, and raped some nuns in the churches.The Latin Pope on hearing of this and other excesses in The Holy Land excommunicated them.
"Pope Leo IX sent a letter to the Patriarch in 1054, that cited a large portion of the Donation of Constantine believing it genuine.[2]
"The first pope who used it [the Donation] in an official act and relied upon it, was Leo IX; in a letter of 1054 to Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, he cites the "Donatio" to show that the Holy See possessed both an earthly and a heavenly imperium, the royal priesthood."
This letter of Pope Leo IX was addressed both to Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Leo of Ohrid, Archbishop of Bulgaria, and was in response to a letter sent by Leo, Metropolitan of Achrida to John, Bishop of Trani (in Apulia), that categorically attacked the customs of the Latin Church that differed from those of the Greeks. Especially criticized were the Roman traditions of fasting on the Saturday Sabbath and consecration of unleavened bread. Leo IX in his letter accused Constantinople of historically being the source of heresy and claimed in emphatic terms the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over even the Patriarch of Constantinople, who would have none of it.
It can be argued that in 1054 the Patriarch's letter to Pope Leo IX initiated the events which followed because it claimed the title "ecumenical patriarch" and addressed Pope Leo as "brother" rather than "father." Pope Leo IX sent Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida on a legatine mission to treat with the Patriarch. Cerularius refused to meet with Cardinal Humbert and kept him waiting with no audience for months.
Thus, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida delivered a notice of excommunication against Patriarch Michael on July 16, 1054, despite the death of Pope Leo three months prior and thus the invalidity of the excommunication. Michael in turn excommunicated the cardinal and the Pope and subsequently removed the pope's name from the diptychs starting the East-West Schism.
This schism led to the end of the alliance between the Emperor and the Papacy, and caused later Popes to ally with the Normans against the Empire. Patriarch Michael closed the Latin churches in his area which exacerbated the schism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_I_Cerularius
excommunication text http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/MARS/Schism.pdf mentions this incident only as one of a great many other issues, incl. the refusal to accept the filioque innovation as valid, having married priests, also ancient, and considering that the leavened bread is ensouled, i.e., The Flesh of Christ, which meant that the Latins did not consider the Byzantine hosts to be valid Flesh of Christ any more than the Byzantines considered the Latin Eucharist to be the Flesh of Christ.
J. C. PENNEY TO ELIMINATE CASH REGISTERS / CASHIERS
J.C. Penney (JCP) will say farewell to cash registers, checkout counters and cashiers by 2014, said Ron Johnson, the chain's CEO, during the Fortune Brainstorm Tech conference, reports Time.
Penney's plan evokes Apple's (AAPL) mostly cash-register free stores -- and that comes as little surprise: Johnson was the head of Apple Retail and is considered the mastermind behind its success. He left Apple in November to take the top spot at J.C. Penney.
Johnson, who has been in the headlines lately for Penney's radical, controversial -- and so far, unsuccessful -- strategy to eliminate most of its sales and coupons, is now looking to shake up the checkout experience in the chain's stores.
His plan is to eliminate cashiers, cash registers and checkout counters, replacing them with a patchwork of technology solutions, such as WiFi networks, mobile checkout, RFID (radio frequency identification) technology tracking systems for merchandise, as well as self-checkout options.
For more...
http://tinyurl.com/bs96b88
Christine,
The sack of Constantinople was 40 years later.
From Rome's perspective the Orthodox are in schism, but not heretical. They have valid doctrines.
There is no evidence to prove that Rome considered the Eastern Eucharist to be invalid.
The letters have the East raising concerns about aspects of Latin views, but is there a letter stating that Rome had issues with the East?
Rome continued to permit Byzantine worship, in their region.
The Popes defended Sts. Cyril and Methodius against their local Roman enemies in Moravia who criticized them for worshipping in Slavonic rather than Latin.
There are Byzantine churches that have always been in Rome, till this day.
Cerularius did this because the Franks who were vassals of the Roman Empire were gaining political power in the Balkans and so the Emperor and Patriarch wanted to brand them as heretics and thus reject their authority in the Balkans.
Cardinal Humbert, did issue the bull, but it was already authorized by the late Pope, if Cerularius refused to repent.
Cerularius refused to repent for it.
The term pope is from the Greek word pappas, which means "Father." During the first three centuries, it was used of any bishop. Eventually the term was applied to the Bishop of Alexandria, and finally, by the sixth century it was reserved for the Bishop of Rome.
Therefore it is an open question which bishop was first designated by the term pope.
The idea, therefore, that Leo was the first pope is a red herring based on a misunderstanding of the pope’s true role.
"The sack of Constantinople was 40 years later."
My point was, that the Latins did the same thing.
"From Rome's perspective the Orthodox are in schism, but not heretical. They have valid doctrines."
From Rome's perspective, as per the bull of excommunication, we are heretical because of rejecting the filioque and allowing married priests and rejecting the supremacy of the Roman Bishop. And as per the bull, we are not in schism but excommunicated.
The fact that the "schism" line is used, shows that Rome kinda knows it is on thin ice. The term heresy is used in the bull.
"There is no evidence to prove that Rome considered the Eastern Eucharist to be invalid. "
The bull specifies that among the heresies of the East, is the doctrine that leavened bread can be ensouled, i.e., can become the Body of Christ.
The actions and words of both parties show that at that time, both parties considered each other's Eucharists to be invalid.
Rome pulled away from the East in its practices and in two major doctrines (and developed more later), the filioque and the necessity of being in communion with Rome to be saved, which latter point they have softened.
It is appropriate to say that Rome is in schism. The East has been of two minds depending on jurisdiction and time, as to whether the sacraments of Rome are valid or not, and if so how valid and which ones.
The economia approach is that The Holy Spirit in the East can fill up what is lacking as long as the outward form of a sacrament is correct and the Apostolic Succession exists, but does not recognize this means the sacraments are valid in themselves.
My own take, is that if the FULLNESS of the faith is in the East, the PARTIALNESS of the faith can exist in Rome or even protestantism. Many would disagree. My own experiences with Holy Water from both sources tells me The Holy Spirit is operating in the Roman camp as well as the EO, but seems more so in EO.
The azymes vs. leaned dispute seems wrong, given the Lanciano miracle, which involved an azyme. unleavened bread.
I forgot to add, the disputes between Rome and the East incl. some incidents like Pope Honorius being excommunicated by an Ecumenical Council and the Novatian and Photian schisms and the development of the azyme and fasting rules changes and even the slacking off by Rome regarding eating meat without draining the blood at least somewhat, all predate these events, and predate
the politics surrounding them that you refer to.
though the politics added to the stress, and politics drove Charlemagne to push for the filioque, which POPE LEO III I think it was REJECTED and FORBADE TO BE USED IN THE MASS until an Ecumenical Council could settle this, considering himself subordinate to such, though he himself believed the filioque, he had silver shields with the original Creed that is WITHOUT the filioque put up on the palace walls.
The filioque and the host can be debated endlessly in relation to the schism of 1054 but the underlying fact is that the east was growing tired of Rome's ever more strident insistence that it was no. 1, and getting rightly suspicious that the (forged) pseudo-Isidorean decretals and the Donation of Constantine had not been waved in their faces much earlier. Also, the West was only just emerging from the Dark Ages while the East had carried on with civilization - why should they bow down to a bunch of semi-savages? You only need to read a factual history of the papacy from Charlemagne's time to Hildebrand's to see that it was reduced to a political plaything of the highly degenerate aristocratic families of Rome. Even Catholics are ashamed of Benedict IX, and in the century and a half from 880AD there were some 35 popes, lasting an average of less than five years each because so many were deposed or murdered in intrigues.
Physicist,
Schroeder quotes both Maimonides and Nahmanides,
in the two books that I have; "The Science of God" and "The Hidden Face of God".
There's an index in the back of both.
Paul,
I've read only Schroeder's "Science of God," which is the book you originally referred to above. Sure it mentions Maimonides in the index, but Nahmanides is the one he bases much of it on. I remain grateful to you for this reference.
Physicist
Christine,
You are totally confused and need to study theological terms.
Excommunication does not end church membership. It's a penalty imposed on someone to help them repent and come to their senses. You can be in schism without being heterodox and vice versa.
Rome accepts the Eastern rite churches without Filloque and with married priests, the latter being a discipline not a doctrine, just like celibacy of Orthodox Bishops.
Rules on fasting are not doctrine.
This is why Orthodox can receive communion in Latin churches, but the opposite is not allowed.
In the West theology is more logical, in the East ir's more mystical. Different ways to explaining the same things.
This is Catholicity, not clinging to stubborn Nationalism.
The Pope is not infallible, only certain doctrines are, this is why Rome has no objection to Orthodox doctrines.
As for semi-literacy, the Orthodox always complain that Western theology uses too much logicl to explain things.
Anybody can be smarter than the Muslims.
The University system was born in the West, just like sacramental theology was in the East.
The church preserved learning through the dark ages, which was the sack of Rome by Germanic tribes.
As for being in bed with the state, you should read the history of the Byzantine empire and Orthodox states. I wouldn't say anything if I were you.
I will join a church, if it leads me closer to Christ, not if it constantly attacks others. This is a sign of insecurity.
The problem is not being in bed with the state. symphony is not the same as the church state interlock RC angled for and sometimes had.
The problem is church being in bed with big monwy and power and greed blocs.
EO has a history of fighting many evils which wouldn't have had to be fought if they weren't infiltrating the churches, and something is a bad idea in some contexts more so than others,
other things are a bad idea anywhere, incl. where it may have reared its head in EO history.
attacking something is not always a sign of insecurity, it can be simply contending for the faith delivered once and for all to the apostles.
Byzantine Rite keeping filiogue optional and allowing married priests are concessions given them, but Latin Rite do not allow this.
The issue of what was considered heretical whether rightly or wrongly by the bull of excommunication, is not whether these things are currently considered doctrine or not, the point is, what was considered such then?
Fasting has never been considered core doctrine, HOWEVER the Wednesday and Friday fasts are specifically about mourning the conspiracy against Christ and mourning for His sufferings for us, and a canon declares that these and the Holy Week fast must be kept.
excommunication may be a measure to cause repentance, but it DOES mean cast out of the church except as an outsider visiting (though in early times it meant no farther into the church than the first room and outer porch distinctions no longer kept), until you repent.
I think that altogether too much rationality was in use at the time, in such a dispute as the Eucharist, I would say, get ahold of a person who has supernatural sight, and let him or her (some women were given this also) if any can be found, and let them inspect the consecrated bread of both and see if a difference is visible.
At chalcedon, the remains of Euphemia I think it was, were brought in and two books put in her corpse's hands, one the eutychian and the other the Orthodox position, the coffin sealed and after three days of prayer and fasting, it was opened. The eutychian book was at her feet, the orthodox in her right hand.
The monophysites soon rejected the eutychian extreme monophysitism, but kept some of it and are now called miaphysites, and it is hard to determine just what they do believe.
Christine,
When you collaborate with the state it's called symphony, when others do it's called a church-state axis. Hypocrisy.
Excommunication was for one person, not for the whole church.
Some Orthodox actively collaborated with communism in Eastern Europe. Orthodox Bishops were Communists spies until recently.
The corruption of the Russian Orthodox church is well known.
Pot kettle Christine?
I know the difference between keeping the canons of the church and doctrine.
The point I am trying to make is just as Latin canons cannot be imposed on the East, Eastern canons cannot be imposed on the West.
Yes, the West at times had issues with Eastern practises and vice versa.
The thing is I can find both Byzantine and Latin rites in my church. The opposite is not true.
Orthodoxy is not universal.
Orthodoxy does not claim to be universal, only correct. Both RC and Orthocodox claim Catholicity that is universality that the doctrine taught is the same in all churches and membership is not about ethnos.
Or not supposed to be.
the difference between symphony and interlock is that in the former case, the church influences the state and the state can act to clean up some problem in the church. in the latter, the church runs the state or vice versa.
Now, the Byzantine Rite is only tolerated in RC because making these concession was the only way to get people to accept the supremacy of the pope. there is another vaguely oriental style rite, the Melkite, but that is another matter.
In the days of the undivided church, before the Great Schism, the canons WERE on ALL the churches, the western church was just the Orthodox patriarchate of Rome, so to speak.
The reasons for certain rules go to the core of the faith, such as fasting to commemorate specific incidents in the process of the Atonement by and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the no blood in meat (or at least make some exsanguination) which is from the Council of the Apostles in Acts, when you can be sure The Holy Spirit was more clearly speaking to and being understood by them, and has its roots in Noah's time and issues about God as owner of all, and our rights over animals being limited.
Orthodoxy is the original. Latin derived and deviated. Byzantine Rite is a step back in the right direction, but there was a time when you could not be Latin Rite and take communion in the Byzantine Rite without first formally quitting the Latin Rite and then joining the Byzantine Rite according to the experience of one RC on an egroup online, though this may have changed.
Universality in the sense of accepting everything even when newer and mistaken or dubious is not a virtue, it is a vice.
Christine,
The communists taking away Catholic churches and giving them to the National Orthodox church speaks for itself.
I am not the one claiming the high moral ground here.
None of my Orthodox friends do on these issues.
Yes, the Byzantine rite is older.
The Eastern Churches have participated in all the Councils that they've been in Communion for (which varies depending on the individual Eastern Churches, as some are quite new, and some are quite old).
The Melkite Church in particular stood out at Vatican II, and took on a very serious responsibility in giving voice to Eastern Orthodox concerns within the Council itself.
This wasn't the first time it was done (especially with the Melkites, who have often stood up for the "Byzantine voice" in the Catholic Communion), but it was the first time it had such notice and affect.
Crossing over is not permitted for the wrong reason.
There were always different traditions Christine.
I know the Orthodox can be fanatic about ritual purity. It just does not speak to me.
"Universality in the sense of accepting everything even when newer and mistaken or dubious is not a virtue, it is a vice."
You might want to read Newman's essay on the development of doctrine. He proves you wrong.
Newman doesn't prove anything. no one can. If the doctrine isn't to be found in the Bible or the traditions of early times, it is wrong.
that incl. Papal Infallibility, papal supremacy, immaculate conception (the only possible variant form of this that MIGHT be true would be not in the sense this is presented in RC) mechanistic supply and application of merits of saints, and purgatory as distinct from some upper layer of hell and hell being a place you can be rescued from.
Doctrinal development is a dangerous concept in itself.
the communist move was probably because in Orthodoxy there is no church authority beyond the Patriarch of a country or region. Naturally the commies are going to feel uncomfortable with anything that has extraterritorial loyalties.
the exact same feeling has occurred, though had no legal measures to take, other than influence the people on how they vote, against RC because of this, and the Red Chinese currently are dicey with the RC.
My real beef in Orthodoxy is with the Serbs.There is a pack of hypocritical power hungry sunk in dreams of lost worldly glory and all kinds of twisting things, and talk about phyletism or ethnocentrism. They are the Orthodox equivalent of the God is a white Republican stock holder in DuPont etc. type calvinist Christian right American protestant scene.
Under communism, Russian Orthodox priests were pressed to cooperate with the KGB and pass on information. A heroic minority refused, but 80-85% of priests did so. And the ENTIRE HIERARCHY of the Russian Orthodox church collaborated, for advancement depended on cooperation. This is documented in the KGB's own papers; see The Mitrokhin Archive, chapter 28 titled The penetration and persecution of the Soviet churches. Mitrokhin was a disillusioned KGB archivist who noted down thousands of pages of files, and these were edited for publication by a leading Western modern historian.
Moreover, if the Russian Orthodox church had not been too close to the Russian aristocracy to press it to improve the miserable lot of the Russian peasantry, then the communist revolution about which the Russian Orthodox church grumbles might never have happened. Civil rights were far worse a century ago in Tsarist Russia than in Western Europe.
Do you dare to call this mess a symphony?
Today, the Russian Orthodox church complains when the Russian baptist churches, which went underground and comprised the uncompromised faithful church in communist Russia, try to proselytise. If this is the apostolic succession of bishops then forgive me but I'd rather go with a succession of faith from the apostles.
Newman used casuistic arguments (in ‘Tract 90’ of the high ‘Tractarian movement’ which was published in 1841) to re-interpret the 39 Articles of the Church of England in a Catholic way that their authors obviously never intended, so that priests with Catholic sympathies were supposedly free to say one thing yet mean another. After his move he consistently used the word “Catholic” to mean “Christian” – an understandable confusion in an Italian or Spaniard, but disingenuous in one who must have known many persons committed to Christ within the Church of England, whatever he thought of that institution. Newman regretted the formalising of the doctrine of papal infallibility yet said he had always believed it. How could a Christian wish to keep private what he regards as doctrinal truth?
Christine,
"If the doctrine isn't to be found in the Bible or the traditions of early times, it is wrong."
The point is these doctrines were found. You can only develop something that already exists.
You might want to see this.
http://www.staycatholic.com/early_church_fathers.htm
Anon@3:32 a.m.
Newman was a seeker after truth.
The term Catholic was coined by Ignatius of Anitoch to make a distinction between Apostolic Christians and other heretical sects such as gnostics etc.
The C of E rejected Apostolic succession and the Mass under the reign of Edward V1, marking their official descent into Protestantism.
This is why Rome does not recognize Anglican orders, a point Anglicans are still upset about.
Yes, Newman did think it was possible to make Anglicanism via media, or Catholic without the Pope.
This is what the Oxford Movement tried to do.
He eventually realized this was not possible.
"Newman regretted the formalising of the doctrine of papal infallibility yet said he had always believed it. How could a Christian wish to keep private what he regards as doctrinal truth"
Christians believed that Jesus was God for a long time, before it was declared official dogma at Nicea.
They believed in the truths of the faith, before they were officially formalized. This is development of something that already exists.
Newman changed his mind about this, if you read his Essays on Development of Christian Doctrine.
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html
I do not see Apostolic Succession by the actions of Bishops or priests, but by what they have been ordained to do.
It's like when a sick doctor gives you a medication, the medication will still be valid.
The Apostles themselves ran away at Calvary, and betrayed Jesus. This did not stop the church.
I'm not interested in discussing here whether Newman was doctrinally right. I showed that he was hypocritical about doctrine.
Anon@1:19 p.m.
Newman's essay outlines the trajectory of his own thinking.
It's quite common for the C of E to want to be both Catholic and Protestant.
Newman eventually rejected this as a possibility.
Yes, I do agree that the Anglicans need to make up their mind.
Christine,
I am not opposed to Orthodoxy. I have dear friends who are Orthodox and I do agree we have much in common.
I am opposed to your predatory behaviour that accuses others of doing the same things you are guilty of.
"Newman's essay outlines the trajectory of his own thinking."
People are entitled to change their mind, and Newman did. But that is not what I said about him. On certain subjects, as I showed and as you are doing your best to ignore, Newman tried to have it both ways at the same time.
Anon@5:15 p.m.
Newman tired to have it both ways when he was STILL Anglican.
"I am opposed to your predatory behaviour that accuses others of doing the same things you are guilty of."
specifically what? when did any Orthodox patriarch claim authority over the whole of Orthodoxy? even the Ecumenical Patriarchate doesn't do this nearly like the Bishop of Rome did.
when did we evolve doctrine?
church state thing was looser in nature in Byzantium, correct me if I'm wrong, but when did a secular ruler in the west demand a church council be held involving all of the European bishops?
The business of charging for services developed in the east under economic duress from the Turks, but in the West all on its own.
I agree it was wrong if Cerularius personally desecrated a western Eucharist, but he did so in the mistaken belief they were not legitimate Eucharists, that unleavened bread cannot be ensouled,
and the Latins did the same later on the same presupposition, that the Eastern Eucharists were not legitimate, that you can't ensoul leavened bread (as the bull of excommunication explicitly stated).
"that unleavened bread cannot be ensouled"
Bread is bread. Be careful of the leaven of the pharisees! Jesus is the door and noone comes to the Father but by Him (Jesus Christ, the Son), but unless you're unhinged, you'll not think of Him as being made of wood with a brass handle.
"Do this in REMEMBRANCE of Me", is what Jesus said at the Last Supper, not, "Do this in sacrifice of Me"!
He did say His meat is meat indeed, but if you think this means some cannibalistic ritual then you'd better stick to milk because your spiritual stomachs are not strong enough yet to handle the meat of God's wisdom because you have been poisoned by the viper's venom that pervades the pharisees' leaven.
At the Last Supper, was Jesus' actual flesh and blood consumed and contained in what only now appeared to be bread and wine by those with Him, yea even by Himself, while He was yet sat with them? Of course not! Yet they're urged to drink the wine from the cup and eat break the bread and eat it, and to do this in REMEMBRANCE of Him.
It is figurative not literal! We need to choose between religion mingled with the cults of pagan ritual human sacrifice and the Pharisee's Leaven on the one hand, and Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ on the other. What's it gonna be folks?
It's very painful to realize we've been spiritually mislead. Don't go into denial of the Truth, accept it and hold fast to the traditions once delivered unto the saints, and reject the traditions of men!
*:03 Comment continued here.
"It is figurative not literal". I obviously mean it is figurative when Our Lord calls the bread His body, and the wine His blood, and urges all to eat and drink of it.
Christine,
The Pope, is only the Bishop of Rome.
He is not some kind of "super-bishop" or something more than a bishop.
Rather, like Peter himself, who was merely one Apostle among the other Apostles, the Pope is one bishop among other bishops.
But, like Peter, he is the bishop who holds the ministry for maintaining all his brother bishops in unity and orthodoxy (see again Luke 22:31-32).
In this, he is similar to the captain of a basketball team. He is merely a player like all the other players; but he is the player who has the special responsibility for holding the entire team together and maintaining the "orthodoxy" of its game plays. This is the proper understanding of how we Catholics see the primacy of the Pope of Rome.
There have been times in history when the Popes did over exert their power. John Paul II apologized for that.
Generally, they stepped in only when a serious error threatened the UNIVERSAL unity and orthodoxy of the Church.
To illustrate how Popes regarded their authority, consider the witness of Pope St. Gregory the Great (c. A.D. 590).
Corresponding with the Byzantine bishop of Syracuse in Sicily (Sicily was a Byzantine province at the time), he discusses a new candidate for patriarch of Constantinople, and Pope Gregory writes ...
"As to what he says, that he is subject to the Apostolic See (Rome), I know of no bishop who is not subject to it, if there be any fault found in bishops." (Pope Gregory I Ep. Ad. Joan.)
In other words, Pope St. Gregory is saying that a bishop is only subject to the authority of Rome if and when that bishop departs from orthodoxy, and thus must be corrected or condemned by Rome. Pope St. Gregory did not believe (nor did any of his predecessors or successors) that the Pope of Rome should mico-manage the other churches.
Rather, the other bishops should merely recognize Rome's authority when disputes arose --disputes which threatened to disturb the universal unity and orthodox Faith of the entire Catholic Church.
The Eastern Emperors often considered themselves to be the "head of the Church" and proclaimed themselves to be the "Christ on earth."
And, in this capacity, they sometimes led the Church into formal heresy.
And the only force on earth that was able to stand up to them was the Pope of Rome.
We have numerous examples of faithful Eastern saints appealing to the Popes of Rome when the Eastern Emperors forced heresies upon the Church; and the Eastern saints turned to Rome to defend orthodoxy against these heretical Emperors and the heretical bishops that went along with them, such as the Arian heresy.
The Doctrine of infallibility has everything to do with God protecting his Church.
It's amazing that even during medieval times when there were some questionable and even bad popes, God kept them silent on issues of faith and morals during their office.
Eastern Bishops, huge chunks of them have fallen into heresy. The same with Western.
Who can intervene in such a situation?
The Orthodox did change teachings on marriage and divorce and permit up to three re- marriages.
Where is scripture or tradition is this allowed?
The Latins were excommunicated for their shameless behaviour by the Pope.
Celaurius was not by the Eastern church, despite his desecration of the Eucharist.
Byzantine Emperors played into this, by taking even more Bishops over to their side.
I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that Rome rejected the Eastern Eucharist, when there are Eastern churches that have NEVER been out of union with Rome, such as the Maronites in Lebanon.
Yes, there have been administrative issues, usually caused by local Bishops in the Latin church.
Anon@8:03 p.m.
John 6 was not just figurative. Nobody in the early church saw it this way.
Cannibles only eat the flesh of people, not their soul and divinity.
The Eucharist becomes the body, blood, soul and divinity of the resurrected Christ.
Jesus, said, "Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you"
You are supposed to be the Bible literalists that take everything else literally. Why not this?
St. Paul says the condemnation of God rests on those receive the body and blood unworthily.
Why is someone being condemned over a figurative symbol?
"I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that Rome rejected the Eastern Eucharist, when there are Eastern churches that have NEVER been out of union with Rome, such as the Maronites in Lebanon."
We are talking past each other. What you call "the eastern churches" are those like Maronites and Melkites, who are not in communion with the Eastern Church which is the ORTHODOX CHURCH which until Pope Paul VI and EP Athenagoras lifted the mutual anathemas were out of communion and mutually cursed by each other (that is what anathema means).
When I say Eastern churches I DO NOT REFER TO ANY THAT ARE IN COMMUNION WITH ROME, by definition they are not Orthodox even if they keep the Byzantine style.
The Apostolic Succession of both has been considered valid by each other, and reception of Latins into EO used to require only repentance and a statement of repudiation of Latin errors and they would be chrismated not rebaptized. At some point several centuries ago this changed to a stricter position then loosened again as an action of economy.
Byzantine Rite and Maronite and Melkite may or may not adhere to various doctrines the EO rejects as innovations, I understand the Byzantine Rite has the option to say the Creed without the filioque, I know very little about them and the Maronite and Melkite on this.
But they all accept the idea that the pope of Rome is supreme and that one has to be in communion with him to be in the ark of faith i.e., get saved.
This latter position has been softened somewhat lately by the Latins, Pope Benedict XVI having said that protestant churches are not churches since they lack apostolic succession so can have no valid sacraments, but they are
religious sodalities in which you can find salvation - defined I guess as getting into relationship with Jesus Christ, which is a more Biblical position than a mechanistic theory of organizational relationship.
"The Orthodox did change teachings on marriage and divorce and permit up to three re- marriages.
Where is scripture or tradition is this allowed?"
First, notice that Rome has changed the Scripture to read fornication as incestuous or otherwise unlawful marriage, which is hardly what the Greek means, and is not implied in Revelation when it talks of the great harlot babylon and "the wine of her fornication."
This is done to eliminate the grounds for divorce that Jesus gave, "fornication" which term is broad enough to cover more than adultery but prior sex acts you didn't know about, and perversion.
Jesus also did not stipulate that the Mosaic allowance of divorce was terminated, merely that it was not from the beginning, and implied the Pharisees who thought they could be pure while going through wives like kleenex so to speak, were in fact guilty of adultery even if it was a tolerated degree or kind of adultery.
The basis for EO stand on divorce, are similar to the Latin grounds for anullment which is just a hypocritical game. A couple have claimed each other as mates publically and permanently and consummated it with a sex act, and now are calculated as free to separate and remarry. you can call it annullment if you want, but what it IS is divorce and remarriage.
Now, the basis for the divorces in EO are adultery and a few other things, that add up to either a kind of abandonment (which St. Paul gives as grounds to be free which term implies free to remarry in I Corinthians), or a kind of fraud.
Force is also a possible ground for ending this, since in the Slavic form the couple are asked if they willingly enter this relationship, a chance to bug out if either are being forced by greedy, ambitious parents, and if they have either of them promised themselves to another before this, which in either case would render the relationship invalid. The ceremony is not an exchange of vows but a lecture and a blessing prayer.
Apparently this was a problem the church had to fight more in slavic places than in Greek culture, because it is allegedly absent in the Greek form.
"The Latins were excommunicated for their shameless behaviour by the Pope.
Celaurius was not by the Eastern church, despite his desecration of the Eucharist."
The Eastern Church DID NOT RECOGNIZE THIS EUCHARIST AS BEING A EUCHARIST BUT A FRAUD, because of the use of unleavened bread.
Thus the desecration was done by mistake.
The bull of excommunication by the Latins, stated that bread that is leavened cannot be ensouled, i.e., made into a valid Eucharist, so the Eastern Churches were in heresy for using this.
Personally I think both sides were dead wrong. Both Eucharists are valid. However, modern Orthodox differ among us as to whether there is validity in Latin sacraments absent bringing such (a priesthood or an ordination or a baptism) into Orthodoxy at which point The Holy Spirit fills up what is lacking, as long as form was correct and Apostolic Succession present.
this brings us to papal infallibility. you can't get more ex cathedra than a bull of excommunication containing reasons for it, that list as "heresies" the things it listed as such, and yet later popes were not agreeing to this as such, in allowing Byzantine Rite to keep its forms and considering Orthodox sacraments valid or somewhat valid.
So which popes were in error? the first or the later? This false doctrine of papal infallibility is one of those that the Latins will have to repudiate if they are to rejoin Orthodoxy, the only real union that can occur between these churches.
Pope Leo III believed in the filioque, but refused to allow its use in the Mass until an Ecumenical Council could declare on the matter, clearly showing he considered himself subordinate to such, and not supreme altogether and not infallible.
"Newman tired to have it both ways when he was STILL Anglican."
Re Tract 90, that is true, and his personality didn't change after he changed denomination, as the other two examples I gave of his sophistry demonstrate.
The eucharist IS NOT the body and blood of Jesus "literally."
He said "I am the door" but he is not really physically a door, is he?
He referred to some people as "sheep" but surely people are not physically sheep.
There are many more "figurative" examples that this in the Bible.
Christine,
I am talking about what took place before the schism, since there was only one church.
I am not talking about the churches that became Orthodox after the schism.
Infallibility is not based on whatever the Pope does or says.
I have explained why it exists when disputes arise and now I will list the conditions that have to met, when declaring a doctrine infallible.
It must be a statement made from the chair of Peter.
It must be intending to teach on faith and morals.
It must be binding on the whole church
The excommunication was only for one person, not the whole church.
Doctrines are not created, they already EXIST. Development of doctrine is a deeper understanding of what already exists.
There is still no salvation outside the "existence" of the church. The ordinary means of salvation.
The distinction is one between visible and invisible. A view held by Justin Martyr, St. Augustine and many others, before it was formalized.
This is why a magisterium exists, so no one unbalanced view can prevail.
This is different from creating something that never existed or cannot exist.
Are you saying the Orthodox have not developed their views on any issue?
To be continued....
Ecumenical councils are called when a dispute arises or heresy that needs to be refuted.
The East accepted the Council of Ephesus that held to Nestorianism. Rome rejected this, and
Theodoret of Cyrus and Eusebius of Doryleum, both of whom appeal to Pope Leo, saying,
"We hasten to your Apostolic See in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the Church. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many privileges.
I have been condemned without trial. But I await the sentence of your Apostolic See. I beseech and implore Your Holiness to succor me in my appeal to your fair and righteous tribunal. Bid me hasten to you and prove to you that my teaching follows in the footsteps of the Apostles". -- Theodoret to Pope Leo, Ep 113
Thereafter, Pope Leo succeeded in getting both Emperors to call the Council of Chalcedon in 451. At this Council, attended by about 600 bishops (almost all of the Eastern Church),
Pope Leo's Tome against Monophysitism and for the orthodox teaching of the two natures of Christ was embraced with the pronouncement:
"This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe! thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith!'" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).
The Council of Chalcedon clearly recognized Pope Leo as the successor of Peter and the Head of the Church.
However, the Council did have one problem. One of its canons, Canon 28, had given Constantinople primacy in the East. The Canon read:
"...we do also enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city.
And the one hundred fifty most religious Bishops gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city is honored with the Sovereignty and the Senate and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome...." (Canon 28, Chalcedon)
However, Pope Leo refused to agree to this canon; and employing a kind of "line item veto," ordered it struck from the Council documents.
In this, Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople writes to Pope Leo, apologizing and explaining how the canon came to be, saying ...
As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility.
It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness.
Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness. -- Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon).
So, the matter was settled; and, for the next 6 centuries, all Eastern churches speak of only 27 canons of Chalcedon -- the 28th Canon being rendered null and void by Rome's "line item veto."
This is supported by all the Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in 551 AD), John Skolastikas (writing in 550 AD), Dionysius Exegius (also around 550 AD); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500) -- all of whom speak of only 27 Canons of Chalcedon.
However, when canon 28 was first rejected by Rome, the Monophysites tried to exploit the situation claiming that Leo had rejected the authority of the entire Council.
So, at the urging of the Eastern Emperor, Pope Leo drafted a letter to the bishops, explaining how Chalcedon was doctrinally sound:
I have willingly complied, therefore, with what the most clement emperor thought necessary by sending a letter (Ep 114) to all brothers who were present at the Council of Chalcedon to show thereby that the decisions taken by our holy brothers concerning the tenets of the Faith were pleasing to me.
My doing so was naturally on account of those who want the decisions of the council to appear weak and dubious, as an occasion for cloaking their own perfidy, on the grounds that decisions were not ratified by assenting opinion of mine (canon 28), whereas I did dispatch a letter. -- Pope Leo, Ep 117
Filioque has been discussed in depth here.
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/catholic_orthodox_filioque_father_son.htm
If it was not for the Bishop of Rome, the East would have accepted heresy after heresy.
Anon@4:36 a.m.
Your statements about Newman do not prove or disprove his arguments.
Anon@6:21 a.m.
Yes, there are many figurative examples, this is not one of them.
Scripture says "For indeed Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us. Therefore, let us keep this feast." (1 Cor 5:7-8) This relates to Exodus 12:1-42.
Scripture refers to the Last Supper as the Passover Lamb (Mk 14:11).
At the original Passover (Exodus 12:1-42) the Lamb of God had to be eaten. At the last supper Jesus said "take this and eat it, this is my body."
Christine,
An annulment is not a divorce. It has to prove that a marriage never took place due to force, mental illness, intoxication, incest, refusal to have children, etc.
"Your statements about Newman do not prove or disprove his arguments."
Where did I say they did,and why then did you feel the need to defend him in response?
Post a Comment